Is global warming a hoax?

Is global warming a hoax?

Other urls found in this thread:

grist.org/series/skeptics/
youtube.com/watch?v=dAL9Xvrg3hI
web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/ehost/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=cc762349-2c76-4f14-b6c4-a5898ca11267@sessionmgr4008&hid=4109&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=61352100&db=buh
arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968
nature.com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06588.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yes. it was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

Wow, I'm convinced

This meming sure changed my mind

global harming is

Polar bears are a myth

Reality has a liberal bias

global warming is very real, its whats causing it thats the confusion

google equinox or "the big Year" ice ages come and go, they are a global AC

Ta da!

Even if it isn't, pursuing clean sources of energy is still a noble goal

a global hoax is pretty warming

Important note: global warming and climate change are not the same thing. Climate change is a very real and almost entirely natural process. Global warming is obviously happening, but blaming it entirely on humanity is a bad band-aid. We have no idea what is causing most of it.

yes follow the money...fag

>Is global warming a hoax?
No, the planet is definitely warming. But the position that CO2 is the sole reason for warming is incorrect, and the idea that CO2 can cause exponential warming has been thoroughly disproved. We know that, after all climate sensitivity is considered, each doubling of atmospheric CO2 will raise the average surface temperature of the planet by a flat amount (1.65 degrees C). This is a logarithmic increase in temperature, not an exponential increase. Satellite temperature data, our most reliable source of climate data, confirms this. And past periods of the planet also confirm this (e.g. the atmospheric CO2 level for most of the history of the world has been in the thousands of parts per million, but they were not drastically warmer than now).

CO2 does cause warming, but its ability to warm the planet is front-loaded. We are coming out of a historically low level of atmospheric CO2 (the lowest sustained level there has ever been) so the CO2 that has been added did make a warming difference. But there is literally no way for that CO2 to cause "runaway global warming." And our ability to warm the planet more, through continued addition of CO2, is becoming severely diminished. So people can calm the fuck down. CO2 is really nothing to worry about unless we become capable of adding orders of magnitude more CO2 that we are currently capable of.

Nah man. To be honest with you i was skeptical at first. I was hella skeptical. The temperature has only risin 1.4 degrees farenhieght in the past 100 years. I thought that would be well within the range of error for random sampling.
But I gathered my own data from world resources institute and nasa and did my own personal regression analysis on the issue. No bullshit. No bias. Just number and correlation and it really does indicate Co2 output influences the change in temperature. For those you you who understand regression analysis I got an r^2 adjusted of around 56 or 57 percent which is pretty significant when you consider the p value is less than .0001

Al Gore opens trenchcoat: "Wanna buy some
Carbon Credits??"

>pursuing clean sources of energy is still a noble goal
Clean, yes. But CO2 isn't pollution. And solar/wind have such low energy potential that they can only ever supplement our needs (for instance, we have seen exponential increases in green energy production, but the total market share of these energy types are decreasing every year-- even in places like Germany, who heavily subsidize them).

We need the following:
>cleaner coal plants, right now
>more nuclear plants, asap. and we need the type that cannot melt down (use water as a reactant + coolant
>heavy investment in thorium so we can build plants in the next 30 years
>maybe, some day, fusion

Poluttion is anything that has negative effects on the enviroment. If CO2 heats the earth and causes adverse affects on the enviroment and the organisms living in it them I'm drawing a pretty direct line towards Co2 being pollution.....

are you kidding me with more nuclear plants ? Nuclear is not the futur nor fusion. Nuclear plant create a shitty amount of toxic waste, and fusion will be dangerous as hell. The cleaner coal plants are bullshit too, when we won't have coal how could we produce electricity ?
The windwill, an improve of the solar panels is clearly the futur.

u fukken retard thats exactly what everybody is arguing about, whether it has negative effects or not.Why do all these unbelievable stupid people always try to argue when it comes to problems where it is actually helpful to be smart

If only windmills and solar power took up less land then the pollution of nuclear reactors take up.. and if only the generated 1/10000000 the power.

No.

It is not a hoax.

and here are close to 300 different articles, explaining every aspect of it, in layman's terms, for those who are sceptics, and conspiracy theorists:

grist.org/series/skeptics/

>global warming
That's an outdated term, it's called global climate change now.

How would fusion be dangerous? The reaction can't run away like fission can.

uneducated fuckstain alert

nuclear power is the safest, cleanest bulk generation of power we have.

what do you do when the nuclear plants is too old ? you can't upgrade it. I live in one of the only country where 80% of electricity is produced by nuclear power plants, but today our nuclear plants are too old, the risk began to rise, and if some of them explode, it's not only France who will take it, but Germany, UK,Spain and many other european country.

>Poluttion is anything that has negative effects on the enviroment. If CO2 heats the earth and causes adverse affects on the enviroment and the organisms living in it them
So water vapor is pollution? Or the sun? That's a ridiculously broad definition of pollution.

>Pollution, noun: the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.
Co2, like water vapor, or methane gas, is a naturally occurring substance. It is not poisonous, it is necessary for life as we know it to exist. We are currently around 400 PPM CO@ in the atmosphere, and abundant life thrived when there was 3000 PPM, with temperatures about 3 degrees C warmer. CO2 is not pollution. The other byproducts of energy production are, in most cases.

>what do you do when the nuclear plants is too old ?
Upgrade your shit. Modern designs are safe as fuck

Decommission the plant and build another.

Is water vapor pollution? Or the sun?
Yeah. Yeah they are. Too much of it would kill us. Just like too much co2 would kill us. If it has negative harmful effects then yes it is pollution. I never said we should get rid of all Co2, I just think it would be a bad thing if there is to much of it.
Don't create an arguement and then refute it. Strawman fallacy.

if only France don't have 1 900 000 m^3 of nuclear waste, if only Tchernobyl had not polluted million of people, if only we could uprage them.
So this paper clearly say that you're right, but I don't think you live near a nuclear power plants to know the danger it has.

>are you kidding me with more nuclear plants ?
I am not kidding you. They are safe, if: they are not plutonium enriching plants, they use water as a coolant and reactant, and they are not built in tsunami zones by shortsighted idiots.

>Nuclear is not the futur
It better be, or we're pretty well fucked

>nor fusion
We can only hope it is. It's basically the perfect energy source, if it's possible on a small scale.

>Nuclear plant create a shitty amount of toxic waste
The waste is minimal in new plants. And if we fund thorium technology, the waste produced will be used there, and diminished to less than a percent of low half-life material (so literally a few pounds a year, total, which will only be slightly dangerous for 20-30 years and could be stored on-site).

>and fusion will be dangerous as hell
So you don't understand the physics at all. Cool, I can disregard your opinion.

>The cleaner coal plants are bullshit too
>Cleaner is bullshit
Do you even hear yourself? What's better, being stuck with coal because it's the only current viable option, or making those plants orders of magnitude cleaner?

>when we won't have coal how could we produce electricity ?
We won't run out of coal for hundreds of years. Then we'll still have loads of natural gas. But I'd like to see thorium up and running in 30 years... and we have enough thorium, just in the US, to power the world and its exponentially growing power needs for about 2000 years. And as I said, these plants can utilize current nuclear waste to the point being left with nearly zero hazardous byproducts.

>The windwill, an improve of the solar panels is clearly the futur.
They are incredibly energy inefficient. We would have to cover huge areas in both to meet our current energy demands. To switch over would require trillions of dollars (estimated 30-40 trillion), a shitload of oil (fort the plastic), a shitload of power (more coal, using our current dirty coal plants) and an immense amount of upkeep.

Co2 is a naturally occuring substance. So is poison Ivy. But that shit is safe bruh. It's natural bruh

Tiange belgium, try again

all those fuckups are calculated in the data btw, we need 1 Chernobyl every 5 years to beat "clean" US coal in deaths...

all that nuclear waste will be used as fuel or industrial processes as the next gen plants come on-line there literally is no argument against it other then "don't build them on volcanoes or tsunami areas".

>you can't upgrade it
You decommission and build a new one. New ones last even longer.

>if some of them explode
France uses a design where water acts as a coolant and a reactant. They literally cannot melt down.

they are actually really cleverly designed.

Yeah, the reactors that are old now were built in the 60 from designs made in the 50s using ideas from the 40s


So, can you compare a leaded gas car from the 40s to a 2017 masterpiece like a Tesla? No, you Fucking can't.

Gen 4 reactors FTW

No

It has happened once within the last 55 million years

Carbon dioxide traps solar energy, and once that warms the planet enough a series of uncontrollable feedbacks are triggered that further raise global temperatures.

The plnet will cool down and carbon will be reabsorbed back into the rock cycle but that will take 100,000s of years

What is worrying is our current rate of carbon release, which is thought to be greater than any event in geological history

TL:DR It has happened before and will fuck humanity, but most life will find a way to survive

even people will survive, it just means the end of modern civilization if left unchecked

>Is water vapor pollution? Or the sun?
>Yeah. Yeah they are.
>If it has negative harmful effects then yes it is pollution.
Sorry, that's just retarded. While too much of anything can be dangerous, that does not make it "pollution." By that definition, literally everything is pollution.

>I just think it would be a bad thing if there is to much of it.
Yes, but we are at 400 PPM. That's still extremely low, compared to the majority of the planet's existence. We had abundant and varied life, with slightly higher temperatures, at 3000 PPM. So CO2 is not a pollutant, or even harmful, at these levels.

>Don't create an arguement and then refute it. Strawman fallacy.
You literally said:
>Poluttion is anything that has negative effects on the enviroment.
>anything.
So I'm not creating an argument. It's not a strawman. I am arguing against precisely what you said.

This. Very good post.

Yeah, but, the ice age was 10,000 years ago... ever since then the glaciers have been melting and the earth has been warming at an increasing rate due to less white/reflextive ice and snow.

Ain't no cars 10,000 years ago.

CO2 is plant fertilizer. Earth will find balance, we can't do shit either way.

No one said everything is safe, just because it is natural. Uranium is natural, too. But I don't go around touching it. Uranium is not pollution, and neither is poison ivy.

user's argument is that CO2 is a pollutant because anything that is harmful to the environment is pollution. That definition of pollution is incorrect. And that argument, like yours, is bullshit.

Co2 traps solar energy retard
This is just one mechanism for global temperature increase

even just 1 degree of global temp increase can fuck up the climate e.g melting polar ice
>causes fresh water dumping into salty ocean
>this disrupts global ocean currents
>this changes weather patterns

Refold your tin foil hat you ignorant fuck

>don't build them on volcanoes or tsunami areas
What? Can I build one on a fault line at least?

We had abundent and varied life.
Was it human life?
Yes anything that is dangerous to the enviroment is pollution. Including water vapor or Co2 if it reaches levels that are dangerous. If the levels are not dangerous then I do not consider them harmful. I do still consider them pollution and they should be thought of and treated that way to prevent them from reaching dangerous levels. This would be the safest and most logical course for the continued existence of human civilization and life as it stands today.

yeah, as long as you're not trying to produce weapons-grade plutonium as a byproduct, they were very safe all along.

My statement was correct. France does not have a reactor that is capable of melting down. Did you read the first part of my post? I outright say they should decommission older plants and build new ones. Why are you arguing with me about a point I agree on...?

Never buy a car EVER because they get old and break eventually.

Nice logical skills, pal

Nobody said that the earth was going to become inhabitable for all life due to greenhouse gasses, as even the name implies. It's going to cause several species to go extinct and give birth to tons of new species - both primarily for plants and insects.

This isn't the first time the ice caps have melted, but it is the first time they'll melt with modern humans at risk of the rising tides. Additionally, using the environment as a catalyst to move away from scarce resources is always a smart decision.

Why would anyone want to give mudslimes more money by buying their oil?

>Anything that is harmful to the enviroment is pollution.
>this definition is bullshit

So, decades of clean power made one small 200m*200m one story tall warehouse or mostly mild waste.

This is amazing news!!! Such a small amount of waste!!

CO2 isn't fertilizer for plants just like oxygen isn't a growth supplement for humans.

Sorry, I was agreeing with you in my first paragraph then adressing the skeptics in the 2nd.

Sorry mate ;)

I literally work a place that is designing gen 4 reactors and Small Modular Reactors. The theme is passive cooling and fail safe. Old reactors were cold war bomb factories first, and power plants 2nd.

The weather is controlled and has been for decades with the degree of control becoming more precise each year. The arctic is being melted on purpose to open a commercial shipping channel, the illustrious northwest passage, this is mainly why they're melting the arctic. The visible effects of brutal weather control is being used as a red herring to enacts industrial limitations such as "carbon caps" to control industrial economic activities of various nations whilst also taxing the consumer under similar false pretenses so as to generate a dubious and needless stream of cash flow to governing Zionist bodies. Climate change is real, but only because it's being changed strategically and on purpose. The science behind CO2 and global warming is indeed pseudoscience rooted in nothing but Jew tricks and policy, which is why so many unwitting yet sensible goyim don't buy it, but they should never forget the 6 gorillion, and that weather control and climate change is an international programme.

The stories being peddled to the goyim via media and pseudoscience are so off the mark of reality that any speculation based thereof is pure fantasy.

>Co2 traps solar energy
No shit. So does water vapor, to a much higher degree. And methane, to a ridiculously high degree.

>even just 1 degree of global temp increase can fuck up the climate e.g melting polar ice
Change will happen, regardless of what we do. We'll get another ice age, if we live long enough to see it. Temperatures will rise and fall due to variations in the Sun's activity. CO2 is a piece of that, but a very small one, considering temperature gains are logarithmic. We'd have to get up to 800 PPM CO2 to see another 1.65 degrees C increase, which at our current rate of CO2 output (adjusted for exponential increases) would take literally hundreds of years. The point is, there is no "runaway warming" possible, we have seen the majority of warming that is possible, and we currently have no way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. It's done, and the world has not changed drastically. We will be fine.

>Refold your tin foil hat you ignorant fuck
You're the one preaching that the world is going to end. Get back up on that soapbox!

Omg, it is. Google it.

Weed farmers routinely pump CO2 into their grow rooms to boost growth. Hence, it's "plant fertilizer"

Only if you think the Northern Polar Icecap was always just a Chinese lie...

Don't worry with the shill, he's got nothing but semantics left to confound any goy that are on the edge of getting this whole scam.

Any claims of significant anthropogenic climate change are false.

LOL @ liberal faggot peddling false propaganda on the asshole of the internet's shitiest board
1. Your image is intentionally tailored to mislead the posed question by inferring that the polar bear was on a larger iceberg that melted while he was on it.
2. Ice bergs don't melt in the timeframe in which a polar bear is perched on one.
3. In fact, polar bears seek smaller icebergs with perches just like that as it provides them an ADVANTAGE in hunting because they can see something coming in the water, have 360 degree access to jump at it, and thus surprise it, especially because the white of the iceberg against the white coat of the polar bear blends visually to a seal under water, especially given the refractivity blurring factor.
4. There have always been icebergs of that size and icebergs melting since the dawn of time. It's fucking normal you dipshit.
5. Posting that image with "is global warming a hoax" is manipulative and deceptive given the actual facts.
6. You invite argument based on facts, yet start a thread with an outright lie based in false facts with a manipulative image.
7. All credibility lost, as is typical, for the libfags.
8. Proves once again libfags are just plain dumb.

Yes we do.
Dirty americans, since having spent the last 70yrs boasting that they burn the lion's share of global fossil fuel, it's now a bit of a stretch for them to say they aren't to blame.

this op is just another dumbass liberal
liberalism is a disease of the mind

Get your head out of your ass, it has nothing to with faggot libtards of conservacucks. No one can be taken seriously when they discuss climate change and include political party names in the discussion.

>We had abundent and varied life.
>Was it human life?
Nope. But mammals did exist, so humans could have lived then just fine.

>Yes anything that is dangerous to the enviroment is pollution.
That's a shit-tier definition that doesn't fit reality. Pollution must be a contaminant, meaning not naturally occurring, and harmful. So if CO2 was produced at toxic levels, yes, it would then be a pollutant. But it is nowhere near that level. Not even marginally close.

>f the levels are not dangerous then I do not consider them harmful.
So then CO2 is not a pollutant

>I do still consider them pollution and they should be thought of and treated that way to prevent them from reaching dangerous levels.
Make up your mind about your definition of pollution... is it actually dangerous, or potentially dangerous? Because literally everything is potentially dangerous.

>This would be the safest and most logical course for the continued existence of human civilization and life as it stands today.
We don't classify water vapor as pollution, because it's nearly impossible to emit enough water vapor to harm the environment in any way. It's the same thing with CO2. So neither should be considered to be pollution, even by your nebulous definition.

Every planet in our system has been getting more hot. It's real, but it's not man-made, and so we should not be punished via laws and regulations.

But of course, welcome to the human race - use every misunderstanding as means of control, and create misunderstanding where there is none.

user, how is water vapor made?
What does Co2 do to the earths temperature?
Look and both of your answers now think about how they are related.

yes, can't posbile predict glaciar era, they can't even tell why happen the known changes on clime

>but it's not man-made
LOL
It's not citizen-made, sure, agreed, but international weather control isn't natural either.

What are you on about?

Your own definition of pollution is irrelevant

Pollution is anything that is harmful to the enviromnent in study that was not supposed to be there

Agreed. In fact, 70% of the pollution that arguably degrades the ozone is cause by the ASIANS. Arguing on a U.S. image board about global warming, where the issue is almost entirely the ASIANS--is just bizarre. Literally Mexico causes nearly 4 times the pollution of the U.S., so I don't even understand why anyone in the U.S. thinks they are having an impact by making people bring bags to the grocery store, getting a battery car (that electricity comes from coal, which has over 5x the negative effect than do fossil fuels per kilowatt of power produced). Idiots driving battery cars are actually harming the environment more than those driving gasoline engines. The efficiency is nearly double too, and this doesn't even take into effect the landfill for the toxic metals in the disposed batteries--which last about a third the lifetime of the car.

Every definition (other than Oxford, which is shit-tier and oversimplified) defines pollution as a contamination of the environment, especially with man-made waste. It must be a contamination, and it must be harmful. Two requirements, not one.

Since almost the entirety of the planet's existence had CO2 levels orders of magnitude higher than current levels, with environments almost identical to our current ones, CO2 cannot be considered a contaminant. Therefore it is not pollution.

>that was not supposed to be there
Tough determination to make. Your entire argument now rests on supposition.

Oh, np. I was just confuse because you seemed to have almost my exact opinion. And go figure... the bomb factories were not all that safe. Unfortunately, that's what everyone now associates with all nuclear power.

>global warming
and plastic. all of em, hoax
youtube.com/watch?v=dAL9Xvrg3hI

This made me reconsider my position. Good arguement mate

What?
The fossil fuel energy consumption by the U.S. in the second quarter of 2016 is per capita, far less than that of 11 other nations.

In fact, per capita, and when combined with coal consumption and all other forms of CO2 production, China is so far out in front of all the world's violators, it isn't even close.

I'm not from the U.S., but you seem to have your facts dead wrong. The U.S. actually has pretty strict requirements for emissions compared to most countries, especially for automobiles and all sorts of other CO2 emitting products, but even then, the CO2 is a minor component of the greenhouse effect. You really don't understand much, but seem extremely opinionated and incredibly ignorant in general but with strong biases. I'll bet that serves you well in real life.

>user, how is water vapor made?
Heat + water = water vapor
>What does Co2 do to the earths temperature?
Raises it, logarithmically, even after climate sensitivity is taken into account.
>Look and both of your answers now think about how they are related.
That's already accounted for in climate sensitivity. If we double the amount if CO2, we see 1.65 degrees of warming. That is after every effect of that doubling is taken into account: the initial direct temperature increase, the resulting water vapor, etc. This warming is not, and has never been, exponential. Satellite data prove this. Runaway global warming will never happen.

source me mate and I'll give in
Here's mine:

web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/ehost/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=cc762349-2c76-4f14-b6c4-a5898ca11267@sessionmgr4008&hid=4109&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=61352100&db=buh

arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968

nature.com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/nature/journal/v451/n7176/full/nature06588.html

Yes global warming is real. We haven't finished our last ice age yet though.

Source on logarithmic temperature increase please, better from a peer reviewed scientific paper if you could

>Your own definition of pollution is irrelevant
I am not. I am using the definition that scientists use, not some shit-tier Oxford simplification. Pollution must be a contaminant as well as harmful to the environment it's introduced into.

>Pollution is anything that is harmful to the enviromnent in study that was not supposed to be there
>not supposed to be ther
That last bit is contamination, which user did not include as part of his definition. Like said, you are now just assuming that the CO2 that humans emit is not supposed to be there, that it is a contaminant and somehow harmful. It is neither. Mammals can, and have, lived at CO2 levels well above 2000 PPM. They thrived. They were bigger, on average, than their modern counterparts.

So, CFCs are certainly a pollution. So is farm runoff, which is acidifying our oceans. And much of the byproducts of coal power. All of these things are contaminants, and all of them harm the environments they are introduced into. But CO2 does not fit the definition, by either metric.

This It is not carbon dioxide that is the problem, but rather methane. Methane production has increased dramatically due to the Chinese and their production of rice. It turns out that agriculture and all those rice fields, and especially rice ironically as opposed to other agriculture, produces a massive amount of methane. Molecule for molecule, methane is nearly a thousand times more destructive to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide for a number of reasons. Nitrous oxide is also a bigger problem, as is chloroflourocarbons, than is carbon dioxide. I always laugh when imbeciles are still talking about fossil fuels being the problem. That was true 20 years ago, but not now. The science has caught up and realized that carbon disxide is relatively harmless compared to the others mentioned here. It's funny how everyone butthurt chases the U.S. when there are few nations more proactive on this issue substantively and not just in words, actually doing something about it and making laws internally and actually policing it. If global warming is a problem, then the problem is China. Period.

Did nobody see the level of pollution during the last olympics in beijing? You literally can't see through it and can't go outside. There are places like that throughout the world (Cairo, for example, Mexico City, for example), yet nowhere in the U.S. does that occur.

Lol at the dumbasses in this thread who don't even understand the problem, if at all, and want to blame the U.S.

That's because France is filled with a bunch of fucking retards who thought they could make a fast breeder reactor work. And when it kept breaking and making more nuclear waste they kept trying to fix it. Making even more nuclear waste! Nuclear has its downsides, but it's still one of the best sources of energy given to costs and benefits.

most intelligent post itt
everything else is jibberish
/thread

Water vapor also increases the earths temperature. More than Co2.
Have you considered that Co2 levels are not considered doubled based on human output but based on the level in the atmosphere?
The earth only removes roughly 21000 megatons of Co2 annually yet our Co2 production far exceeds this number. Therefore we produce an excess amount of Co2 that is left to tack on to next years production and so on. It does in a sense create a spiralling effect of Co2 levels in the earths atmosphere. Are those levels exponentially related? I'm not sure to be honest. I'd like to think not because that what the model And data indicates. What is the threshold for temperatures level rize that you consider acceptable for humanity to continue living comfortably