Global warming

It is a bad thing, why do Americans deny it is man made? Is it the radical Christians in America who hate the thought God allows us to change the climate?

Other urls found in this thread:

gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx
cpusa.org/faq/why-is-capitalism-incompatible-with-sustainability/
breitbart.com/california/2014/09/24/communist-agenda-behind-climate-change/
townhall.com/tipsheet/heatherginsberg/2014/01/19/un-climate-chief-says-communism-is-best-way-to-fight-global-warming-n1779973
thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17650-climate-alarmists-push-chinese-communism-population-control
dailycaller.com/2014/09/11/peoples-climate-march-backed-by-communist-socialist-parties/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>Global warming
>Fake news
That pretty much sums up who denies it and their logic.

american dum-dums are taught from an early age to be suspicious of anyone more intelligent than them instead of engaging in articulated debate

two phrases you'll never hear from an american "wow I didn't know that" and "thanks for enlightening me on this"

We don't want to abandon the lifestyle that caused it in the first place. It's the same reason why this nation is full of fat fucks.

But there is no reason to abandon that lifestyle. You just need to do what Frenchies do - invest in nuclear and enjoy cheap and clean energy. Also, electric cars.

gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx
A majority of us do think climate change is an issue. A majority of us also didn't vote for Trump.

>invest in nuclear
Liberals hate nuclear energy and conservatives can't profit from it like oil.

I have completely lost faith in anything involved with the U.S. government. If climate change is happening I guarantee the climate scientists are still lying because the entire thing is a criminal enterprise

...

>A majority of us also didn't vote for Trump.
That majority consisted of urban brown people so their vote counted less.

>Liberals hate nuclear energy and conservatives can't profit from it like oil.
Nuclear generally isn't in competition with oil.

>two phrases you'll never hear from an american "wow I didn't know that" and "thanks for enlightening me on this"
I wouldn't say the latter, but I have said the former plenty times.

You however are a faggot
and Nobody denies that climates change, that's denying seasons. People are skeptical of the claim "the world is warming and it's your fault for using (insert commercial product here)." I happen to be one of those skeptics, and I really would like to know when this supposed climate change of yours started, because you can't be talking about the world's temperature naturally changing. I understand that our carbon footprint can play a role, but I cast doubt on the veracity of claims that say it's more impactful than our magnetosphere, among other, natural factors.

I find you uneducated of your claims and pathetic for calling others names. You deserve what you reap.

Also, Americans like to do this thing called irony. If you give us a shitpost, we usually like to shitpost back, to let you know that's what we're seeing on our end, it's why american in-fighting has such good banter here. It's fun, and you should try it, instead of making us give you a real reply.

actually faggot it consisted of a minority of states, and we're not a democracy.
Mad cause bad.

>g. I understand that our carbon footprint can play a role, but I cast doubt on the veracity of claims that say it's more impactful than our magnetosphere, among other, natural factors.
...ok. Why is thay? Is it because you are a Christian and Christians believe humans cannot be more powerful than nature?

The physics behind current situation.

Adding more CO2 can't cause more warming because their is no energy left that CO2 can absorb.

>why do Americans deny

We're resistant to government and media indoctrination and have the first amendment. Also we do not deny that some of it is man made.

Why do Germans deny that kikes are liars and are only using MUH GLOBAL WARMING to usher in the Jew World Order? Is it the radical cucks in Germany who still believe in the Holohoax because they hate the thought of being BTFO'd by commies?

>"A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis."
-Mikhail Gorbachev

>"The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."
-Mikhail Gorbachev

>Why is capitalism incompatible with sustainability
cpusa.org/faq/why-is-capitalism-incompatible-with-sustainability/

>Communist Agenda Behind Climate Change Movement
breitbart.com/california/2014/09/24/communist-agenda-behind-climate-change/

>UN Climate Chief Says Communism is Best Way to Fight Global Warming
townhall.com/tipsheet/heatherginsberg/2014/01/19/un-climate-chief-says-communism-is-best-way-to-fight-global-warming-n1779973

>Climate Alarmists Push Chinese Communism, Population Control
thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17650-climate-alarmists-push-chinese-communism-population-control

>'People’s Climate March’ Backed By Communist, Socialist Parties
dailycaller.com/2014/09/11/peoples-climate-march-backed-by-communist-socialist-parties/

>why do Americans deny it is man made?

You should also ask the Russians. They don't swallow your crap either.

>Adding more CO2 can't cause more warming because their is no energy left that CO2 can absorb.
You stupid or something? We aren't near 25C average temp which is about the max temp based on our current land mass distribution and atmosphere at rather high CO, CH4 etc. concentrations.

...

earth is expanding, aka not man made.
or is it , are you implying man made earth ????
we shure as hell made the moon.

I think he's talking about heat saturation of CO2 itself.

100% of it is manmade and it's main causes are our globalized supply chains, the expansion of agricultural and livestock activities into natural habitats and the burning of fossil fuels

or are we going through some kind of cataclysmic volcanic eruption age?

And I am saying we know from historic records we got 8-10C to go from greenhouse gas increases. Why should the past not be a good indication for our current situation?

which is absolutely besides the point and shows how little he understands about the subject

the problem is not that we are generating more heat which a fixed amount of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs more and more until it saturates; the problem is that the fixed amount of heat that hits the Earth from the sun is getting trapped within a greater amount of CO2 which we pump into the atmosphere at greater rates than it can naturally degrade

>100% of it is manmade

You drank the fucken cool-aid.

>And I am saying we know from historic records we got 8-10C to go from greenhouse gas increases.

Bullshit. You have absolutely no fucking way of knowing this. You're just pulling that number out of your asshole.

It's global communism, and an explicit effort to seize the production and wealth of "resistant" nations, and then redistribute that wealth to compliant nations. America, despite reneging on the Paris Accord, can still easily meet the super special emissions restrictions without having to give billions of dollars to India and China. Big fucking surprise that EU cocksuckers are 'deeply concerned'. Go fuck yourselves, if you want to save the planet go blow your brains out - one less commie fag shitting up the place.

>which is absolutely besides the point

Because you say so. Sorry, you're not an authority on any thing.

We got no way of knowing this? Just that the 25C ceiling has happened several times over the last 500 million years?

Which has what to do with CO2 emissions?

CO2 warming is capped out. Adding more will do nothing.

But you were referring to CO2. You don't know the various saturation points of the various gases that compose the atmosphere. And if you say you do, you're a god damned liar.

it is you who drank the piss out of the conservative talking heads who don't know a single thing about natural sciences

there ARE natural fluctuations to the planet's climate, nobody denies that

global warming or climate change by DEFINITION is the phenomenon that deviates from these known natural fluctuations, which are well understood and used by propagandists to manipulate people like you

it's like you didn't even read the rest of the post

Climate change is influenced by man. However, what America does is inconsequential as long as India and China keep pouring shit into the atmosphere a hundred times more than we do.

>the problem is not that we are generating more heat which a fixed amount of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs more and more until it saturates; the problem is that the fixed amount of heat that hits the Earth from the sun is getting trapped within a greater amount of CO2 which we pump into the atmosphere at greater rates than it can naturally degrade

The amount of energy leaving the Earth in the spectra that CO2 absorbs on is at the limit of 0.
Adding more CO2 can't raise the temperature higher.

The whole solar system is warming. It's not our system or our original sun. It will heat until every planet is a barren burnt rock. Humans have no role. We should be trying to extinguish our sun so our true star the black sun shall arise from its sleep deep in the gasses of Saturn . Her holy purple light will shine down amplified by mars and Venus if they still work as planetary lenses. Whites we're the first humans. They burned and became dark as the bastard sun burned our beautiful jewel. It wasn't an asteroid. It was the new sun

>it's like you didn't even read the rest of the post

It was just cultic true believer drivel. Like listening to a religious maniac.

Scientists are supposed to be skeptical.

Considering at pressure is constant. Global warming is pure bullshit.

that conclusion doesn't really follow from that piece of data, it just shows CO2 is efficient at absorbing energy, it doesn't adress the changing composition of the atmosphere

also there are hypothesized delayed and multiplying warming effects to CO2 (specially if you account for interaction with other gases) and adding more at this point will at the very least extend the problem to much longer into the future as it takes a long time to degrade in the atmosphere

hmm no honey I think you meant galaxy and no it is in fact getting colder or less energetic

This proves how stupid you are. The guy was obviously trolling.

China is barely the largest greenhouse gas emitter and with Trump in charge America will reclaim the throne of biggest greenhouse gas emitter soon.

India? Jesus, what? They don't even eat cows!

>also there are hypothesized delayed and multiplying warming effects to CO2

Hypotheses are hypotheses. Not "settled science."

I was refering to global average temps as per fossil records of the last 500 million years (time with plants on surface). Max average temps alwaya peaked at 25C regardless of greenhouse gas concentrations.

Since the US is still one of the largest CO2 emitters, cutting it definitely isn't 'inconsequential.' And China is investing billions into clean energy as we speak. They're kind of forced to looking at how horrible their air is.

Claiming seasons are the same as climate shows a lack of understanding of the terms at play.

Climate describes overall behavior from year to year, not the changes within a year. For example, A temperate climate will have warm summers and cold winters, where a tropical climate has a rainy and dry seasons, etc. The seasons are aspects of the climate you're in. Changing seasons doesn't change the climate.

Here's a relatively complete chart of all temperature over time we have recorded. Note how much farther back it goes than yours (500 million years vs ~350 thousand, ie >1000x farther). Note that current temperatures are still below average, which supports the "current ice age" claim. This claim is also supported by the fact that we have year-round ice at the poles, which is not always the case as archeologically shown. Also note that the chart shows multiple forms of temperature sources differently, even when they overlap, and provides individual sources for each data set shown.

Also worth noting: The source for the CO2 concentrations you provide is, other than the final data set, from the same ice samples as the temperature readings. The methodology is relatively simple, much like geologic dating: measure layers of freezing and melting, count them, and you have your years. Measure the CO2 trapped in the layers, and you have that year's relative CO2 concentration.

However, the final set is from CO2 concentrations in-atmosphere around the globe. These are not comparable measurements to CO2 trapped in ice at the poles (wildly different climates), and the fact they are treated as the same on this chart is highly misleading.

>that conclusion doesn't really follow from that piece of data, it just shows CO2 is efficient at absorbing energy, it doesn't adress the changing composition of the atmosphere

That doesn't matter unless we are now going to investigate gasses produced from CO2 and the other atmospheric gasses creating new compounds that have different characteristics. CO2 is stable and needs a large amount of energy to disrupt, it's why it is used in fire suppression.

>also there are hypothesized delayed and multiplying warming effects to CO2 (specially if you account for interaction with other gases) and adding more at this point will at the very least extend the problem to much longer into the future as it takes a long time to degrade in the atmosphere

I doubt we have many second order effects from CO2 concentration that wouldn't have manifested by now that are not vastly more complex interaction with other potential factors.

For example what's the temperature effect of having more CO2 on plant life. Does the change in growth rate that changes the weather still get count as a CO2 effect?

The only new potential interaction CO2 can have on the climate are no longer related to it's power as a greenhouse gas. CO2 has more or less capped out the amount of warming it can cause.

Brazilian education and TV right here folks

I bet you are a carioca fag

You were trying to talk about the universe princess. Steven hawking is a quack fucker. The one who proposed the great cooling. Just because the universe is universally cooling things can still heat

>CO2 warming is capped out. Adding more will do nothing.
I trust data more than you. And physics. Nature doesn't provide for some magic "on-off" switch. For any given gas pressure in our atmosphere, every gas in that atmosphere has a certain combined likelihood of interacting with photons of different wavelenghta. As with all gases, if you're increase their concentration, interactions go up. It is not a linear trendline, but it certainly isn't a sharp increase followed by a flat no-increase line.

The warming effect of adding CO2 plateaus: You need to add more and more CO2 to get the same amount of warming. The growth rate of our CO2 emissions was driven by thepopulation growth rate of the 20th century, which is itself plateauing.

Ergo the cause of the problem is being solved and all we need to do is adapt to the warming already locked in.

There is no runaway greenhouse effect risk for us.

Filthy pagan attacking christians...sounds about right

>Max average temps alwaya peaked at 25C regardless of greenhouse gas concentrations.

Then why are you sweating it? If, as you say, we can disregard greenhouse gas concentrations.

Also, proxy data. Warmologists do whatever the fuck helps them come to their preconceived conclusions with that kind of dubious low-resolution "data."

Just have a look at Michael Mann's tree rings.

>It is a bad thing
Is it really? Canada and Siberia become habitable, and the third world burns/starves/drowns. Seems like a good thing to me.

It's just the Gasbergs and Ovenbergs looking out for the Icebergs.

Law of dimishing returns. You have to double the amount of CO2 to get the same amount of warming as half the amount.

IE from x CO2 ppm warming you need to add 2x CO2 ppm then 4xppm to keep getting the same amount of warming.

How is global warming bad? We're turning the shitskin countries into deserts and turning the poles into hospitable areas that whites can colonize. The kikes and niggers will starve to death while whites will get nicer, sunnier weather and new lands to conquer.

You're insinuating that the weather is only changing because of us, despite the weather having always changed (i.e. ice age). Most Republicans don't deny the weather changing, they deny that fact of us being the only reason for it changing.

>I trust data more than you. And physics. Nature doesn't provide for some magic "on-off" switch.
No. Which is why I later said the limit of zero.

>For any given gas pressure in our atmosphere, every gas in that atmosphere has a certain combined likelihood of interacting with photons of different wavelenghta. As with all gases, if you're increase their concentration, interactions go up. It is not a linear trendline, but it certainly isn't a sharp increase followed by a flat no-increase line.

And CO2 has the limit of total interaction or absorption. Adding more doesn't stop any more energy from exiting out to space, as we already stop the limit of all of it.

Lets say you have a normal flashlight. If you cover it in aluminum foil you block the visible light completely. What you are saying is that by adding more foil you can block more of the visible light. I'm saying it's already all blocked and adding more isn't going to do anything.

It is good that it is happening just move to a place that will be least affected by it. In the meanwhile the world will go to hell with 70 to 1 ratio of niggers and whites dying from random tornado and 9000+ year old ebola from glacier.

We can disregard greenhouse gas emissions over a certain concentration as their atmospheric effect tapers down as concentration increases. At around 25C average global temp you just do not get any higher even if you quite massively increase CO2 levelas. You would have to get into levels for beyond 5000ppm such as 50,000ppm or 5-10 percent to go a significant portion higher than 25C.

I am not sweating anything, by the way. I am ok with a 22nd century Earth with a desert Africa and desert Asia, but an jnhabited Greeland, Siberia, Northern Canada and Antarctica.

>There is no runaway greenhouse effect risk for us.

Yep.

CO2 concentrations have in the geologic past been much higher than now and there was no runaway effect.

methane trapped in the permafrost is the big daddy and we're playing with fire

>all we need to do is adapt to the warming already locked in

no shit we can adapt to almost whatever global warming throws our way (except ocean acidification) but it won't be any fun

Colonizing Antarctica wouldn't be fun?

>You have to double the amount of CO2 to get the
Yes, that is what I said. Max temp for "normal" greenhouse has increases has been around 25C.

>You're insinuating that the weather is only changing because of u
I don't think I talked about the weather at all, Darral. You must have replied to the wrong thread.

None of what you have stated supports the climate catastrophe narrative.

Because majority of the issue is caused by other nations, who couldnt care less about water levels rising or polar bears dying. If all actions suggested that Americans take were taken, emmisions would got down by at best 2%, which is not a high number

>methane trapped in the permafrost is the big daddy

Another hypotheses.

Other greenhouse gasses can cause more warming. However all of those gasses have short life spans in our atmosphere; the more you have the more is removed.

The halfing trend really makes short lived gasses hard to accumulate in large amounts.

Weather is not climate. Humans are the dominant cause of current climate change, but nobody worth their salt would ever say they're the 'only reason' it's changing.

>And CO2 has the limit of total interaction or absorption. Adding more doesn't stop any more energy from exiting out to space, as we already stop the limit of all of it.
Around 1000watts are dissipating into space per m2 every second of sunshine.

Not sure what the fuck you are talking about. If greenhouse gases were trapping 100 percent of all sunlight, the Earth would appear black from space.

depends on the kinds of viruses dormant down there and I doubt the soil would be of any quality if it isn't all bedrock

And no credible scientists claims there is a runaway greenhouse has effect to come on Earth. 5-10C changes still make quite some difference. I for one would hate to see all these Dutch Amsterdam hippies move to Germany after their shitty bike city disappears.

I think you are purposely taking him 100% literal. He obviously recognizes that CO2 interacts within specific bands of energy.

The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs energy on are totally absorbed by overlap with other gasses and by the CO2 currently in the atmosphere.

So adding more CO2 can't absorb more energy. You can see through CO2 because the wavelengths of visible light pass through it. If you could see other frequencies or energy levels of light you could eventually find the wavelengths it absorbs on and it would block your sight.

How come all the solutions require massive taxes and wealth redistribution to the 3rd world but do not go after the biggest polluters?

Also has nothing at all to do with there being 7 billion people running around. The warming could be from all our excess body heat.

We ain't giving the global banks SHIT, old man.

except you alraedy are since financing is a massive source of soft power

The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). ... About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2.
-----

Current CO2 concentrations don't even come close to block those 8 percent. If they did, we would all be dead in a frying heatpan.

They do not require any transfers.

The solutions require investments in nuclear, Electric cars, electric trucks, housing, infrastructure, biofuels etc.

It also requires a mindchange away from jobs in coal and oil and gas.

Its too cold though

Globalist Bank Accounts to be more specific. They're getting our money in all kinds of ways.

>The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them.

This is a semantical argument that contributes nothing other than to make it seem like you are correcting somebody. Warmies really do debate just like liberals.

I literally posted the graph showing what is absorbed.
Most of the emitted radiation is between 8nm and 13nm.

It's a combination of a lot of things, but the biggest issue is that no current policy-maker will still be alive when it gets really bad. That allows you to deny it exists, and then choose your own adventure when deciding why you'll ignore it. Among the reasons:

>God will take care of it
>Doing something about it would hurt businesses
>I might have to agree with a lib on something
>Muh taxes
>But the coal jobs!

These people need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.

µm not nm.

And i just told you we would all be dead if CO2 right now would literally be absorbing all he light in the fingerprint frequencies which it can interact with.

Dude, you can even test this at home. Just set up a balloon, a temp measurement instrument and an UV light. Based on different ballon CO2 mixtures you will get different heating curves.

>Current CO2 concentrations don't even come close to block those 8 percent.

>block those 8 percent

Nobody even made this claim. At saturation, CO2 stops ABSORBING.

what about the massive geothermal activity under the oceans in the arctic and antarctic area?

>They do not require any transfers.
>The solutions require investments in nuclear, Electric cars, electric trucks, housing, infrastructure, biofuels etc.

That's a huge wealth transfer. And other than with nuclear, has not been proven to work without huge government incentives to offset economic losses.

The Green House Effect makes sense and the current status of the world suggests the theory is correct, therefore I will adopt it into my beliefs and understanding of our world.
>Liberals/Progressives also support this
"What the fuck, Global Warming isn't real! I see snow outside, idiot!"
The politics, there every where nowa days.

>And i just told you we would all be dead if CO2 right now would literally be absorbing all he light in the fingerprint frequencies which it can interact with.

You are aware than when the CO2 absorbs EM energy, it emits EM energy at a lower energy carrying away some of the energy off and further up?

The CO2 heating effect while absorbing all the energy at the set wavelengths is also passing on a large amount of energy at a different lower energy wavelength. It's not capturing all the energy as heat, only losing it as black body radiation.

>Dude, you can even test this at home. Just set up a balloon, a temp measurement instrument and an UV light. Based on different ballon CO2 mixtures you will get different heating curves.

I'd love to hear what balloon you can use that's transparent to UV light and transparent to the lower energy emissions of the CO2.

>And i just told you we would all be dead if CO2 right now would literally be absorbing all he light in the fingerprint frequencies which it can interact with.

He never made an argument that it could even be possible to do that.

>be me , romanian
> we regularly have -30 C winters
> hear about Global Warming
> mfw, I really hope it's real.

if oilrigs manage to be economic viable (plenty are struggling now btw with the low oil prices) anything can be economic viable given a certain level of economies of scale, it's just a matter of who gets there first and you are being left in the dirt cuck

The science is settled.

Ban all germs from this board

>The CO2 heating effect while absorbing all the energy
The CO2 and other gasses, like water vapor.

>It is a bad thing
Why is that? Worst case scenario is that we colonize northern Canada and populate Russia.