Is the Earth doomed to undergo global warming/cooling now that Trump is President?

is the Earth doomed to undergo global warming/cooling now that Trump is President?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=WC5HyAeb2tM
video.foxnews.com/v/5242851889001/?#sp=show-clips
cnn.com/2016/12/10/politics/donald-trump-response-russian-hacking/index.html
discord.gg/jhFmw
oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
climatecentral.org/news/study-reveals-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise-20055
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I hope to be watching the chaos from a nice new house in Canada

The CIA is now an enemy of Trump's. Can't get much worse for Trump now. He may not be inaugurated.

Calm your tits, Trumpcucks, because:

youtube.com/watch?v=WC5HyAeb2tM

video.foxnews.com/v/5242851889001/?#sp=show-clips

cnn.com/2016/12/10/politics/donald-trump-response-russian-hacking/index.html

Global warming is a hoax you dip

My post ended in 69 too OP, so your point is invalid you fucking degenerate

well check these trips

Your attempt at trips is as invalid as the theory of global warming

>muh global warming meme
fucking jurasic era had 100x worse co2 rates than todays emissions yet the earth was fine

tell that to the dinosaurs, oh wait they're extinct

they went extinct because another rock crash landed into earth m8

Yes. Old fucks don't care about leaving a liveable planet for their children and grandchildren. It's funny, because you can't bitch about 'white genocide' while not making any effort to leave a planet for new generations of white people.

That's just an example though.

There were also animals the size of buildings traveling around in herds. Makes for a whole lot of CO2 being exhaled

really stimulates your neurons, doesnt it?

AGW is real, but it's not what it's presented to be. CO2 does cause warming, but that warming is logarithmic, not exponential. For each doubling of atmospheric CO2, we will see 1.65 degrees C of warming, eventually. So, with the diminishing returns on warming per PPM of CO2, we will never see runaway global warming. It's not physically possible. Consider this:
>most of the history of Earth had CO2 in the thousands of PPM
>most of the history of Earth was only slightly warmer
>half of the history of Earth had life similar to what we have now
Mammals existed and thrived when there was 3000 PPM of CO2. And we are not capable of creating even half these concentrations of CO2, even if we burned every bit of fossil fuel on the planet.

So, we may see some very moderate warming during Trump's presidency, if he's in office for 8 years. But it'll likely be lost in the normal noise of temperature data. Ultimately, though, CO2 is a non-issue. There are much more important things to address. We should focus instead on farm runoff that's killing ocean life in droves, and any types of dangerous emissions that cause epidemic levels of asthma and such. You know, things with proven causal relationships and disastrous results.

The human race will continue not to give a fuck about it

People be thinking earth is heating up because there are more carbon atoms in our atmosphere. I bet that explains why antarctica has gained ice and why our coastline is still prefectly leveled.

Doubt it'll make a ton of difference.

The only progress being made now in renewables is because of improving tech and economies of scale. I'm hoping more big companies will keep buying into it to bring the price down.

Politicians stomp their feet, make no new policy (or shitty backwards compromise policy) and then swoop in and take the credit any time private individuals make a breakthrough.

Depletion of natural resources, diversifying energy resources, pollution, political instability, and major cities getting flooded should be enough reason to step on the brakes.

Think of it as a national security matter--the USA is in an excellent place at the top of a global trade hegemony. Why let that get shaken up by more (and worse) Katrinas and Sandys?

The claim user makes is based on increased emissions from volcanoes. As far as I can tell, that user is referencing studies that have been disproven, or are in doubt.

And at what rate did that CO2 enter the atmosphere? How long did the environment have to adapt to that?

We're not saying it's never been this warm or whatever. We're saying that the rate with which the general temperature is rising is unprecedented and deeply troubling.

>human history
Because we evolved during an ice age. When we were living in caves, CO2 was at its lowest concentration in the entire history of the planet-- CO2 levels have almost always been in the thousands of parts per million, and the planet has supported life for the vast majority of its existence.

Stop looking at graphs that cut off well before 1 million years, you are looking at far less than 1% of the history of the world to gauge its health.

>gained ice
>sure it's not run-off from the Arctic that just re-froze

That's why it's such a huge deal. We haven't even been around that long, and yet we've caused more damage to the planet (and in return, ourselves) than time alone could have.

I assume you also believe there's a global transnational conspiracy to make it appear that the average temperature is rising year on year?

>antarctica has gained ice
Care to back that up?

Every reputable source I can find says sea ice has remained stable, while land ice has been depleted.

I really wish tards would stop making claims that can be easily refuted by anyone who isn't a 70 year old who is afraid of "the google". I'm conservative as fuck and its just embarrassing.

>with the diminishing returns on warming per PPM of CO2, we will never see runaway global warming. It's not physically possible.
No really true. There are plenty of things that could start a basically unstoppable development. Shit like the ice melting, exposing the ground, allowing the earth to absorb much more warmth, increasing the rate at which temperatures rise.

>Mammals existed and thrived when there was 3000 PPM of CO2.
No one's fucking saying that ALL life will die out. The increase in temperature has, previously, happened over a shitload of time. Right now it's happening very quickly indeed.

>You know, things with proven causal relationships and disastrous results.
Like climate change?

>I bet that explains why antarctica has gained ice and why our coastline is still prefectly leveled.
That half-truth is several years old. It was, I believe, sometime around 2013 where a surprisingly broad layer of ice formed, but it was very thin, and unsurprisingly melted quickly.

We're in deep shit. Look into it.

>We're saying that the rate with which the general temperature is rising is unprecedented and deeply troubling.

I'm not user, but I have a few points:
>we have temperature data for less than 150 years
>only 40 years of that are in any way accurate
>the rest is reconstruction
>we rely primarily on ice core samples to reconstruct, and to tell us the rest
>ice core samples are great at telling us averages, but blur any peaks and troughs in CO2/temperature levels

So we really don't know, by these conventional means, whether we've seen spikes like this before. But if we look at fossils of plant stomata, we get a snapshot of CO2 levels. And when we do this, we see that there have been higher spikes in CO2 and very likely corresponding temperature increases dozens of times during the existence of humans. So this isn't unprecedented, even while humans have been around.

We've seen spikes like that, in your graph, at least hundreds of times in the last few millions of years. And life survived. The damage we're doing to the planet is not through CO2 output, the moderate warming we've seen is negligible. We are ruining the oceans, though. And our soil. And our rivers. And the atmosphere, at least on a local level.

Assuming those "snapshots" are accurate, all that tells us is that human life didn't die out completely.

That doesn't inspire a lot of confidence when we're talking about throwing a wrench into the intricately complicated civilization that keeps billions of us alive.
>we probably won't all die!
>so lets not do anything, or even plan contingencies for the consequences!

Look buddy, if I place a container with water outside for millions of years, and make a graph of it, it'll be fairly smooth. If I place it on the stove, it'll get warm way faster than it previously has.

No one's saying that the earth will shatter and life will be snuffed out tomorrow. We're saying that it's going too fast for the environment to adapt, and it's hurting.

>So we really don't know
>there's a tiny chance we're not in total shit, so let's just not care and hope it works out
Are you seriously saying we'd need a fucking time machine to satisfy your skepticism?

>But if we look at fossils of plant stomata, we get a snapshot of CO2 levels. And when we do this, we see that there have been higher spikes in CO2 and very likely corresponding temperature increases dozens of times during the existence of humans. So this isn't unprecedented, even while humans have been around.
Gee, if only the 97% of scientists writing articles on the subject who agree that climate change is manmade would have talked with user no. 714785546, we'd have avoided all this trouble.

First, you'll give me a source for what is probably total bullshit. Secondly, do you sincerely think that your information was either willfully ignored, or totally unknown to scientists across the globe, all risking their scientific credibility on this question?

You realize we didn't have sprawling cities on coasts (or really anywhere) or *human* life as we know it today over those 'last few millions of years,' right? Yes, we are damaging ourselves at a local level too, but we shouldn't ignore the implications for the planet's future as a whole at what we're doing (or not doing).

>>with the diminishing returns on warming per PPM of CO2, we will never see runaway global warming. It's not physically possible.
>No really true. There are plenty of things that could start a basically unstoppable development. Shit like the ice melting, exposing the ground, allowing the earth to absorb much more warmth, increasing the rate at which temperatures rise.
That is climate sensitivity. And that is entirely accounted for in the 1.65 degrees of warming per doubling of CO2. It is a logarithmic relationship. All the data proves this.

>>Mammals existed and thrived when there was 3000 PPM of CO2.
>No one's fucking saying that ALL life will die out. The increase in temperature has, previously, happened over a shitload of time. Right now it's happening very quickly indeed.
We are seeing an increase of usually 1.2% of CO2 per year, if I remember correctly. We've seen far more than that, many times. And humans survived it with no problems whatsoever.

>Like climate change?
No, not like climate change. They should have stuck with the term "global warming," because that's accurate. CO2 does warm the world, just not in a way that is capable of producing exponential change. But it has not changed climate systems to any measurable degree.

Mars is undergoing global warming from the excess pollution created by ????

>And that is entirely accounted for in the 1.65 degrees of warming per doubling of CO2.
Source. Besides, 1.65 degrees is a fuckload.

>And humans survived it with no problems whatsoever
Human life? Or advanced human civilisation?

Since I'm curious, what's your crazy conspiracy theory on why most scientists are coming down on the side of climate change being real and manmade?

>They should have stuck with the term "global warming," because that's accurate
Not really. Not everywhere will necessarily experience warming, and warming isn't the only problem associated with climate change.

If the US leaves the Paris Agreement and the whole thing falls apart. CO2 levels continue to rise, megaflora dominates Earth again, megafauna rise again, in between humans either suffocate to death or if we somehow survive that, die of oxygen poisoning.

I'll disagree. sorta.
Globull worming is a hoax.
The earth is warming up because it was once in a massive ice-age due to an asteroid collision. Ice sheets miles thick cold.
Takes a long time for a dirtball this big to change temperature.
But there will always be someone claiming globull werming because "my funding" .

That's probably one of the dumbest I've heard. At this point, I'm not sure it's satire.

Paris Agreement. worthless paperwork that only serves to make cucked countries weaker.
Meanwhile China, India, etc belch out massive amounts of pollutants.

>Assuming those "snapshots" are accurate
They are, the science is peer reviewed and repeatedly proven to be more accurate than ice core samples.

>all that tells us is that human life didn't die out completely.
No, we know the rough numbers of humans at any given point, with a moderate margin of error. None of these CO2 spikes correspond with any human die-offs, other than a few major volcanic events (but the die-off was a direct result of the event, not due to CO2).

>That doesn't inspire a lot of confidence when we're talking about throwing a wrench into the intricately complicated civilization that keeps billions of us alive.
CO2 is a non-issue. We will kill ocean life and destroy our ability to farm thousands of years before CO2 could ever have an impact on the way we live our lives.

>we probably won't all die!
>so lets not do anything, or even plan contingencies for the consequences!
Nice straw man... I never said we should just do anything. I said we need to focus on real issues, ones that are far more likely to kill us off.

discord.gg/jhFmw

Join our discord

When you enter ask for that faggot Mark.

Mark is god and is causing global warming

>Meanwhile China, India, etc belch out massive amounts of pollutants.
China has surprisingly quickly set on a path of green energy.

>The CIA is now an enemy of Trump's
'Member last time a president made enemies with the CIA?
The moral is don't make enemies of the people who protect you.

Christopher Monckton just proved that the mathmetics used to prove global warming were complete rubbish and that the earth has only seen a rise in temperature by one or two celcius in thousands of years. He is currently working to get his studies published by a national academy of sciences. It's all bullshit.

>Tell it to the most successful species of life to ever exist on earth

How many years do we have to make it before we're half way to the extent they were able to exist for? I thinks it's around what, 85 million or so to the halfway point?

Haha, sure thing mate. You sit tight for evidence that there are no problems, while the problems fuck you up royally.

>humans survived it with no problems whatsoever
You're talking about prehistory. A time when rising sea level meant moving your tent a few miles inland (and hoping the neighbors don't impale your head on a stick for invading their territory).

Even if we took all your biased, cherry picked claims as fact, there's still nothing to refute the possibility that climate change will massively fuck up our civilization and upset global stability. I would rather not have 500,000 climate refugees showing up on the shores of Texas, or have trillions of dollars of infrastructure wiped out just to keep Exxon's balance sheet in the black.

Yeah, we don't need scientific data, or decades of study! Just plain old common sense.

Also, gravity is the weight of sin pulling us down. That's why there's less of it on the moon. Less sin = less gravity! Duh! Prove me wrong!

Alright, I'll admit I strawmanned, and I agree there's other related problems worth addressing.

You're right. The USA should be setting the example and leading the way on renewables--if for no other reason than to make sure we're never again reliant on third world dictatorships for energy, or on our own finite domestic supplies.

The truth is, guys like Steve Bannon know global warming is legit, they just want to make sure the US enjoys cheap energy for as long as possible, and don't mind if it messes up other parts of the world.

>doesnt attend intelligence briefings
>doesnt believe to CIA intelligence
will trump not see his assassination before or after he lets america get nuked?

1/2
>Look buddy
I'm not your buddy, pal

>Look buddy, if I place a container with water outside for millions of years, and make a graph of it, it'll be fairly smooth. If I place it on the stove, it'll get warm way faster than it previously has.
My point is that it's been on a stove the entire time, the stove is just not on at any given moment. And most climate scientists are looking at averages in temperature, artificially smoothed data, for the past but not the present. It's a terrible way to compare data.

>So we really don't know
>there's a tiny chance we're not in total shit, so let's just not care and hope it works out
>Are you seriously saying we'd need a fucking time machine to satisfy your skepticism?
Way to misrepresent my argument... my point was, scientists using ice core samples do not know. Scientists using plant stomata do know. We don't need a time machine, we simply need to look at the high resolution data we already have. Data that disagrees with their assessment of the past.

>Gee, if only the 97% of scientists
Great, that again...
Science does not function on consensus. There is no directory of scientists who were asked to submit opinions on AGW. And the studies that claim a 99% (or 97%, or any other claim) consensus are deeply flawed (Cook et al. in particular). There is no Senate of Science. One person can be right while the rest of the world can be wrong. And it has happened many times before.

Scientists work in specializations, and they tend to defer to the opinions of other scientists when not talking about their own specialization. Which allows educational institutions and politicians to basically determine what the "general scientific opinion" is. It is a bad cycle in any area of science that can be politicized.

>First, you'll give me a source for what is probably total bullshit.
For what, specifically? Plant stomata as an accurate gauge of CO2 levels?

2/2
>Secondly, do you sincerely think that your information was either willfully ignored, or totally unknown to scientists across the globe, all risking their scientific credibility on this question?
like I said, scientists specialize. And they defer to others in their specializations. I don't think they are being ignorant. I think scientists are piecing together a very complex puzzle, while politicians, the media, and the educational administrations are misrepresenting the picture on the box. Scientists do not risk their credibility on any of this, they take very moderate and cautious tones within the body of their study text. It's the abstracts, generally written by their institutions, that take the alarmist tones.

Earth's already going down that path; Trump having the final say in America's approach to climate control will just further exacerbate the effects.
What we need to start doing now, is prepare for massive population displacement. We can also start looking into claiming parts of Antarctica when the continent itself becomes exposed.

China has always had its eyes on the future. It may not be the world's most massive power, but it doesn't have to be. America can go and be the world cops. China understands the ramifications of CO2. Americans treat the Earth like it's a whore to be used, and don't care enough about its children to prepare the world to be a better place. It's all about "me."

>One person can be right while the rest of the world can be wrong.

If you asked four doctors, and two said "you have a disease that will ruin your life, and may be terminal" wouldn't you investigate further, and at least start taking the least invasive treatments?

We have seen no increase in the rate at which the ocean levels are rising. It has been a steadily increasing rate for thousands of years. If you care to cite sources that have predicted a rate increase, then shown data that prove this increase in rate, I'd be happy to look at it.

the problem with guys like bannon is they know they're not going to live that long and they're gonna make their buck now at the younger generations expense. because fuck us. so fuck them eat the rich, they're not humans, and the poor gotta eat something.

trump's closest head of state comparison is mussolini.
the italian people shot mussolini in the gutter and he died hanging from a lamp post.
history tends to repeat itself.

No matter how much proof is shown, people like you will never accept it. It's this mentality that is humanity's problem. It's not about "muh funding". It's about realizing is happening, what will happen.

Pic related. Look at how the global heat spikes around 1940. Wonder what that means.

It's better to burn out, then to fade away.

Fuck you

WAAAAAHHHH ANARKY NAO has nothing to do with this.

global cooling can't come soon enough tbh

oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

climatecentral.org/news/study-reveals-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise-20055

>Scientists using plant stomata do know.
I've yet to see a source on all your many claims, buster brown. Going against the very well established science on this field, I'll need more than "oh, it's totes true".

>Science does not function on consensus.
I'll rather trust a conclusion that scientists come to 97% of the time than 3% of the time. Could I be wrong? Sure, but so far the data seems to say otherwise.

>And the studies that claim a 99% (or 97%, or any other claim) consensus are deeply flawed (Cook et al. in particular)
I've read the criticism of the criticism, and this is incorrect. They've checked and double and tripple checked.

>For what, specifically? Plant stomata as an accurate gauge of CO2 levels?
That looking at plant stomata clearly reveals that climate change is a falsehood, or at the very least VASTLY overblown, and is basically not a real problem that we have to worry about. I suppose this wording is not entirely weasel-proof, and you're probably not going to give me shit anyway, but maybe.

Fuck off, Pablo.

>Source. Besides, 1.65 degrees is a fuckload.
American Meteorological Society and Earth System Dynamics. And it's 1.65 degrees C per DOUBLING of CO2. Which means we see the vast majority of warming with very low levels of CO2, and our ability to warm further diminishes rapidly.

>Human life? Or advanced human civilisation?
Advanced humans are less susceptible to minor variances in temperature.

>what's your crazy conspiracy theory
You've reached your decision on the matter, you treat any opposing opinions, on a scientific matter, as if it's inherently wrong, You are in no way taking a scientific approach.

>most scientists
As assessed by who? The studies that claim a consensus use deeply flawed methods. And science is not ruled by consensus. There is no vote on what the rate of gravity will be on our planet.

>Not really. Not everywhere will necessarily experience warming, and warming isn't the only problem associated with climate change.
The overall temperature has gone up, it is an accurate term. Climate systems, on the other hand, are not changing due to CO2 levels. Climate systems are variant, but there has been no causal effect proven, with regards to CO2.

That jump at around 1910, that's the moment the Holocene ended and the Anthropocene began. A geological age shaped entirely by it's dominant species. It doesn't matter what post-facts you decide to believe, the change is easy to see and fascinating to observe the effects on a global scale, but it's going to be a bitch to survive if you're dumb enough to live on the planet's surface.
You had a chance to stop it, but it's just a theory, right?

the truth hurts

imo global warming is a basic cycle the earth goes through on a scale way too slow for us to accurately measure which kinda explains contradicting temperature measurements suggesting "THIS HAS BEEN THE WARMEST/COLDEST YEAR IN HISTORY". If you put it in perspective we're just coming out of an ice age so we definitely are going to get warmer climates. I kind of see it the Earth as a big living organism which works similar to our bodies, when it gets "sick" or needs to get rid of a virus it's "immune system" warms it up to try kill the virus, similar to how when we get a flu our temperature increases to excrete the virus, then when it's disposed of we start to cool down again. It kind of explains how the dinosaurs went extinct and so many ancient text and scientific theories speaking of "great worldwide floods".

I think it's definitely happening and has happened before, but then again this is all just theory it's impossible to back it up with accurate measurements from centuries ago.

It was too late with or without Trump. At this point, humanity would have to get to zero net CO2 within 10-20 years to prevent the worst consequences. That shit just isn't happening. Best to prepare to live with it.

So true. At least there are edgy teenagers to lighten the mood.

global warming is Zionist propaganda so the government can increase oil taxes

...

>And it's 1.65 degrees C per DOUBLING of CO2
I don't think this is a small amount at all.

>Advanced humans are less susceptible to minor variances in temperature.
What? No. We rely on a fairly specific climate for agriculture. Drought will fuck us up royally. Not to mention the feared increase in huge storms - which we are seeing quite a lot of these days. You'll deny that it's caused by climate change, I know, so don't bother. I can't say with absolute certainty it'll happen, because no one can, but it's a very real risk.

>You've reached your decision on the matter, you treat any opposing opinions, on a scientific matter, as if it's inherently wrong, You are in no way taking a scientific approach.
When you present facts and sources that challenge my beliefs, I'll change my mind. So far, you've made a lot of claims, which I have little reason to trust.

>The studies that claim a consensus use deeply flawed methods.
I've already corrected you on this.

>And science is not ruled by consensus.
Why do you keep saying this? What should a normal person trust: the vast majority, or the tiny minority? If most conclusions to the scientific process says X than Y, it's more reasonable to assume X is true than Y. Sure, we should keep checking to see if X is true, but the jury isn't out anymore. X appears to be true.

>Climate systems, on the other hand, are not changing due to CO2 levels.
What the fuck are you talking about. We know for a fact that CO2 "traps" warmth.

>A time when rising sea level meant moving your tent a few miles inland
You really have no concept of how slow the ocean levels ride, do you?

>Even if we took all your biased, cherry picked claims as fact
Where have I been biased? Where have I cherry picked? Please, point oit specific examples. I think you're projecting.

>there's still nothing to refute the possibility that climate change will massively fuck up our civilization
There's nothing to prove it, either. And the burden of proof can only be on those who make a claim. I cannot disprove that the climate will kill us off. But I can prove that man-made CO2 will not change the climate in a way that will lead to such climate change.
>if we burned 100% of the fossil fuels that exist, we would see CO2 levels at about 1400 PPM (GES, 2012)
>that's less than two doublings of CO2, enough to raise temperatures by 2.5 degrees C, if it all happened at once
>but it would take us thousands of years to do this, since we have that much fossil fuel available (GES 2012)
>natural carbon sinks would absorb most of this over time (plants get bigger, etc.)
>and we'll kill ourselves off before then, anyway, if we don't address our other issues

>I would rather not have 500,000 climate refugees showing up on the shores of Texas, or have trillions of dollars of infrastructure wiped out just to keep Exxon's balance sheet in the black.
We've seen nothing of the sort. And we won't, as a result of CO2.

Most of your post amounts to
>nuh-uh!

So, in response:
>yes-huh!

fuck off you war mongering cunt

>If you asked four doctors, and two said "you have a disease that will ruin your life, and may be terminal" wouldn't you investigate further, and at least start taking the least invasive treatments?
I would investigate. I am a major proponent of investigation, regardless of whether you have reason to or not. But I am skeptical of claims made without clear proof. My decisions would be dependent on more proof, and my treatment would depend on whether that treatment actually dressed a real concern to begin with.

If CO2 is not a major issue, carbon taxes are incapable of making any positive change. They only serve those on politics, while being a burden on society.

I'm going to need a specific source for your 1.65 degree claims. Not an organisation. Googling the keywords points me towards a WSJ article that I have a sneaking suspicion is your actual source.

And again, 1.65 degrees is nothing to scoff at.

>If CO2 is not a major issue, carbon taxes are incapable of making any positive change. They only serve those on politics, while being a burden on society.
Not at all. Carbon taxes could be spent on green tech, which most certainly could benefit society.
I also find it curious that you pretend to have far higher standards of evidence than most scientists dealing with this.

Fair enough, but for people who give credence to the calls for alarm, continued skepticism (and subsequent apathy for even modest countermeasures) just looks like more obstructionism.

I'd be overjoyed if credible facts came out saying that climate change wasn't happening, or that it's not a big deal. But every refutation I've found is full of holes, while the more pessimistic conclusions have multiple points of corroborating evidence.

In the meantime, nothing gets done. FWIW I'm doubtful about a carbon tax. I think the best progress we're seeing is from big companies seeing the dollar value behind investing big in alternative energy. It'd be nice if big energy consumers in gov't were allowed to do the same.

>oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
This is not a study. There are no citations. Just links to other websites.
>ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
Same...
>climatecentral.org/news/study-reveals-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise-20055
This one cites a study that shows that 95% of the ocean level rising is due to global warming... no shit. We came out of the last ice age, and guess what? The oceans rose. Because of global warming. But the study looks at very short timelines, and this does nothing to prove causation in any way.

...

>I've yet to see a source on all your many claims
Sources on using plant stomata to determine CO2 levels:
>Rapid atmospheric CO2 changes associated with the 8,200-years-B.P. cooling event, Friederike Wagner 2002
>Quantifying effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on stomatal conductance and evapotranspiration of water hyacinth via infrared thermometry, S.B. Idso et al 1984

>I'll rather trust a conclusion that scientists come to 97% of the time than 3% of the time.
There is no consensus. The studies that claim this are deeply flawed. They have been thoroughly debunked.

>Could I be wrong? Sure, but so far the data seems to say otherwise.
You're not looking at the data, you're looking at a "consensus," proposed by the media and politicians, and accepting it.

>I've read the criticism of the criticism, and this is incorrect. They've checked and double and tripple checked.
It's a long process to explain how thoroughly ridiculous Cook's study was. I simply do not have a way to do so here, with character limits. But when you use such ill defined means of determining who agrees with a point, as Cook did, and only use abstracts (not the studies themselves) to prove a point of view, you are already worthy of being condemned.

>That looking at plant stomata clearly reveals that climate change is a falsehood
Plant stomata show that CO2 levels have spiked, and temperatures as well, to larger degrees in the past (while humans were around). And there were no corresponding catastrophic climate events, in the vast majority of cases. Look at the studies I posted above. They disprove the narrative of a level CO2 concentration prior to industrialization. There's not much I can do, on a board like this, to show you the hundreds of studies it would take to prove this. But they exist, and the essence of what I'm saying is right. All I can do at this point is say, look for yourself. The studies are accessible. And there is no consensus on the matter.

Which is it Global warming or global cooling you fucking liberal cuck

Its called Gobal warming for a reason buddy

Yes, probably but he wont be in office long enough to do irreversible damage. Its definitely going to make a growing problem worse

The earth will be fine either way the pollution kills the living beings on earth not the earth itself

Enjoy snowball earth

/sci on /b
Has /sci gone too far ?

>I don't think this is a small amount at all.
It is. It means our total capacity for warming the Earth is about 2.5 degrees C, if we burned 100% of the fossil fuel that exists. Which would take thousands of years. This warming capacity is far lower than every single contemporary climate model. The models are simply wrong, as has been repeatedly proven by data.

>We rely on a fairly specific climate for agriculture.
And we have the ability to adjust out agriculture to a far higher degree than ever before.
>Drought will fuck us up royally.
That's possible, but it has more to do with industrialized farming than CO2
>Not to mention the feared increase in huge storms - which we are seeing quite a lot of these days.
This has been completely debunked. Even NOAA issued statements about the lack of proof on these claims. The instances and intensity of hurricanes and tornadoes have declined, not increased, since the 1950s.

>So far, you've made a lot of claims, which I have little reason to trust.
I can't change your mind. All I can do is make a reasonable argument. You can go look any of this up, find proof either way. It's not really possible to cite hundreds of sources here, and present anything other than a basic argument.

>I've already corrected you on this.
Your correction is incorrect.

>What should a normal person trust: the vast majority, or the tiny minority?
Neither, especially in science. i trust my own ability to look at data, and studies, and reach a reasonable conclusion.

>If most conclusions to the scientific process says X than Y, it's more reasonable to assume X is true than Y.
First, there is no consensus on scientific conclusions. Each study (in theory) actively seeks to find the truth, not confirm a point of view. There is a trend in abstracts, but there is no trend in the conclusions that studies make. This is the nature of the politics in scientific institutions.

What the fuck are you talking about. We know for a fact that CO2 "traps" warmth.
We do. But climate systems are not being changed in a significant way as a result of CO2 or the minor amount of warming we're seeing. "Warming" is an accurate description of the process, while "climate change" is not.

nuh-uh

I woukd say yes if it wasn't for the cia director being a bitch he doesn't have the stones

I hope you have $1,500,000 to spend on a house in canada mate!!

>Sources on using plant stomata to determine CO2 levels:
That was not what I asked you. I asked you to prove that plant stomata can be used to negate basically all previous climate conclusions showing that it's manmade and a real problem.

>The studies that claim this are deeply flawed. They have been thoroughly debunked.
Again, wrong.

>You're not looking at the data, you're looking at a "consensus," proposed by the media and politicians, and accepting it.
Are you implying that you yourself are digging around in plant stomata and ice cores? Please.

>It's a long process to explain how thoroughly ridiculous Cook's study was.
I've read them, and I've read the replies. You're wrong. Look into the matter, and stop trusting right wing news sites on stuff like this.

I am supremely skeptical of your claims, but I'll look into it.

>It is. It means our total capacity for warming the Earth is about 2.5 degrees C, if we burned 100% of the fossil fuel that exists
And 2.5 degrees is still a lot.

>I can't change your mind.
Of course you can. You just have to provide data.

Abrupt anthropocentric Climate Change began in the 1800's (was even recognized by a naturalist in the 1860s). We had our last chance to change our ways in the 1970s but the First World demands INFINITE GROWTH on a finite planet and we are therefore doomed.
Climate Change denial is for PetroChem shills and the willfully ignorant.
We are locked into over sixty positive feedback loops that guarantee that things will get worse and worse at an ever-accelerating rate until there is no livable habitat for any major mammals. And that'll be the case in decades, not by 2100.
Twimp sure won't help matters any with his Know-Nothing cabinet.

What makes you think that usa alone could stop sayd global warming?

>Googling the keywords
That's not really a good policy in researching science...

>I'm going to need a specific source for your 1.65 degree claims.
Newer studies are putting it even lower. Or slightly higher. But always just above 1 degree C for TCS and below 2C for ECS
>A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity, C. Loehle 2014
other than that, N. Lewis and M. Crok have shown blatant errors in the IPCC assessments.

>Carbon taxes could be spent on green tech
If green energy was viable, it would not need subsidies to exist. It simply does not have the energy density to cover our demands. We've seen exponential increases in the amount of green energy produced every year, but the market share of green energy is decreasing every years as well. it will never replace other sources.

>I also find it curious that you pretend to have far higher standards of evidence than most scientists dealing with this.
I find it unlikely that you deal with scientists with any regularity. This is what scientists do, constantly.

>Neither, especially in science. i trust my own ability to look at data, and studies, and reach a reasonable conclusion.
So you're a scientist on literally everything? Or do you trust literally nothing until you've educated yourself well enough to understand it all?

>First, there is no consensus on scientific conclusions. Each study (in theory) actively seeks to find the truth, not confirm a point of view.
You don't have to repeat this every single comment. The truth has been found.

It would be regardless of him.

>every refutation I've found is full of holes, while the more pessimistic conclusions have multiple points of corroborating evidence
Well, that's the nature of the politics of the subject. I find the narratives on both sides to be lacking: the media/progressives/educational institutions all have a mind-numbing bias to prove AGW is real, and they have absolutely tangible political reasons to propagate their view. And it's the same thing with the right. Scientists are left in the middle, and most are just looking for the truth. But those politics determine the majority of what studies will happen, and the language used in the abstracts. So the only way to dig though all this mess it to read the studies themselves, and ignore the politics.

>In the meantime, nothing gets done.
That's the real problem.

>FWIW I'm doubtful about a carbon tax.
Agreed. Even if CO2 was a horrible issue, this would not solve anything.

>I think the best progress we're seeing is from big companies seeing the dollar value behind investing big in alternative energy.
Solar and wind can supplement, but not replace. We need to get onboard with safer nuclear, and thoroughly fund thorium. That';s the only realistic solution in the next 50 years.

Past that, we have to focus on the issues surrounding industrialized farming. That's the real problem of our time... we are going to destroy our soil, our rivers, our oceans, and our ability to feed ourselves if we don't make serious changes soon.

>If green energy was viable, it would not need subsidies to exist.
subsidies can quicken development in an industry. If we can shorten the time it'd take for green tech to hit us hard by 10 years, it'd be money well spent.

Fuck off, we don't want you. You stay in your shithole country and fix your own fucking problems, retard. Don't just run away like a fucking pussy. Faggot

>thoroughly fund thorium
mayhaps a carbon tax could do so