I challenge climate change deniers to watch this video and refute the points. It's only 7 minutes

I challenge climate change deniers to watch this video and refute the points. It's only 7 minutes.

youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU&t=8s

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=v_RuverrEZ4
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Good video. Trump is ok on a lot of things, but he's simply wrong about climate change.

And his actions might doom us all.

Challenge Accepted.

>I'm not hyperbolizing

You guys are just a modern doomsday cult. Prove me wrong.

>climate change deniers
No one in the world denies that climate change is a thing , the only thing people debate about is if it's man-made or natural.

...

>nature was in balance before the eebul hoomans interfered with it

i wish whoever came up with this stupid meme have a burning petrol enema

A doomsday cult tries to accelerate doomsday. Like the people who think the Rapture is coming and want to make it come faster.

People who want to avoid a doomsday are just normal people.

Some balding kike.
Didn't make it to the end, sorry.

Didn't watch. Call me when you can produce a model that actually predicts things.

I challenge you to refute for every single unit of carbon dioxide that man puts into the atmosphere, nature puts 24 units of carbon dioxide into the air. (The Valentine's Day Surprise - PR Newswire).

I realize most users here have never earned a degree, let alone a STEM degree, and aren't scientists. Nevertheless any idiot with a 3 digit IQ can understand the following:

>carbon isotopes
>their half lives
>their ratios
>how said ratios have changed over time

The science behind anthropogenic climate change is far more solid than any conspirafag's half-cocked ideas.

viral marketing at its finest

1 misconception about global warming

So climate change deniers are so afraid of opposing evidence they can't even watch a 7 minute video

Lets see, climate alarmists have been at this since the late 60s. They have been making predictions that its all over in 10 years and it never happens. They wait a year after it doesn't happen, then say "oh this other horrible thing is going to happen in another 10 years". They have never been right, not once. None of this end of the world 2012 style fear mongering ever occurs. And half the time it's the same people making these predictions. They are like cult leaders that don't have the decency to predict the end well after their death. But this time they have it right guys I promise.

you haven't refuted any of the points made in the video, you're just making up reasons to dismiss them out of hand.

I don't need to, I simply don't believe anything they say anymore.

You need to understand what the evidence for climate change is before you decide it's not true, otherwise your opinion is formed in ignorance.

To add how about they get off their high horse with their "points" and first predict something correctly in regards to the world's climate. Then we will listen to what they have to say.

It's not about denying evidence, it's about not giving a shit about the consequences.

Climate agreements are just progressive redistribution programs anyway. It's not like this is going to kill renewable energy.

Again show me evidence that they can predict climate change. Since the inception of this global climate catastrophe fear mongering not once have they been right.

The predictions have been pretty accurate so far. you'd know if you watched the video.

>Netherlands isn't underwater
How will Al Gore ever recover

Climate change and pollution won't end as long as China, India, and every third world country keep up their ways.
Everything we try to do is undone by them quicker than we can try another thing. It doesn't matter.

really which one, that we would be out of oil in 10 years, they said that back in the 70s, or the one were we would be a burning hell by the 90s, they said that in the 80s, or how they said florida wouldn't exist by the year 2000 in the 90s?

>1) Climate change
Changing the name to match the observations, because the hypothesis does not match the results is called... Lying.

>2) Global Warming, 3) Global Cooling, 4) Earth is cooling
Correlation is not causation

5) Sea level Increase
Okay, this one is pure bullshit puesdo science. They are arguing that due to temperature rise the surface area of the ocean is expanding because the water is being displaced. It would take a 15°c increase to cause enough displacement to move the global coast line 3 meters, if you calculate the volume for the first 100 meters of water by the entire area of the ocean. BULLSHIT.

6) Sun getting brighter
>It was, it's not anymore.
So during the time it was why wasn't there a substantial change in weather patterns? This would be an ideal model for testing the affect on an global increase in temperature.

7) CO2
Feeds plants, more CO2 means better environment for plants. Backed by NASA.

8) Volcanoes
Stupid argument to begin with on both sides. Volcanoes release a shit ton of gases of all types, not just C02. When dealing with Man Made Global Warming, they should be left out. The earth will fuck itself over because it does not care about the parasites on it's back. It is just concerned with Physics and Entropy.

9) Water green house gas
Water vapor increases precipitation and changes arid regions into plain lands. California can thank Poseidon for all that rain this year.

10) Predictions fail 11) Warming trends 12) CO2 Lags behind the temperature rise
>Correlation is not causation
>Adjusting predictions to match results
It's called fraud.

13) Warming not bad.
There will always be climate change, even without people. The best thing we could have ever done is not build huge water front cities. However, industry requires waterfront property for shipping. This brings in jobs, which brings in people.

Nobody's managed to refute a single point in the video so far.

Climate change deniers really can't stand up to actual evidence, can they?

>correlation is not causation

but as stated in the video, measurements of carbon 13 isotopes shows humans are responsible for the CO2 increase

That's a pretty clear causation

Again your guy is making assertions that have never come to pass also see

What percentage of climate change is done by humans and what percentage is naturally occurring? Legit question here, not trolling. That seems to be the crux of the argument.

You have been disproven years ago, and continue to get BTFO on every scientific issue. Why do you shills think you are going to win the information war just by spamming retarded lies to us? That's not how intelligence works. It might work for niggers and spics, but it isn't working for the white users here. Give it up, you will be executed for these lies in time.

No one really knows, and in any case it is not having this world ending affect climate change pushers have calmed it will.

claimed*

>a doubling of CO2 would increase temperature by 1 degree celsius. But that warming means there are more water vapor in the atmosphere (...) it's a positive feedback loop

show me the evidence for this positive feedback loop and I'll support CO2 taxes

Guy above you destroyed your ridiculous points and reveled just how small your brain and genitalia is. You have nothing beta.

At the risk of replying to a bait thread...
1) The video assumes the 780 GT absorption capacity of earth is static, there's no reason to believe that plants won't absorb increased CO2 along with the temperature rise. In fact, this is used to supplement weed grows for about 30% more yield.
2) The video mentions milankovich cycles, but I believe the same cycle is what caused the 70s papers to say the earth was due for cooling - which means we're neutralizing that cooling effect
3) This is just bad science on the videos part - an additional 2 degrees celsius come from various "positive feedback loops" that aren't well explained, and many of those such loops exist in the opposite direction (see #1)
4) The video makes light of the actual problem with increased co2 in the atmosphere, which is ocean acidification and causes massive loss of coral species, which are responsible for a large amount of the world food supply indirectly because of large fish using reefs as spawning grounds. This problem is easily solvable but is conflated into the whole "climate" debate instead of the simple solution of privatizing the reefs.
5) Why is it better for species on earth if its colder? Nothing except penguins and polar bears live at the poles, whereas adding an extra 10 degrees of space opens up a ton of canada and russia as arable farm land. It also makes a wider equatorial belt for rainforests, and would increase global agricultural yields (see #1). So fuck the penguins and polar bears; it's not as if this would be the first time humans cause a species to go extinct.

>excepting trumples to refute anything
As long as factories and blue collar unions are TREMENDOUS it's all good. Either that or chinese/jewish/globalist/marxist hoax.

>This problem is easily solvable but is conflated into the whole "climate" debate instead of the simple solution of privatizing the reefs.
I'm curious, what does this means exactly? How do you solve ocean acidification?

Ehh, him potentially killing 15 million women in Africa would probably even it out

Around the reef and inside the rocks you create a cathode for redox reactions to occur, that makes it easier for the coral invertebrates to calcify their skeletons out of calcium in the seawater because of the changed electrical potential. I think the trade name is BioRock, but it's basically a big metal structure with electricity applied to it, and it helps corals to grow even in more acidic water. But you need a reason for people to want to spend that money, and that only comes from privatizing it for eco-tourism, aquarium trade, etc. etc.

The website he sites, ipcc, sites "Francey et al., 1995", which shows that nearly half of the 13c is from the biosphere. While the ipcc states that it is easy to differentiate, the chart presented does not do so.

Because they are selling a product, and that product is their science which they need to be sellable to feed their families. The science community is FUCKED up in that regard. Just google fake Science journals.

The problem is consumption of the data. In order to peer review the data, you need to be a scientist. Any scientist that stands up to IPCC gets black listed.

Ok... well if no one knows then may I suggest we work on figuring out how to accurately predict this shit before we base policy on it? Surely someone has a track record of being right about this. Maybe we should open a betting pool. If you can accurately predict the average ocean temperature 10 years out (I'll let a scientist pick the parameters so it's meaningful) then we make you the lead on the climate change policy advising council or whatever. Why are we arguing this?

I live in landlocked country so I am safe from sea level rise and we probably can get some pipes bringing seawater from what’s left of Poland for desalinization so all will be most likely fine for my nation.

It would be easier for me to just direct you to,.............wwwwdot Climatedepot.com

avoiding good argument and new data with strawman. low energy.

Gets kinda old when you people keep saying it's coming, meanwhile the 60's, 70's,80's, 90's etc keep coming and nothing changes.

Al gore only needs 10 trillion to stop climate change.

Thats a small price to pay to not die.

No one denies climate change, its global warming and the constant conflation of the the numerous flavor of the month terms libshits use to simply confuse people into blindly believing whatever bullshit they are pushing. Weren't we supposed to be out of oil years ago? What about Al Gore and the melted Ice Caps of 2001? You can go on and on and on about this shit, failed prophecies left and right. and people still listen to these doomsayers as if its gospel.

>Feeds plants, more CO2 means better environment for plants. Backed by NASA.

Sure, but you aren't a plant, friend. A lot of things aren't plants.

...

i'm going to listen to this fucking 7 minute touhou song, which sounds exactly like hundreds of others, instead of watching your video
and its still a better use of my time

But plants are beneficial because..pay attention now... they store CO2 and release oxygen. Holy crap, two things I fucking love about plants that both balance out the fucking equation.

youtube.com/watch?v=v_RuverrEZ4

>Changing the name to match the observations, because the hypothesis does not match the results is called... Lying.
not really. it's all PR. so dumbasses can't spout dumb shit like
>muh snow
it's still warming.

>It would take a 15°c increase to cause enough displacement to move the global coast line 3 meters
>15°c
you are literally this retarded. stopped reading. have a nice day.

hotter -> more clouds -> net change in global temperature from more clouds is absolutely negative

we'll be cooling about half a degree celsius over the next 50 years

sources: NASA and 4.5 billion years of our floating rock in space's history

>kys immediately op

no one gives a fuck what you think, austria
this is probably remnant greeny environmentalism from when your boy adolph was in charge
fuck off thanks

>15°c

Do the fucking math. I'll wait.

l a r p
a
r
p

Nah, I just trust my diss/research advisor over some random shill online and some youtube kid.

the math on what?
do you have any idea what 15°c change would do to the world?

immigrants would be the least of your problems.

No

funny how OP didn't respond to this post or the other two with valid points

this

Does it address the failure of models that assumed the heating would lead to a positive feedback loop with the ocean releasing CO2?

The math on the volume of water change based on heat increase. That is what the video was arguing about at one point. Of course we would all die if the temperature rose 15°c, but a 1°c change would not be enough to have any impact on the surface area of the ocean.

That is my point, it would kill us all way before the water expanded enough to do any damage, due to the heat.

pic related if a 10 degree rise happens
anwhere with a wet bulb > 35 degrees is literally uninhabitable.

this

I challenge you to tell me why no feasible solutions are being proposed by the people who profit on either side of the fence.

>any idea what 15°c change would do to the world?
Bountiful paradise outside the equatorial zone?

Everyone keeps blaming CO2.

But their whole argument is focused on how it absorbs and re-emits heat, but it would have to emit that heat in all directions, not just back down to the planet.

If anything, it should help to cool the planet.

maybe if you supposed clean energy zealots would quit using "biofuel", aka wood, we'd have some trees to consume this stuff

burning wood is the leading clean energy source. how it got to be considered a clean energy will stump future scholars.

That's a lot of habitable land that just opened up in Canada and Russia.

What percentage of climate change is human caused and what percentage is naturally occurring?

>1) The video assumes the 780 GT absorption capacity of earth is static, there's no reason to believe that plants won't absorb increased CO2 along with the temperature rise. In fact, this is used to supplement weed grows for about 30% more yield.

How about the fact they haven't absorbed the excess CO2 to prevent the rise from 280ppm to 410ppm?

>2) The video mentions milankovich cycles, but I believe the same cycle is what caused the 70s papers to say the earth was due for cooling - which means we're neutralizing that cooling effect

Generally Scientists in the 70's did not believe the cooling effect (global dimming), although this debate did happen

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

here is a source

>3) This is just bad science on the videos part - an additional 2 degrees celsius come from various "positive feedback loops" that aren't well explained, and many of those such loops exist in the opposite direction (see #1)

True, we do not know enough about feedbacks. However, we can observe past events in earths history and have no reason to believe that increase CO2 would have some sort of negative feedback to offset it

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

85% mass extinction of life caused by CO2 rises from the Siberian Traps. No negative feedbacks to outweight the positive feedback

>4) The video makes light of the actual problem with increased co2 in the atmosphere, which is ocean acidification and causes massive loss of coral species, which are responsible for a large amount of the world food supply indirectly because of large fish using reefs as spawning grounds. This problem is easily solvable but is conflated into the whole "climate" debate instead of the simple solution of privatizing the reefs.

How does privatising the reefs prevent acidification from atmospheric carbon?

will get to 5

Climate change is real.
Paris accord was a farce. Would have forced cucking of us industry and in exchange China would be allowed to continue dumping carbon and poison into the biosphere.

All this would have done is benefit special interests and foreign companies at the expense of further industrial erosion in the US. It's cancer and it should be canceled.


Fucking kike globalists need to wake up and learn that we are not going to take it up the ass anymore. You want a climate agreement that's fine but EVERYBODY will play by the same rules or NOBODY will get shit out of us.

Fuck off already shills

No, the heat would preferentially flow toward less heated areas.

nobody denies it its more about if the west can actually do anything without china offsettting them instantly

I'm all for your rebuttal but

>CO2 feeds plants it must be good!

Mars has 98% CO2 in it's atmosphere. Too much of anything can be bad m8

>5) Why is it better for species on earth if its colder? Nothing except penguins and polar bears live at the poles, whereas adding an extra 10 degrees of space opens up a ton of canada and russia as arable farm land. It also makes a wider equatorial belt for rainforests, and would increase global agricultural yields (see #1). So fuck the penguins and polar bears; it's not as if this would be the first time humans cause a species to go extinct.

Come on.
Some land in Canada and the Arctic becoming thawed does not offset the whole of Africa, most of Asia and most of South America collapsing.

Also, soil takes a long time to become arable. Siberia cannot be farmed as soon as permafrost melts. Permafrost also releases gigatons of methane which increases warming. This is undesirable.

How do you think the majority of the planets people living in the now fucked regions will react to this?

They will migrate. Some of this countries have nuclear weapons.

>t's not as if this would be the first time humans cause a species to go extinct.

This is just a disgusting attitude to take. We need the Biosphere.

Is this the power of American education?

Not all of it would be radiated via convection. A good deal would be radiated as infrared radiation aimed outside the planet.

Too little, too late, too many baguettes to swallow.

Besides, the pollution we spare on our ground, is produced in China and travels the oceans.
So the problem is not the Paris cuckgreement, but rather the skizofrenic capitalism we live in.

>there's no reason to believe that plants won't absorb increased CO2 along with the temperature rise
What about CO2 concentrations increasing by two thirds?

There's literally no evidence that man made emissions are the main cause of climate change. It's entirely possible that the planet is going through a normal warming cycle which are well documented in history. These warming cycles usually also lead to mini-ice ages which science also agrees is coming and will last 20 years or so. What will liberals blame the cold weather on then? Probably some bullshit about chemicals in the ocean.

The earth is flat gtfo believing in myths that the earth is ACTUALLY ROUND KEK

It would be radiated isotropically. If there should be an infrared-reflecting layer above the CO2, all of that part of the heat wouldn't make it to space.
It's perfectly exemplary of a system of education generating cogs for machines rather than big-picture thinkers.

I challenge you to describe climate and why you think it doesn't change.

The co2 levels were 20 times higher in the jurassic.

Pretty thorough video tbqh
I blame overpopulation and modernity

you look like Tesla's hispanic freak accident child.

It's a different planet. Apples to Oranges. Water is good to drink, but if you drink 100 gallons a day, you're going to poison yourself and have your brain swell.

Did I do well? Just trying to refute the points playing devils advocate.

>If there should be an infrared-reflecting layer above the CO2, all of that part of the heat wouldn't make it to space.
Nothing reflects infrared 100%. What would be above it that would reflect anything?

>big-picture thinkers.

Oh jeeze kiddo.

That's now how the science works. The sun's light enters earth's atmosphere as a short-wave radiation. Once it's absorbed, it is re-emitted as heat, a long-wave radiation. The CO2 does not stop short-wave radiation but it does stop long-wave radiation. The idea is that the energy enters as short-wave radiation but can't leave as long-wave radiation. That's the idea anyway.

>climate change is real, trust me goyim
>meanwhile in russia
>coldest May since 80s

Humans endured a 15 degree climate change just 13,000 years ago. Was probably the Liberal Democrats that made the transition possible, tho.

They can't answer that question so it's just a virtue signaling industry.

Sonewhere between 0% and insignificant%

Humans could not live in the Jurassic

Hjjjjr I don't understand what the logarithmic maximum of carbon dioxide green house effect is but let me make a stupid fucking video pretending to understand the subject I know nothing about.

When it starts getting cold again, they'll pull out the predictions they all made in the 70's and 80's about the "global freeze" we're causing and say SEE? WE TOLD YOU!!
Then their mascot irrelevant animal to mine pity from dumbass women will switch from polar bears to Galapagos turtles or some shit.