Climate Change

Red pill me on climate change.

I personally think its a hoax. What about you guys?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=j5M1qtN62yk
nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
phys.org/news/2017-05-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-global-greening.html
whatweknow.aaas.org/)

It's a hoax

it's real

Hoax.

>flag
Braindead cunt
Its a hoax.

>Royal Society Lecture on global greening
youtube.com/watch?v=j5M1qtN62yk

It’s important to establish some basic principals of the relationship between the biosphere and the climate. Ambient levels of atmospheric CO2 throughout the history of Earth have fluctuated greatly irrespective of human activity and exhibited cyclical patters far before the industrial revolution and the advent of widespread petroleum combustion. The climate is a dynamic system influenced by a myriad of factors including volcanic and oceanic venting, solar cycles, cosmic events, general planetary cycles, methane releasing from the ongoing thaw of the previous ice age, and the biosphere itself, including human and industrial activity. Such complex and dynamic systems are quite robust and exhibit qualities of homeostasis; for example, as CO2 rises, the biomass of plants consequently increases – plants thrive in warm, wet, CO2-rich environments. The effect that CO2 has on temperature is largely logarithmic, with each doubling of CO2 the corresponding temperature increase becomes evermore diminished, and at our current amounts, the effects of increasing CO2 has approached levels of saturation, changing temperature very little – the modest increase in temperature due to CO2 effectively represents a burst of life and organic productivity. The extra warmth allows more water vapor to be liberated into the atmosphere, thereby allowing more plants to thrive in areas where they otherwise wouldn’t be able to – with more plants, more CO2 is drawn out from the atmosphere and incorporated into the surface flora; since the 1970s it has been observed through satellite analysis and surveying that the Earth has gained a continental-sized increase in greenery across the planet, all the while CO2 has been increasing.

nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
phys.org/news/2017-05-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-global-greening.html

not an argument

Even if one adheres to the hyped narrative of detrimental carbon warming, believing that a global extinction event and crisis will ensue within decades due to agricultural collapse and rising ocean levels, the solutions they propose are entirely baseless and merely represent the consolidation of authoritarian power. Invariably the hysterical eco-fascists call the establishment of a bureaucratic monstrosity to rule over the planet, instituting elaborate carbon taxation schemes designed to disincentive carbon-producing processes and encourage “green” sustainable methods of manufacturing and energy. Such a system would inevitably destroy the competitive market, annihilating small businesses, and centralize all autonomy around corporate monopolies, who would largely exist as tax-exempt entities. All human endeavor would have to be analyzed and deemed acceptable by the State power of “carbon councils”, effectively representing a kind of neo-feudalism where only the chosen loyalists possess the right to engage in enterprise. Furthermore, such a system of carbon taxation would enable the powers that be to rapidly deindustrialize the first world wealthier nations, while at the same time suppressing the advancement of poorer nations – this is top-down, bureaucratic enslavement. What’s strange is that many mainstream “scientists” of the prevailing dogmatic orthodoxy claim that we’ve already reached the tipping point, where even if we could magically halt all carbon-emitting processes right now, it wouldn’t make a difference with regards to the progression of the current warming trend, and the ensuing crisis is inevitable – surely this means that such prospective solutions, like a carbon tax, would be entirely redundant. It seems desirable to invest in

Climate change is real, but the fact that it's man-made is a total hoax.

fake news

basically lets focus on reducing particulate matter (smog), stop toxic dumping, and stop deforestation, while actively reforesting areas -- this is real environmentalism, not the carbon-cult mindfuckery

Who deny climate change?
(((Capitalist))) (((neocon))) republican (((shills))) who only care about (((corporate interests))).

>(((climate change hoax)))

Climaate change is real, the clima hast been changing since the exisistence of the earth, currently it is getting warmer and that is to a very little part our fault

The United States military thinks it's the biggest threat to our national existence.

I think Sup Forums is retarded desu

There is no 100% factual evidence that shows anthropogenic global warming is real. No chart has ever been correct, and we have been in a cooling period for the last 20 years.

They want to use it as a mechanism to centralize control you braindead nigger.

I understand we live in a world built on lies but is it not blatantly obvious the ones laughing while you say this are the big oil and coal companies? An entire scientific community gains nothing by collaborating a lie of this scale. Hell even saudi arabia and qatar would like to personally thankyou for defending their business interests.

Just pointing out the obvious.. Do some research for yourself before you defend Jew/chinese propaganda.
Even my bluepilled family dont believe in that shit.
>its true because bill nye and al gore told me so
Ever talked to a weather expert in real life about it? No? I have.

>open a chemistry book
>read about CO2 and tampon solutions
>open a biology book
>read about the correlation between sea creatures and acidity levels
It's not that hard guys, just open a book sometimes

Daily reminder that zionist neocon politicians are the ones denieng global warming.

Those so called 'proofs' that global warming is a myth are pseudoscience trying to look reliable, these infographs have been debunked.

Climate change is real.

There is massive amount of evidence for manmade climate change.

The majority of climate scientist agree on this.

Deniers take the data of climate scientists and cherrypick the data which fits their narrative.

As far I can see deniers fall into three categories:
Ignorants who just don't want their life to change.
Sceptics because of "religion" or science is "elitist nonsense" to get munnies.
Tinfoil hats who believe it is the ((((JEW))))).

...

>climate change
>blue pilled

>calls people who don't blindly follow trump anymore shills
>blind trump follower

It's a hoax made by those same companies, you moron, who plan on keep going the same way they do (transferring polluting industries to 3rd world countries) and profiting even more with carbon tax.

Complete hoax. When I was a kid in the seventies, people were talking about a new ice age coming. They can't predict the weather next month let alone next year or a hundred years. It's a scam. Al Gore said the oceans were about to rise and then bought a house in Malibu, laughing at the suckers.

Just open a book goddamit

>Believing politicians instead of actual science
N I C E

Since the 1970s the Earth has experienced a continental-sized increase in surface level flora.
CO2 effects are near levels of saturation (increasing CO2 will have negligible effects on temp)
We're still not even fully out of the previous ice age, we've been in a warming trend before even the industrial revolution.

This is merely a mechanism to create monopoly and centralize world control around carbon taxation schemes.

Let's see what you're saying

>majority of climate scientists agree that there's a massive amount of evidence for man-made climate change
Where they disagree on is to what extent it actually affects the biosphere of the planet.

Some claim that CO2 will cause desertification, others claim that it will feed plant life and prevent desertification.

> 70s ice age meme

Please inform yourself about the 70s ice age meme, you are making an idiot of yourself for repeating this meme.

Is this Sup Forums or my fucking facebook feed?
I bet you guys think the holocaust was real and 9/11 was a terroras attack. Kek.
Dont believe everything you read or everyones opinion. Make up your own

Strong case you're making there

Major oil corperations try to tell me its a hoax.. dont trust those cunts.. so its definitely real.

The climate is changing sure, but Earth's climate has shifted one way or another throughout its history. How much humans affect climate change is to question. The belief that CO2 regulates climate is magical. The ice caps we're always going g to eventually melt again, people are shitting bricks unnecessarily. Species go extinct, sea level rise and lowers, life goes on.

This

It will do both you twat. Global consequences don't fall into black and white categories (either this or either that). It depends on what part of the earth you are looking at.

...

>calls people who don't blindly follow trump anymore shills"
Cant see that anywhere in my post.

>math is an opinion
>Chemisty is an opinion

> don't believe science
> my opinion has the same relevance as scientists

This is ridiculous. Have fun with rising water levels Denmark.

Comparing ppl from 1970 to now.. we are pretty much all in agreement people back then were dumv as fuck.

Holocaust was exagerated, only 200k died for treason and 9/11 was zionist insurance fraud.

Follow the big money and know how to world works:
holocaust: profitable
9/11: profitable
global warming hoax: profitable

a lot of eyes are directed at the Antarctic archipelago at the moment, because the LARSEN C ice shelf is set to calf the biggest ice berg ever recorded in a few days or weeks, which may be followed by the near-term collapse of the entire remaining ice shelf.

But the region people actually should be paying most of their attention on is the Amundsen Sea Sector. This region is drained by 6 giant glaciers (Pine Island, Thwaites, Smith,...) who themselves hold a estimated sea level rise of 1.2m.

In 2014, using satellite radar altimetry, people at NASA JPL were able to show that the grounding line of these glaciers was retreating very fast and even increasing with time. That's highly significant since these glaciers lie on beds with a retrograde slope that goes back into the entire West Antarctic basin, which means they could represent the starting point of the long-term collapse of the whole WAES. The WAES holds a total of 3 to 4m of sea level rise and is inherently unstable according to the marine ice sheet instability hypothesis.

I was there, bitch. People talked about it a lot.

Prove that its not. You look at numbers others collected and blindly believes in it. Its just as stupid as everything else
Wrong country.. Nice try abdulla

If a dozen wolves introduced to yellowstone could literally cause a chain reaction that created rivees and ponds and grasslands and balance the enviroment.

Id have to believe 7-8billion humans also cause chain reaction

I think that actions have consequences and anybody who suggests otherwise is serving an agenda.

It is real and it is a huge problem that will kill tens of millions or more and cause trillions of dollars of damage and profit loss.

Sea levels aren't rising and the ice caps aren't melting

if you seriously believe that climate change is a hoax, you're as dumb as Trump.

The idea behind the latter is that increased foliage will be better at retaining water in the soil, the opposite of the principle that when you lose enough foliage the water will flood away (mudslides) leaving behind dry soil that before long ends up a desert, like what's happening in Spain.
Of course foliage will only develop to a point where it might consume too much water and then die down to where water is in steady supply again, jumping Inbetween the two scenarios.

The former however is based on the idea that CO2 raises the temperature by enough to overcome water retention capabilities (too much rain). It doesn't.

Best post this far. And its a leaf

> people talked about it

Yes. People talk about lots of stuff. That doesn't mean it is a correct representation of how many scientists subscribed to the ice age theory.

Hint: It was never the majority. Do some reading.

What are you, 12?

I dont need any numbers, just hard facts my friend. The coral reef is bleaching, permafrost is melting. You know what that means?

...

Sorry Norway. Still, you have plenty of coastal towns who will suffer.

> blindly believe in "collected numbers"
You really have no ideas how science works, do you?

Same hype and scare tactics

shits fucked nothing can be done about it short of killing off almost every person on earth
other than that its not even the worst thing that is happing right now

pollution is a far greater concern
soon enough there will not be any clean water
and the rate of acidity alone is killing off much sea life

> I don't like what I hear
> It's scare tactics

The acidity of the sea is directly related to CO2 emissions, not pollution.

>awards
>federal funding
>book deals
>documentaries
>news appearances

All in a severely underpaid industry.

Really makes you think, stupid abo

I think industrialization is the future. Man was meant to engineer and create. Consume this world as we step towards the stars

Holy Terra is only the beginning

He got his views from some infographs that looked convincing and calls anyone who doesn't agree with him not a true Sup Forumsack.

This so called climate change hoax is a hoax by itself created by corporatist shills.

Just because shitlibs defend it doesn't mean it's false.

Seen this for yourself? Done your own research? Or do you like everyone else just believe?
Checked. Tell me how it works then you expert

>Cant see that anywhere in my post.
>this

>"Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 degrees Celsius) from 1880 to 2012"
I'm a well educated person with a degree in engineering, but I suppose there's something about climate modeling that I'm not understanding. .85 degree average temperature variation, on a system the size of earth, over a period of 132 years, seems incredibly stable, almost too good to be true.

actually bud, I did a bit of research and this one is true. Unfortunately there are some people like Crowder who try to toss this one into the same band wagon as identity politics and that other dumb shit.

In the end, it doesnt metter whther or not the earth is heating up. We should be moving towards renewables and nuclear just to avoid the pollution. An increase in temperature due to man is debatable, something for academics to argue over. Industrial runoff killing all the life in a river basin is something that is not only easily understood, but something we can actually act against.

that's pretty much it
if the acid does not get the frogs and fish lead and mercury will
also plastic and soon buckyballs / carbon nano tubes
bonus points for nitrate run off and algal bloom

He got his views from some infographs that looked convincing and calls anyone who doesn't agree with him not a true Sup Forumsack."

Not true. Ive talked to a Norwegian weather expert that has documented the weather the last 100 years.

>Seen this for yourself? Done your own research?
Yes
If you are interested there are plenty of videos even on youtube on both permafrost melting and corals dyng

We all want a clean, healthy planet. Carbon tax slavery is not the solution.

Actually seems real. I haven't been persuaded it's a hoax.

Not what you claimed i said.. And its ment to be funny.. Not hurting you baby leftist feelings

it's not actually
a signal of 1°C for global land and ocean (which is where we are now) is actually quite a lot and also incredibly fast considering it took only a few decades.

The entire temperature variability of the Holocene (that's the last 12,000 years) had an amplitude of only ~1°C.

A rise of 2°C (which me may hit in the middle of the century with BAS emissions) is widely regarded as the functional limit of tropical coral reefs, would mean ice-free Arctic summers and would commit our planet to a sea level rise of between 4 and 9 meters in the long-term.

> How does science work.

In a nutshell: Scientists observe the material world and form theories that explain what they see (so far the same as religion).

The difference to religion:
Theories are tested. If they don't hold up they
- are refined
- are discarded

Repeat this process over centuries of scientific research and you get a pretty good understanding of fundamental principles and laws that govern the material world.

With these principles and laws you can predict how the material world (or parts thereof) will behave if you change parameters.

You implied science just collects §random numbers" that you have to believe.

The big difference between religion and science is: With science everyone can join in and test all the theories. If you find evidence that a theory is wrong, congratulations you've added to our knowledge.
With religion, you'll probably become an outcast (best case) or get you head chopped off.

In real life you neckbeard.. Noticed any change for yourself?

>The entire temperature variability of the Holocene
What's the methodology for deriving that figure?

Im not a religious nutjob. So you cant agree that you have to put your faith in "Scientists"?

What do you mean? there is no permafrost in Italy. Are you saying that if i dont go to Russia myself and see with my own two eyes, it's not real? Hitting rock bottom here

the climate is changing naturally. we have had several ice ages and it will happen again. its all natural.
and maybe we can contribute into holding the climate back slightly, but its money down the drain in the long run.

Evidence points that it's real and man-made.

So, if you don't think science is magic, I would stick with what the scientists say.

data from tree rings (MXD), boreholes, pollen sequences, ice cores, lake and deep ocean sediments, coral archives, speleothems and various biomelcules (TEX86, alkenon undersaturation index,...)

>it's all natural
Snake venom it's also natural, fancy a shot?

>believing what (((scientists))) who get paid billions of dollars by globalists to advance a narrative print in their echo chamber academic journals where dissent costs you your career
>not understanding natural climate variation and carbon cycles
>believing fear-based virtue signalling hysteria uncritically because muh scientist said so

I know it's hard to think with all that mohammedan dick in your mouth but you could at least try not to be such a cuck

>not understanding natural climate variation and carbon cycles
Oh the irony

Stick to making pizzas there Mario because your critical thinking skills are non-existent

Im saying that youre a believer like everyone else and unless you do your own work. You put your faith in ((Scientists))and is no better than people like me that believes its a hoax.
Your numbers and proofs dont mean shit in this day and age
Based

Depends how you define it really.

>Is it real
Yes
>Is it because of man
Some of it is
>Well how much
That's hard to say.

The last point is really the most important point. Humans clearly have an effect on greenhouses gasses, but the extent of which is still kind of fuzzy.

If anyone ever brings it up though, ask them why they're not crusading against China and India, because if anyone is making the planet hotter, it's those two countries.

No I can't. It is not "faith" because you can test every scientific theory and falsify if. As I've said, science is open to everyone (except you are not very well equipped in the brains department).

What you really seem to point at is that certain parts of scientific research are so complex that it is hard for the layman to understand (I don't claim to understand particle physics for example). These areas seem to be unaccessible but that doesn't mean scientist pull their results out of their arse.

Also: Without science we wouldn't even be able to communicate over this forum. Does your mobile phone only work if you have faith in science?

>Im saying that youre a believer like everyone else and unless you do your own work.
but i did, i already told you i did
you are just running in circles.

it's really a hoax.

How could pumping 400 billion tons of carbon gas into the atmosphere in less than 200 years not result in climate change?

Who do you belive:
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (whatweknow.aaas.org/)
or
pic related

You said: i saw this on youtube

CO2 fun facts

man's contribution to CO2 is about 3% of total

CO2 makes up .0004% of the atmosphere.

if we all died it would make so little difference as to be insignificant.

Current temperatures are within extremes of the past 2000 years.

Science is not done by consensus.

CO2 is a hoax

again and again and again. while everybody shits themself over climate chance, we're poisoning our planet and ourselves with myriads of substances - just forget about the dying forests and acid rains of the 80's.

one day i go postal, even my peers... it's all just my motorcycle, my vacation... it's like everybody's high.
nobody wants to listen, because we couldn't have this comfy life, if we wanted to change it.

Link me to textbook type methodology for reconstructing atmospheric temperature from the data you describe, if you know it. I'm curious how they're able to derive so fine a measurement over that time period, using data you describe, without direct instrumentation.