And if so, do you think this climate change has more negative or more positive effects on your country.
I believe climate change predominantely caused by mankind is real, but that the effects on Germany are pretty positive. The warmer it gets here, the better for summer tourism, the better for our wine culture and, with higher rain fall, the easier to replenish our water supply and the higher our crop yields from the fields.
Also, the guys who built houses in red flood areas are finally getting rekt, I mean, we told them not to build in extremely high risk flood areas, but they still did. Stupid fools.
Climate change is itself only one fragment of a much larger phenomenon that first formally identified at the turn of the millennium. It has many names ("Great Acceleration", "Phase II", etc.) but it is most commonly known as "Anthropocene" (sometimes "Hyper-Anthropocene").
I think it can be reasonably argued that it represents a bigger threat than even nuclear warfare. That's because other nuclear holocaust (which can be avoided by inaction), environmental collapse is inexorable and inaction represents the road to catastrophe.
Brody Perry
No, nor evolution either. We have not been around as a species long enough to make these judgments.
Hunter Brown
>I think it can be reasonably argued that it represents a bigger threat than even nuclear warfare.
And that is why? Your pic related sort of suggests we are a gold fish glass that can tip over. No, it really cannot. It is bs to say that Earth becomes uninhabitable from one day to the next because of a bit of CO2. That is scaremongering. Not even after large scale meteror hits of Earth did things tip over.
Grayson Turner
>And that is why? I already told you why. Nuclear war can be avoided by inaction while environmental degradation only speeds up with inaction. Additionally, the Earth system (biosphere, ice sheets, carbon cycle, etc.) will go on to respond for centuries to millennia, even with a sharp reduction of the human enterprise. Sea levels, for example, are almost certainly going to rise by several meters during the next centuries, even if CO2 emissions drop to zero today.
>It is bs to say that Earth becomes uninhabitable from one day to the next because of a bit of CO2. That's good then because it doesn't say that. The word "uninhabitable" doesn't appear anywhere in the article, nor does it say the cause is "a bit of CO2". It rather argues that the combined human effects on the Earth system may induce a rapid re-configuration of the global ecosystem (in the form of strongly reduced trophic complexity and biodiversity). Of those combined human effects, perturbation of the carbon cycle and transformation of Earth's surface are only the most salient cases.
>Not even after large scale meteror hits of Earth did things tip over. They most certainly did, the recovery from this event took hundreds of thousands (to even millions) of years and the biosphere that followed in its wake was radically different to the preceding Mesozoic one.
Ryder Bell
>. Sea levels, for example, are almost certainly going to rise by several meters during the next centuries And that is absolutely irrelevant for the habitability of Earth. Also, if CO2 emissions are stopped right now, even the IPCC said that sea level rise would remain under 1 meter.
>It rather argues that the combined human effects on the Earth system may induce a rapid re-configuration of the global ecosystem And I call bs. Again, the Earth is not a gold fish glass.
If you are arguing that the carrying capacity of Earth based on current agriculture technology and based on fossil fuel consumption will not be 10 billion forever, I wholeheartly agree. If you are talking about a "tipping point" you suggest that the whole biosphere is fucked up like pic related.
This is just not happening. It hasn't happened after major natural disasters in the past, one of the biggest being a meteor that hit the Earth 66 million years ago. And it won't happen due to our influence on Earth. It is just scaremongering.
Jose Martin
>Do you believe in climate change yes
>induced by mankind? no
it is simple arrogance to believe that we are the reason the Earth is coming out of an ice age
Luke Davis
>the recovery from this event took hundreds of thousands And yet millions of species survived these events... be it minutes after the event, hours after the event, days or weeks.
Think about that for a second. Life had no issue just continuing. No issue at all.
A "catastrophe" on a global scale implies that things are over, that humanity is done. That is just bs scaremongering.
Is it possible for a 10 billion humanity to live on Earth for more than a few hundred years with current technology? Of course not. That would fuck up too much land, ocean and deplete to many resources to work.
But suggesting that this is the case is just complete bs. We are not talking about Soylent Green type scenarios.
Caleb Ward
>the effects on Germany are pretty positive
Thomas Moore
Climate change has shit nothing to do with the migrant crisis.
The migrant crisis is caused by bad border management and that is all.
Jaxson Myers
By what mechanism? we know for a fact that CO2 emissions mean nothing as CO2 is the second or third weakest greenhouse gas and the levels of ice-bubble CO2 shows us that in the past, even during the cold times like the iceages the CO2 levels used to be way higher.
Once you explain the mechanism, please do realize, that 1 (one) volcanic eruption emits more CO2 and CO into the atmosphere than we have been able to reduce ourselves from making in the history of mankind.
Meaning it is impossible to do anything significant and humane. Humane because killing the entire asia would help a lot, (probably give us at least 5 -10 years worth of volcanic eruption time leeway) but we all know that won't happen.
And the third thing is of course that global warming is natural and good for the overall ecosystem.
This is all asuming we are not backflipping into an extended ice-age, which may very well be the case.
Aaron Gomez
>Once you explain the mechanism, please do realize, that 1 (one) volcanic eruption emits more CO2 and CO into the atmosphere than we have been able to reduce ourselves from making in the history of mankind.
Wud? Are you retarded?
Levi Hill
>Once you explain the mechanism, please do realize, that 1 (one) volcanic eruption emits more CO2 and CO into the atmosphere than we have been able to reduce ourselves from making in the history of mankind. say word? I am skeptical about man made climate change but that's crazy, it would mean that all the reduction policy is a bunch of hokum.
Oliver Foster
>believe in climate change >believe So it is religion after all. Thanks for confirming, commie jew. No, I don't "believe".
Adam Reyes
You fucking Germans. What the happened to you in the last 20 years?
The whole Syrian civil war was because of climate change. Extreme drought ruined agriculture in Syria. People from countryside moved to Damascus. Arab Spring fuelled the already pissed off peasants who lost everything, and lived on the streets.
If there is no extreme drought Arab Spring never escalate to this war in Syria.
Eli Turner
Thought it was cows?
Xavier Sanders
Even if the world were getting warmer it would be a good thing for most people.
The rate of change even in the retard-doomsday-tier scenarios is ridiculously slow to begin with - 3 degrees over a fucking century.
Nathan Walker
to REDUCE ourselves from making
meaning all those climate deals, new filters in the power plants, "cleaner fuel" furnaces, etc etc, the technologies that have been developed haven't amounted to a single volcanic eruption. AT work right now but certainly googlable thing.
I've been studying various climate change models for nearly 9 years now and it's fucked how many of them are unrealistic to the point of fantasy.
Nolan Hall
What the hell are you even talking about? I just gave you the stats, volanic eruptions are not even a rounding error in the total CO2 increase.
As to your water vapor suggestion, when has anyone ever said that water vapor isn't the most prominent greenhouse gas? Every single scientists says so. And yes, most of the CO2, CH4 etc. in our atmosphere is due to billions of natural causes. We are just talking about the change made between pre-industrial times and now, e.g. for CO2 we went from 280ppm to 410ppm, which is due to humans, no question about it.
Jackson James
no
Daniel Wright
Again, if you're saying that life on Earth will go on, you're just spouting trivialities and arguing against positions that haven't been taken.
Meanwhile, anyone who is serious about the possibilities of decent survival on the only planet that is known to support any kind of life in the universe can take a look at the profound and ominous impacts that human activity has *already* had on the biosphere.
Humans have already removed almost all apex predators globally. Humans outpace all natural predators and have already subjected over 40% of Earth's surface to wholesale transformation. Current vertebrate extinction rates are orders of magnitude larger than the normal background extinction rate. All of this has cascading effects that built up over than, amplify each other and seriously damage the ability of the ecosystem to recover as a whole. Add to that the no-analogue-speed at which humans are altering the major biogeochemical cycles of the planet and you're looking at a very serious threat. And idle talk about goldfishes and glasses doesn't help.
Gavin Robinson
>Humans have already removed almost all apex predators globally As we are an apex predator, what we have done is replaced them. That is it. We replaced them because we are the predator. This is just completely normal. Any predator does that. It replaces its competition.
>And idle talk about goldfishes and glasses doesn't help. So what are you saying we may be facing? What?
I am saying that by 2050 or 2100 we will still live just as now. No change. And in 2200 we will either live with quite a changed technological environment, or we are fucked. But not because of the doomsaying bs you spout, but because current tech is based on fossil fuel consumption which is going to result a depletion of fossil fuels.
Brandon Wilson
>So what are you saying we may be facing? What? As before, I already told you the answer. The planet is in the process of entering an interval of extreme erosion of biodiversity that, together with the other processes that constitute the Anthropocene, may threaten the viability of human civilization of they are allowed to continue.
That's not me "doomsaying bs", that's the explicit conclusion reached in the scientific literature, of which I already provided a sample. Here are some additional sources:
>Humanity will eventually pay a very high price for the decimation of the only assemblage of life that we know of in the universe.
Unfortunately, you on the other hand don't seem to have found the time to back anything you say up with published research.
Michael Nguyen
The Slavs should have finished you people back in 45.
Adam Long
You mean global warming?
Julian Jackson
Climate change is real and it is partially accelerated by human intervention. Please stop, this isn't a partisan issue. If you see inflated statistics it probably meant the scientists skewed research to bring attention to a very real problem.
Logan Lee
>may threaten the viability of human civilization of they are allowed to continue.
So, exactly what I said is bs - the gold fish glass is tipping. Got it.
Colton Smith
>Climate change is real and it is partially accelerated by human intervention. Dude, that is what I said in my OP.
John Jackson
Why do you called it "Climate Change", when in the next paragraph you praise the benefits of "warming". Shouldn't it be "Global Warming" for you, shill?
Oliver Campbell
...
Jack Bailey
...
Julian Lee
...
Brody Turner
Global warming is what is happening to the global temps, which cause climate change.
I say that the warming effects are good, while some of the climate change effects are good, but some are bad.
Not sure what your issue is here.
Ian Peterson
it is not merely belief, it is knowledge - and it is having strange effects that are not beneficial already. give it ten years and no-one will be asking this question. they will be asking why we didn't do something a long time ago to stop the horror now unfolding.
Nathan Roberts
i believe climate change all the time. it has seasons so yes i believe in climate change.
