Is Climate change real Sup Forums?

Is Climate change real Sup Forums?
Is this our fault?

youtube.com/watch?v=VsH-kLNc5dg

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=b49PdIqmY1o
archive.fo/V3h6t
archive.fo/a1lJ4
archive.fo/1aCOs
archive.fo/Bjsqs
archive.fo/HwxX6
archive.fo/lyvW0
archive.fo/HzquC
skepticalscience.com
nature.com/articles/nature11574
polarbearsinternational.org/research/research-qa/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing-in-fact-booming/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Who cares about fucking BEARS

youtube.com/watch?v=b49PdIqmY1o

why the fuck do they have to put sad music in, do they think people won't think it's sad until they put in stupid fucking violin music

This. Those guys are DICKS. Some pedophile bear and its kid raided our campsite once.They stole my pick-a-nick basket.

ya , earth will burn like venus

>Is Climate change real Sup Forums?

"Manmade climate change" is a scam meant to inflate another economic bubble based on "carbon credits" -- the non-delivery of an intangible!??!

It's a fucking joke, and you can guess (((who))) is behind it.

Bear lives matter. Except for polar bears.
Fuck those whiteys.

Polar bears actual have black skin so that doesn't work

I read somewhere that Polar Bears are like the last animals that would give a shit about climate change.
Contrary to popular belief, they can survive in warmer climates. They can endure extreme cold, but they don't need it to survive. Same thing with their main food sources.

Climate change is a real thing but it would have started happening without us being here, we are defiantly not helping things along though

Clinate changed on its own. Its happening faster now, were in for something big next year

That is true, but the problem is that they are drowning trying to get to land wit the ice melting

This.

The cruelty of nature. Nothing more, nothing less.

>Is climate change real?
Yes.

>Is this our fault?
Was it our fault the last twelve times earth had hot/cold flashes?

Yes, we should be a little more earth-conscious... We should assure our trash gets into the proper receptacles. We should assure our output of gnasty shit is as low as possible...

But man-made climate change is a scam designed to relegate more power to the government, and $ell "carbon credits" to fucktarded hippie crunchie types... A fool and their money, etc...

watch that david attenblokes natural curiosity on pizlybears

its about a new breed that is replacing polars

Hey! Do you still remember when Al Gore made this shit up and called it "global warming" and then had to change it's name into "climate change" because global warming didn't happen? Those were the days...

most likely this

Lol. That polar bear literally died from old age you dumbfuck. That's how stupid you are. The image you posted shows the opposite of "climate change" (and I'm a climate change advocate). That polar bear has hip dysplasia and by his face you can tell he is up over 20 years of age.

Further, you title your image "starving polar bear" yet he is literally standing over a healthy kill.

In addition, on the off chance you actually have a brain (doubtful) worth even responding to (given your image which proves the opposite of climate change), polar bears starve in the WINTER, when food is scarce. Summer months is when food is abundant. Every single scientist who is an advocate for climate change agrees that polar bears are a bad indicator of climate change because they will literally thrive if the net temperature of the planet increases.

Hint: you should be looking at a decline of species at the equator. Clearly polar bears exist in warmer temperatures as every single Summer they fatten up from berries, caribou herds, etc.

By the way, this image has already been debunked as false propaganda.

exactly

This Polar bears are actually thriving. Their numbers have gone up by almost 30% over the past decade. The latest counts show them to be at a population exceeding 28,000.
This is a very old polar bear dying of old age.
They don't have retirement homes for polar bears.

How desperate Climate Change tinfoil hat wearing fags have become to try to literally peddle a ridiculously old polar bear as their poster child for climate change. So much fraud and fake news, only an imbecile would buy into this, and have to abandon common sense to do so.

like everybody knows, polar bears will be one species that will do great if climate change is real

can't believe someone is so stupid to actually believe this image as a basis for supporting climate change

how desperate they must be with their flat earth arguments

>science doesn't support them
>so make up story for the dumb masses based on a picture of a geriatric polar bear

No

>They don't have retirement homes for polar bears.
something must be done, maybe a polarbear retirement tax on the internets?

We should eat polar bears. If we held them in captivity and bred them for food, their numbers would increase exponentially.

Exactly this

Let's ignore the polar bear image and discuss actual empirical facts.

1. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically since 1800, from about 300 ppm to >400 ppm.

2. This increase in CO2 is almost entirely due to human activity. How do we know this? Two ways: 1. we know roughly how much fossil fuel is burned each year; 2. CO2 from fossil fuels has a distinctive isotopic signature, and we can detect this in the "extra" CO2 in the atmosphere.

3. The chemical structure of CO2 is such that it tends to trap heat energy. As CO2 concentration increases, more heat is trapped. This isn't a new discovery - Svante Arrhenius discussed it in 1896, and he predicted that Earth temperatures would increase as the amount of CO2 increased. So, we knew that global warming was a real phenomenon more than 120 years ago. This isn't something new.

4. Global temperatures are increasing.

So, to summarise, CO2 is increasing, we know that it's from fossil fuels, more CO2 means more heat is trapped, and global temperatures are increasing.

Tell me the flaw in the argument.

Polar Bears Worldwide:

1963:

Your flaw is that it's too logical and most poor uneducated white trash (the entire population of the South and Midwest) will dismiss it because Murica'.

CO2 doesn't exist

climate change started in the 1800s
how many of those polar bears are in captivity? how healthy are the wild ones?

...

...

>eat them
Actually, not a bad idea. They are doing so well that hunting permits are now available as there is an overpopulation of polar bears.

Op is about a dumbass. I noticed that The Guardian was the first to mischaracterize this story over a video some butthurt treehugger took and styled as "polar bear starving from climate change".

How fucking dumb are these tree-hugger, flat earth, fake science, dipshits?
>being this desperate

that's not a climate change thing, polar bears are starving due to climate change getting poisoned by bioaccumulation
they were hunted to near extinction like you said and they're population is rebounding not because of climate change but because of people

Polar bears hunt by waiting near breathing holes on sea ice or punching holes in the ice themselves (they're baddass as fuck)
climate change = no sea ice = no seals = no food
overhunting =/= climate change

>climate change started in the 1800s
Lol. Please provide a citation. Every single scientist studying climate change has opined the opposite--that it only became a problem with elevated CO2 levels (never before) in a study from 2002. By the way, if you argue 1800's it makes all arguments for climate change PROVEN WRONG. This is how dumb you are.

>how many of those polar bears are in captivity?
There are exactly 78 polar bears in captivity.

>how healthy are the wild ones?
Very healthy. In fact, their population has increased dramatically and consistently with the rise in carbon emissions and rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Yes. You are literally this dumb.

>the entire population of the South and Midwest
Why does America permit these subhumans to vote?

omfg this idiot is literally retarded!

...

...

fukken no
we started burning coal in the 1800s
we started seeing a rapid climate change signal in the 1800s
that's the mainstream climate science

>1. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically since 1800, from about 300 ppm to >400 ppm.
Yep. And the PPM is still in the bottom 5% for the history of the planet.
>Carboniferous
>800 PPM, same temperature as now
>Permian
>900 PPM, 2° warmer
>Triassic
>1750 PPM, 3° warmer
>Jurassic
>1950 PPM, 3° warmer
CO2 does not cause temperature increases to any significant degree past a few hundred PPM. The entire interaction is logarithmic; for each doubling of CO2, you get linear growth in temperature (when accounting for all long-term climate sensitivity). This means that almost all the warming power of CO2 is in the first couple hundred PPM.

>2. This increase in CO2 is almost entirely due to human activity.
Who cares? CO2 is not a threat. Other forms of pollution (like methane) are. Yet no one complains, because no government is willing to regulate the food industry to that degree...

>3. The chemical structure of CO2 is such that it tends to trap heat energy.
We've fully understood this interaction since the 1930s. It is, as I said, logarithmic. Not one person, or institution, or government, has ever disproved this fact, or shown any proof to the contrary. Their climate models do not pan out, and do not accurately predict anything. All the predictions are due to artificial forcing.

>4. Global temperatures are increasing.
Not in any significant way. Data is being rigged, we have proof of this. Look at temperature data for the 1930s. Look at the raw data, and then look at how that data has been cited, decade over decade. That data has been altered repeatedly to suit government funded studies at government run agencies. It's all bullshit.

>source: Me. I worked on climate model programming for years.

Lol at this thread and OP.
I am 6 years in the military now, the first 4 of which I was at Elmendorf AFB in Alaska, and now at Fort Wainwright (Fairbanks). I'm also a native Alaskan.

My family also has a camp far north. I have seen polar bears my entire life since I was a child going to camp with my folks.

I have never seen more polar bears in my life the past decade. They are doing great and honestly are overpopulated and a serious problem at this point. We have them coming into Wainwright regularly and they are a problem for our safety (we carry tranquilizer guns for off-base duties and patrol and have had to tranquilize so many due to increasing populations and encounters that it is just absurd). Their numbers are through the roof. They are also far bigger, far more muscular, and far fatter than any polar bears that existed in the past couple of decades I've seen them.

Ops post could not be bigger bullshit. We at Wainwright are laughing at this right now and I just screencapped the thread to circulate it around here for the lulz.

Look at this

>No.753359069
What do you people not understand???????

>until I decide to eat him...

polar bears come down into human settlements looking for food, it's not normal behavior for them
there's research on this

>Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
>archive.fo/V3h6t
>Whistle-Blower: ‘Global Warming’ Data Manipulated Before Paris Conference
>archive.fo/a1lJ4
>NOAA Attempts To Hide The Pause In Global Warming: The Most Disgraceful Cover-Up Since Climategate
>archive.fo/1aCOs
>Climate Change Hoax? NOAA Data Exaggerated Global Warming, Alleged Whistleblower Claims
>archive.fo/Bjsqs
>NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change
>archive.fo/HwxX6
>Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
>archive.fo/lyvW0
>More Countries Caught Manipulating Their Climate Data
>archive.fo/HzquC

it's the rate of change, other climate changes took tens of thousands of years, the current warming is on the order of decades

Ugh reading the posts here makes me sick at my stomach. In my mind climate change is totally our fault, does it also happen to the planet as well, sure. I saw some Republicunt propaganda piece where someone said suggested geological evidence points to that the weather we're starting to see might be more normal than what we're used to see compares to the life of the Earth. But what really pisses me off is everyone is just all "fuck bears" when we start to devalue something we open the door to devalue anything else. "Part of being human is having compassion for suffering, even when it's a bitter enemy"

He's in the military. Expecting him to reach a conclusion beyond what's in front of him is an unrealistic expectation.

Anyone who knows how ecosystems work. But you know, enjoy working in a factory so you can afford your branded oxygen you need to survive after all the rich have moved off the planet.

>It's getting cold
>It's getting hot

Dude it's called weather

>1. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically since 1800, from about 300 ppm to >400 ppm.
>Yep. And the PPM is still in the bottom 5% for >the history of the planet.
Irrelevant - what matters is how much global temperatures will increase relative to now.
>CO2 does not cause temperature increases >to any significant degree past a few hundred >PPM. The entire interaction is logarithmic; for >each doubling of CO2, you get linear growth >in temperature (when accounting for all long->term climate sensitivity). This means that >almost all the warming power of CO2 is in the >first couple hundred PPM.
Again, irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the relationship is logarithmic, what matters is how much the temperature will increase by given our current rate of CO2 production. We are on course for an increase of 3 degrees or more, which would be catastrophic.
>2. This increase in CO2 is almost entirely due >to human activity.
>Who cares? CO2 is not a threat. Other forms >of pollution (like methane) are. Yet no one >complains, because no government is willing >to regulate the food industry to that degree...
Wrong - it's CO2 that's increasing, not methane (let's ignore the clathrate gun for now).
>3. The chemical structure of CO2 is such that >it tends to trap heat energy.
>We've fully understood this interaction since >the 1930s. It is, as I said, logarithmic. Not one >person, or institution, or government, has >ever disproved this fact, or shown any proof >to the contrary. Their climate models do not >pan out, and do not accurately predict >anything. All the predictions are due to >artificial forcing.
It doesn't matter what the relationship is (whether linear or logarithmic), what matters is how much temperatures will increase by.

I heard somewhere that the black bears are harder and therefore can rape the polar bears when their climates mix. So u end up with an evolutionarily mix

I'd be interested to know your answers to these questions.

Is the global temperature increasing? If so, how much do you think temperatures are likely to increase by?

Nope. Government funded climate scientists only look at ice core data from around ~100k years back. That rules out any high-resolution studies of any changes for the vast majority of the history of the world.

On top of that, ice core data is 'blurred'; all the troughs and peaks of every major change in CO2 bleeds through layers of ice, making every peak smaller. And then they compare this to current direct readings. So they mistakenly assume that ice cores are directly accurate, and that there have been no other major changes in the last 100k years that were similar to modern times.

If you look at plant stomata, you can see that there were hundreds of CO2 spikes, some much greater (we're talking about orders of magnitude), in the last few hundred thousand years. And they did not cause equivalent temperature increases. THis is junk science, and needs to be scrapped.

The planet is warming, some. But it's not an alarming rate at this point. And CO2 is definitely only a small fraction of the cause. We should maybe focus on air quality, and if temperature becomes actually alarming, methane.

Trips don't lie

That's not true, Venus has an atmosphere made almost completely of CO2 and the surface temperature of Venus is like 200° C.
By far the biggest ghg (besides water) is CO2 by sheer volume

skepticalscience.com

do yourself and everyone else a favor, friend.

Give this user a cookie! Absolutely right.

There was also something recently mentioned about how there's melt from below as well as above. So the data we've gathered from cores going back however many decades, is all misinterpreted.

GTFO, you saying a bear can't swim to the next chunk of ice and so on? You are about as dumb as a pile of dung.

There is no ice core data older than that. And ignoring direct CO2 measurements from bubbles in the ice we can measure delta 18 O of the ice itself and of sediments
we can get decent resolution proxy data as far back as 170 million years from the oceans sediments and billions of years from some continental deposits

Yep.

...

the irony is that climate change is fucking up ice cores for the past few and ruining the data but we have instrumental records (which are super accurate) for that time

I throw recyclable stuff in the recycling basket, since it's stupid to waste that stuff, especially metal. Other than that, I don't throw my shit out in the street, so guess you could say I'm pretty environmentally conscious on things that actually matter. Most of my cars don't even have catalytic converters. Zero fucks given.

>Again, irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the relationship is logarithmic, what matters is how much the temperature will increase by given our current rate of CO2 production. We are on course for an increase of 3 degrees or more, which would be catastrophic.
So you don't understand this at all...

Here's the math: For each doubling of CO2, we will see 1.65°F of warming. So the current CO2 level is 400 PPM. To get 1.65°F of warming, we need to hit 800 PPM of CO2. To get to 3.3°F of warming, it's 1600 PPM (which is, generally speaking, confirmed by long-term history). The 'worst-case' scenarios, where our CO2 output rate exponentially increases every year, would put us at 800 PPM by 2100. It would take another 2-300 years for climate sensitivity to kick in fully, and then the net total increase would be 1.65°F of warming. Even this 'worst-case' scenario is a non-issue, especially when compared to what methane can do. The models are incorrect, it's that simple.

>Wrong - it's CO2 that's increasing, not methane (let's ignore the clathrate gun for now).
We hit a plateau in 200, but it's increasing drastically again... go look it up.

>polar bears come down into human settlements looking for food
Absolutely untrue. The reason they are encroaching on human populated areas is that there are so many of them and their range is expanding. In fact, the further North that we go (into the wild), the more and more polar bears we see. It is the exact opposite of what you just, entirely baselessly and illogically, said.

Additionally, the polar bears we see every day around Wainwright are absurdly huge, muscular, and fat, more so than normal sized polar bears I've seen my entire life. This too is demonstrates that you are dead wrong. Your premise is that they are looking for food. That is plainly untrue and in fact nobody (and I mean nobody) feeds them as we DON'T want them around us. Hint: they can kill you easily. We don't feed them, nor does anybody (even eskimos, who have complained all over the State of Alaska government about their risk from the increasing polar bear population in their communities in remote areas).

You guys ever wonder if we humans are here to actually wipe out other species to keep the peace between the animal kingdom and then some bullshit hippies think we aren’t so the animal kingdom gets all fucked up

What if the polar bears are actually contemplating on taking over the world then what huh

Animals die, people die, it's not like climate change is getting in the way of the polar bear's immortality.

>Is Climate change real Sup Forums?

Yes. It has gotten to the point that even the most pants-on-head retarded conservatives have had to admit that the Earth's climate has changed in the past.

>Is this our fault?

Sort of. The facts of the matter are these: the majority of carbon emissions globally comes from natural sources and it dwarfs the amount humans produce.
This would seem to imply that humans are not to blame for the current trend of higher global temperatures, but what is also true is that the earth absorbs the majority of global carbon emissions. Before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 released vs. CO2 re-absorbed was *almost* 1 to 1. Once humans started releasing CO2 it has skewed this balance ever so slightly. it's taken decades for the damage we've done to show up thus far. This is known as carbon flux.

Ultimately humans are responsible for trend in higher temperatures. If we want to do something about either we need to find a way for more carbon emissions to be absorbed or we need to stop releasing so much.

Hey idiot, more polar bears means less regular food in the wild, higher competition, or plain laziness as anyone confronted with a polar bear will likely run and leave them alone to eat. Logically they will go where there's easy food. Try to keep up please.

...

>Is the global temperature increasing?
Yes.

>If so, how much do you think temperatures are likely to increase by?
If based solely on CO2:
>worst case, we hit 800 PPM by the year 2100
>That doubles our current CO2
>Climate sensitivity is in full effect by 2300-2400
>Net increase in temperature is 1.65°F

if we kept doubling the CO2 past that (800 to 1600 to 3200) we'll see a net increase of 1.65°F every time, after all the effects pan out over centuries. Note, this is F, not C. And contemporary climate scientists are under the mistaken impression that we will see 3-4°C from just one doubling. They have no proof of this, and ignore proof to the contrary. They ignore a well-established climate model from the 1930s that has never been disproved (and has actually been confirmed, again, as recent as 2015).

well I read a journal article about polar bears in nunavut becoming a problem because they wander south from the tundra and look for food in human settlements (I don't have source bc it was years ago)
>they're not skinny
Maybe they're finding food in your garbage or stealing it

Polar bears are supposed to live out on the tundra mostly

only Black Bears Matter

Show me where the estimate is 1.65 F for every doubling? Current estimate based on models is 1.65 C (not F) for every doubling as an absolute minimum, and the evidence from palaeoclimate studies is 2.2-4.8 C for every doubling:

nature.com/articles/nature11574

(((they))) have been kicked out of just about every country they spoiled. (((they))) need to be kicked off the planet.

Somewhere a volcano erupts and renders all your man-made climate change and CO2 prevention nonsense absolutely irrelevant.

You are from Washington

Super curious about this. Our current model of Venus is that it's sublimation stopped cause a dramatic increase in CO2 from volcanoes. For those saying it's methane and not CO2, what's you answer to this?

(genuinely curious, i've never heard anyone claim methane to be the culprit for climate change)

>Venus
>96.5% CO2
>many other heavy components
>comparing it to 400 PPM on Earth
If our atmosphere was 96.5% CO2, the last thing we'd be worrying about would be the increase in temperature...

Besides that, I never said that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere, I said there are diminishing returns. Each doubling of PPM will increase the temperature by 1.65°F. And the math may hold out just fine when you extrapolate that all the way up to 96.5% (965000 PPM) and all the other factors)

I've been through the entire site. It's garbage.

(((they)) need to be kicked out of the gov, media, finance, hollyweird, etc. You got a new capital, now get the fuck out of my country

>They don't have retirement homes for polar bears.

OMG white people are the worst

Can't he move to the south close to a river and catch fish?
Why is he waiting to die at the same place?

>1963:

My heart pumps purple piss for you. Go eat a bowl of dicks, fuck bears, fuck seals, fuck dogs, and fuck you

>There is no ice core data older than that.
That's my point. But there are plant stomata fossils from millions of years ago, which are snapshots of CO2 levels. Yet they are ignored by contemporary climate science...

>And ignoring direct CO2 measurements from bubbles in the ice we can measure delta 18 O of the ice itself and of sediments
we can get decent resolution proxy data as far back as 170 million years from the oceans sediments and billions of years from some continental deposits
They are still, in effect, averages. They are not high-resolution, and can never be.

samefag.

Also, stop with the bullshit. Literally everybody who knows how humans influence the CO2-balance knows why you're wrong.

Idiots always say that "humans only account for 5-10% of the worlds CO2 output, the rest occurs naturally, so human influence can be discarded", which unfortunately is wrong.
Our planet is an ecoSYSTEM. It has grown balances over hundreds of millions of years. By adding to one side of the equations, we generate imbalances which our ecosystem is not able to handle. THIS is the danger.

Think of it like this: You're a tall man of 200lbs. Over the years, you lose a few lbs, gain a few lbs, nothing extraordinary. Then some fucker starts putting weights on you. 10lbs, 15lbs each year. You will be able to adapt for a few years, no question about it, but you will reach a point when your body can't handle any more. You will reduce your activity, thereby gaining more "natural" weight, which makes things even worse. At some point, you will be completely dysfunctional.

Same goes with our planet. It could balance some years of human influence on the CO2 output, but at some point shit hits the fan, and it's a so called cascading effect, which means that the imbalance we humans are responsible for hinders the planet to keep up its own dynamic system.

Just read a fucking book on it or even a well researched paper. It's not too hard to understand, unless you've got your head up your ass. And even if you do not understand it doesn't make it less of a reality.

>>''In my mind..''

Well there's your problem right there...

I don't wanna take your word for that but it's doesn't matter. What about feedbacks?

A bit of climate change is ok. A lot of good arable land becomes more viable in Russia they predict. So we’ll be ok.

Hi shill.
So, tell me, is buying a car irrelevant because it will eventually break down? Maybe even so much so that it's beyond repair? No? Well clearly the problem of transportation is worthy of an effort to solve that problem even if the solution to that problem isn't foolproof, now is isn't it?

Similarly, just because efforts to fix the problem of climate change could fail doesn't mean that should deter our efforts.

No they aren't, stomata density are considered proxy data
We know exactly how much warming a change in delta 18 O corresponds to but yeah you're right, the farther back we go the less resolution we have but that doesn't invalidate all the data

polarbearsinternational.org/research/research-qa/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing-in-fact-booming/


>One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=80226

Tell me again how man made CO2 volume is greater than 4 volcanoes erupting simultaneously. And that's on just one peninsula