Discuss

Discuss

Other urls found in this thread:

vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/23/15028480/roadmap-paris-climate-goals
youtube.com/watch?v=47bNzLj5E_Q
giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I'm not gonna say humans haven't had an effect on the climate or that we shouldn't try to do something about it, but the paris agreement is a fucking scam. The only concrete part about it is paying TRILLIONS to "developing countries". The rest is just empty speech and promises that will never be met.

vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/23/15028480/roadmap-paris-climate-goals

youtube.com/watch?v=47bNzLj5E_Q

Politicians love it because everyone roots for the guy trying to "save the planet". In practice the agreement does nothing and costs a shit ton. But if you criticize it you hate nature.

Agree 100%. Great post.

why don't we just suck the CO2 out of the air and blow it out into space?

>we have accurate temperature measurements from thousands of years ago

Because plants. CO2 isn't the worst greenhouse gas anyway

>we have accurate temperature measurements from thousands of years ago
We do, Einstein.

how did you get them? Time machine perhaps?

Climate Change shouldn't be something that's politicized. It's literally proven science. Half of burgerstan is just pants-on-head retarded.

giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

Educate yourself you stupid fucking retard

>It's literally proven science
>100% based on computer models that are TOTALLY RIGHT THIS TIME GUYS
>proven
>science
pick zero

>climate change shouldn't be politicized, so join this treaty that imposes limitations on you and makes you pay other countries

>1005 based on computer models
Where did you get that from? Computer models predict how it will look in the future. We know what's happening today not because of models but because of empirical observations.

>haha you're a retard
>what he posted doesn't explain how they know the temperature
>he thinks carbonates have a narrow temperature distribution for precipitation
>he doesn't know limestones can form in water in temperatures as low as 5C
>he thinks the presence of limestone proves global warming
Top lel m8

>What's happening today
What is happening today is literally indicative of absolutely nothing other than the Earth's natural non-manmade climate changes. Scientists that say otherwise are cherrypicking data and relying on computer simulations to predict where we're heading. It's all rubbish.

Personally I look forward to the warmer weather

I'm not American. The question isn't whether climate change is real. Everyone knows it's real, to prove it you only have to look at average temperatures. However the question is not whether the climate is changing, but rather is it changing because of human pollution. That has not been proven and there's very little data supporting the idea. I personally believe that our co2 emissions do have an impact, and also that we should lessen polution regardless even if it's not the cause of climate change but I also recognize that very little science is actually backing up that claim.

And if we talk about the paris agreement specifically it's neither of those things because the paris agreement is white guilt crap that only rides on the coat tails of climate change. I am conserned about pollution but the paris agreement is not the right way to combat it.

Actually, if you've read any scientific papers about this you would realize that you're completely wrong. But I guess they are too hard to understand for a random uneducated American.

Did you even read that?

>The carbonate, originally dissolved in the oceans, contains oxygen, whose atoms exist in two naturally-occurring stable isotopes, 18O and 16O. The ratio of these two isotopes tells us about past temperatures. When the carbonate solidifies to form a shell, the isotopic ratio in the oxygen (written as δ18O) varies slightly depending on the temperature of the surrounding water. The change is only a tiny 0.2 parts per million decrease for each degree of temperature increase. Nevertheless, this is sufficient for us to be able to estimate the temperature of the water in which the forams lived millions of years ago. From this, we can see that temperatures in the Arctic Ocean were about 10-15°C warmer at the time of the dinosaurs than they are today!

There is a lot of proof, but you just don't want to look for it. And like I said, scientific papers are often too hard to understand for laymen.

>And if we talk about the paris agreement specifically it's neither of those things because the paris agreement is white guilt crap
And you know this from right-wing videos on Youtube? Truly a great source.

Yeah but when 70% of the crops die out and your children will have to protect themselves from the lower class with future-plasma rifles trying to steal their can of beans, then that 2 degree increase becomes a bigger deal.

Where were you when Sup Forums got btfo by reddit?

Nice scare tactics and fan fiction of shit that will never happen

*stands up and begins the slow clap*

>From this, we can see that temperatures in the Arctic Ocean were about 10-15°C warmer at the time of the dinosaurs than they are today!
This means nothing.

literally first google search for GISP2 ice core has an article disputing the graph.

For a start its begins -95 years from 2000, but apparently its likely the temps are from nearer the mid 1850s.

Linked is another graph which suggests current temps in 2009 were higher, using more recent data from another core drilling site added onto the original graph.

>And you know this from right-wing videos on Youtube? Truly a great source.
I don't know why you're trying to avert the issue. Have you actually read what the paris agreement contains? The only concrete part about it is paying money to "developing nations" because they "aren't guilty of pollution like us". I'm paraphrasing obviously but that is the gist of it. As far as combatting climate change goes the agreement doesn't have a single practical restriction or quota or any type of concrete measure how to fight pollution. That's why the US president was able to resign from it, it's not binding so the congress doesn't need to vote on it.

I'm sure the people behind it have good intentions but the actual agreement is just an idealistic statement with a huge price tag. By signing it nations "vow to fight climate change" but how they'll do it is not specified. The only specifications are the "2 celsius" number which is absurd and will never happen and the payments to developing nations. The agreement does nothing.

>scientific data wrong yet again
Gee, color me surprised. And I'm supposed to take their word on climate change when the scientists can't even get their story straight and come to a consensus on ice temperature?

Yeah and I hope you know that assumptions like that work on short times scales but going back millions of years adds a large enough statistical variation that it's not appropriate to claim such precision.

Look m8, I'm a geologist and I don't doubt climate change at all. I don't even doubt its anthropogenic. I did work with delta 16/18 oxygen ratio in grad school in aquifers to verify oil well casing integrity. The precision Schmidt refers to, .2 ppm is fine and dandy on short time scales like 100 years. It's doesn't translate over millions.

We can seen the same problem with rates of erosion. I can claim that higher temps lead to higher erosion, which is a half truth. Then I could claim to know the rate of erosion for an area, say .2 meters a year. I can say .2 meters a year now because I can measure it now. This could even be verified over some amount of human time like fifty years. Say over fifty years, it remains somewhat constant. It would be expected then that after fifty years, the ground level would have dropped 10m (.2 m/yr * 50 yr). Now the issue with that is it assumes no deposition. So say after fifty years you go back and the ground isn't even, some places it's 10m lower and some places it's 5m lower because deposition occurred. that can and does happen just over fifty years. Now extrapolate back a million or two. See, once you go past the actual observational age of humans it's not appropriate to claim such precision.

In my job, I can't claim that kind of precision when I have well logs that are over 100 years old because their equipment wasn't sensitive enough or calibration records are spotty etc etc. so if such precision is difficult to achieve just going back 100 years, it's laughable to expect the same level going back millions to a pre-observation time span.

>I'm paraphrasing obviously but that is the gist of it.
>The only concrete part about it is paying TRILLIONS to "developing countries".
I would prefer a direct quote.

>I'm a geologist
Great, it doesn't mean anything. You know very little about climatology or atmospheric physics. Maybe you should ask your friends about this? Or at least read IPCC report.

Why the fuck are these nerds on my frogposting board?

i love this tv show

The main part of the agreement is that every developed, industrial nation agree to reduce their emissions by 36% within the next 10 years. Surely that's worth doing.

Also, we see evidence of man-made climate change everywhere. The discussion is no longer about whether it's happening but about what global approaches we can take to curtail its effects. Trump and the US can't afford to be isolationist about this. It will affect everyone on the planet, especially America.

You can google it yourself if you're actually interested in the subject rather than interested in "winning" an argument on an anime image board. The information is publicly available, that's how I learned about it.

This is in no way Sup Forums related. back to Sup Forums with this crap.

>Trump and the US can't afford to be isolationist about this. It will affect everyone on the planet, especially America.
True. But "this" is pollution or climate change, not the paris agreement. Being against the paris agreement doesn't mean you hate nature and want to destroy it.

Why is china a "developing nation" in the paris agreement? Why does China not have to pay a single dime? Why does China actually RECEIVE money from the paris agreement? Of course it's easy being a part of an agreement when you're not the one paying the bills. Like I said previously I'm not American but I for one am fucking furious my politicians bought into this scam and that from every paycheck I have to pay for some wind mills in China that do nothing.

The worst part about it is that we have already invented a solution to everything the agreement tries to combat. It's called nuclear power.

Shouldn't you have read the agreement yourself if you're arguing in favor of it?