Redpill, ACTUALLY Redpill me on climate change. Convince me Sup Forums, I'm sick of being uncertain

Redpill, ACTUALLY Redpill me on climate change. Convince me Sup Forums, I'm sick of being uncertain.

Other urls found in this thread:

nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/
esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/global_means.html
neo.jpl.nasa.gov/apophis/
science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/mass-extinction/
theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906
livescience.com/49040-gamma-ray-burst-mass-extinction.html
perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6
youtube.com/watch?v=Shg4SNV8Bdw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It's real.

NASA is liying to everyone. Its not real. They just want more money for they jewish families. If you check genealogy of NASA workers im sure you wwll find their jewish ancestry. They stupify everyone with chemtrails spreaded by airoplanes. Thats Why most people believe in climate change. But pol is too smart for that. Pol is always right. Right guys?

It's real.

And there's nothing you can do to stop it.

So, do we have any reason to distrust evidence coming from organisations like NASA?

Most of the information supporting climate change doesn't come from NASA.

The debate isn't whether it's real or not, the debate is whether it's caused by humans or it's natural.

try understanding what parts per MILLION means.
>400 parts CO2 per 1,000,000 of all parts of ALL air molecules
if you understand, you arent worried.

climate change =/= minuscule increase in global CO2 levels

Who said it equals that, you fat fuck?

Okay, put 1 part per million of cyanide in your water and drink it then

It's real but man's effect on it is minimal. The earth has been through many ice ages and the government, mainly globalist a hype it up as another way to tax and stick their hands in each country.

cyanide =/= CO2

in fact, your body produces CO2 through respiration... please help stop global warming/climate change by ceasing your own respiration, thank you.

>The debate isn't whether it's real or not, the debate is whether it's caused by humans or it's natural.

Pretty much this. The humans certainly do generate a huge amount of CO2 which has wes being deposited into earth for millions of years.
But how much it affects the climate on planetary scale is debatable, because there are many factors which are arguably much more significant than anything the humanity has ever done. For example, the motherfucking Sun.

>Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, new enemies must be identified. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

>The First Global Revolution- A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome

Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the Club of Rome describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.

The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects.

Some current members of the Club of Rome or its two siblings:

Al Gore, Javier Solana, Maurice Strong, Mikhail Gorbachev, David Rockefeller, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, George Soros, Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, Juan Carlos I, Prince Philippe of Belgium, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands

Climate is always changing. If mankind left tomorrow the climate would still always change.

CO2 is also responsible for some warming. This is a scientific fact. Every time you double the atmospheric co2 levels you get a 1F degree temperature rise. This is why sceintists have claimed we have experienced 1 degree of temperature climb in the last 100 years ish. The co2 levels have doubled since then.

You may be thinking, well so what, who cares about a degree increase? It's a good question. The earth has been much much warmer in the past. Try 5-10 degrees CENTIGRADE hotter than it is now. Also co2 levels about 10 fold what they are now. Life still survived. Climate change is real, Climate disasterism due to co2 is totally fabricated.

I hope you do know that if CO2 goes above 1% no matter of the remaining O2 you'll lose conscience and that above 3% it's lethal.

>highest historical year
>300,000
That's like 1 second in geological time.

CO2 is .004% of the atmosphere

It's junk science pushing an agenda of cap and trade transfer of wealth, as well as huge tax increases that would stifle everything.

Even the guy that ran the Weather Channel for years said it's garbage, and he was forced to resign and leave his company.

It's 0.04% not 0.004%.

And your point still makes no sense, faggot.

tbqh more CO2 just enriches plant life

Greenhouses artificially bump up their CO2 levels to 4 or 5 times atmospheric levels, and the plants love it, and grow 5 times faster.

You think we're going to raise CO2 levels by 10,000%?

To where is this wealth being transferred to?

>not understanding PPM
>comparing 0.04% to the historical 0.03% and warning about how we die when it reaches 3.00%
>what is climate change alarmism
>how do trees and chlorophyll work
>what is the carbon cycle
If you cannot read a chart or graph and make your own opinion on the data it presents... you dont get to have an opinion.

>ppm

The CO2 concentration above a grass field during daytime is half what it is at night.

Why? Because the plants are sucking it out of the air like starving men eating their first meal in 2 weeks.
More CO2 = faster plant growth
This means more animals per square kilometer, more biodiversity all around.

All the CO2 which we are liberating from the ground was originally in the air. We are simply releasing it back into the environment where it can once again be used productively in the Carbon cycle.

All the computer models about runaway warming is grant-chasing nonsense that considers positive feedbacks and ignores negative feedbacks

I know about this shit, ask me anything.

Climate change is real
Man made contribution to climate change is real

What the controversy is about is if this manmade contribution IS BIG ENOUGH TO MATTER.

The "97% of scientists agree" meme stems from grouping actual scientific work together with people who literally didn't even mention climate change in their papers.

>it exists
>we're responsible
>there is nothing we can do about it

Here's my issue with all this
>whine about how the US needs to tax the rich more for this
>try to impose massive regulation on US industry
>people in China need to wear face masks because the smog is so fucking bad. "This is how a sunrise would look without the permanent smog reducing visibility to nothing"
>waah waah fuck the US for polluting so much
Fuck you

Bolshies pushing climate alarmism as a means to fuel desire to erect a global government BTFO.

This is pretty much what I believe, I'm just apprehensive in that we've got much less plant life these days and it's decreasing

look into emissions trading.

this allowed monetisation of the distribution of rights to release various kinds of industrial waste which are genuinely harmful: heavy metals, PCBs, nitrogen and sulphur dioxides etc.

unlike these, though, carbon dioxide is released by domestic activity as well as commercial (cars, boilers, stoves...). Bringing CO2 into the market is therefore something legislators are strongly incentivised to do.

re. the actual AGW theory: the classical, linear model has temperature increase proportional to the log of the CO2 concentration. google 'log x graph' and you can see this levels out as it increases, so not really that scary.

in the 1960s, chaos theory was discovered as a direct result of the effort to build more sophisticated, nonlinear models of Earth's climate. this whole area of mathematics proves that any nontrivial nonlinear dynamic system is going to be incredibly sensitive to initial conditions, which makes them less than useful for predictive purposes. the models which AGW proponents like to cite all fall into this category, which can be verified by anyone who knows a bit of Matlab or Python. just tweak one of the parameters by a tiny amount and compare the output.

Moldbug is pretty good on this stuff

>Plant life is decreasing
Who told you that?

nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/

Also, most photosynthesis occurs in the ocean

It exists

The predictions are overextrapolations

The world will be just fine

We go through this every few decades or so since the industrial revolution. Google "Malthusian Catastrophe". tl;dr, some academic who couldn't make it in the real world came up with a theory on how overpopulation will destroy society. Thing is, his models were correct regarding the overpopulation, just the conclusions ridiculous.

ok. That won't kill you unless you drink about 100 litres without a piss

F-fug. The jews.

Thank you, user. I'm not not a faggot.

Gladly, that's not dangerous at all. You didn't even specify the amount of water.

>Also, most photosynthesis occurs in the ocean
This is a little known fact. To add to it, most oxygen comes from the ocean because most plants consume almost as much oxygen as they release during their own cellular respiration.

The raw stats, no reason to distrust.

The extrapolations, conclusions and suggestions, huge reason to take with a grain of salt

Mega banks selling the caps and trading them amongst various companies.

The mega elite would get richer so fast our heads will spin.

The severe tax increases would gut lower class, as well as the lower middle class people.

There's literally more than 3% coming out of your lungs CO2 every single time you exhale. You don't even know the difference between a 1 and a 2

Its real, its goanna be a really big problem in the future, but its not that big of a problem right now

Moreover, the free market will fix it. The problem liberals have with the free market fixing it is that it means underprivlidged people will be disproportionally affected.

So tax and spend bastards want to divert our wealth to help everyone in the world before its even a problem. Before we can even quantify the problem, these assholes want to earmark 1 to 2% of our GDP to fix it.

JUST FUCK MY ECONOMY UP

I believe the directer of NASA is, or at least was, a hard core global warming fanatic. He's linked to the Climategate scandal

When I was in college, there were advertisements all over the place for people to join climate studies classes and be a part of the green movement to save the earth. These people will not be objective scientists.

Grant money and internships in green projects were extremely easy to come by, most people who couldn't get good undergrad research settled for some wind or solar project

He means carbon MONOxide

Carbon DIoxide is not poisonous, but controbutes to our planet absorbing more heat from the sun than it should

don't forget the (((correction factors)))

esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/global_means.html

Hence why I said to take the conclusions et al with a grain of salt.

Scientists are a curious bunch, because they fall into the category of people who are smart enough to think critically in certain areas, but incapable of applying the same level of thought across all claims. Similar to leftists, except they're often simply unwillingly, rather than unable, to apply critical thought. Scientists differ in that they're generally not liars nor morons, but they're extremely vulnerable to being influenced by either.

Hence why I said he can't tell the difference between a one and a two

Does this mean it could end our society in a millennial's lifetime?

CO2 is good for plants.

>the default state of the earth is ice free
>we are currently in an ice age and have been for the last 2 million years
>the ice age we are in is caused by the location of the continents
>we will not exit this ice age until the himalayas crumble
>For the past ten thousand years we have been in an interglacial period of this ice age
>we are not now hotter than we have ever been in human history
>we are not now hotter than we have ever been in recorded human history
>during the Minoan warming we grew millet, a tropical crop, in Scandinavia
>during the Roman warming we grew olives on the Banks of the Rhine
>during the medieval warming Vikings traded with Inuit through the open north west passage
>there are Roman ruins beneath the retreating glaciers in the alps
>there are human tools beneath the melting ice in Yellowstone
>there are human settlements beneath the melting glaciers in Alaska
>climate change happens
>climate change exists
>climatology is a lolfield of science heavily influenced by grant money and political pressure.

Its real

But It doesn't really matter
It's gonna get hotter but colder as the same time, meaning bigger extremise.
Big whoop few degree higher temperature and raising waters , GET USED TO IT IT'S NOT GONNA BE THE END OF THE WORLD

The earth won't die , it's just gonna be more annyoing to live on it for us

Really CO2 greenhouse bullshit... THE EARTH TOOK AN ASTEROID IN ITS FACE and most likely a gama-ray burst and it's still here.

Hur hur hur muh carbon emisions. Fuck that MORE CARBON emisions , MORE DEVELOPMENT , BUILD MORE, so that we'll have the ability and tools to fix it.

Now... I guess is better to go back to the stone age because muh carbon emisions... we should worry more about how to prevent mass -extinctions then "hur hur hur our children will suffer because we put too much CO2 in the atmosphere"
neo.jpl.nasa.gov/apophis/

science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/mass-extinction/

theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906

livescience.com/49040-gamma-ray-burst-mass-extinction.html

Whats more important having the tehnology to stop this crap or hur hur hur muh carbon emisions...

Really should make you think....

I grew pretty close to my Astro professor, who I was doing research for. We were studying Quasar signals from some nebula.

He told me in confidence that he wanted to see 99% of humans wiped out
He said that he believed the greatest single social achievement in the world was sending girls to school. Because studies showed that when girls went to school they had fewer kids.

When I happened to mention to him that almost all of the world's population growth was occurring in Africa, he looked very surprised, he didn't even know that.
Yeah scientists are very good inside their field, but they have a certain personality type that makes them disconnected from other people, and thus totally ok with extreme solutions to social problems.

Like many of the people in the tech industry want to see a day when everybody gets cranial implants hooked up to the web. Fucking transhumanist scum

CO2 makes plants grow bigger. The world is more "green" that it was 100 years ago because of this.

OP's picture, you brain-dead cuck.

>You didn't even specify the amount of water.

Mongol genetics stroke again. He has indicated the concentration.

It's real, but it's natural, not because of humans.

> The world is more "green" that it was 100 years ago because of this.

Proof or you mother die this evening.

>>the default state of the earth is ice free
>>we are currently in an ice age and have been for the last 2 million years
I was under the impression that the default state is ice. Or does inter-glacial period mean something else?

Who ever said or implied that?

>oh I was wrong about the number but you're still wrong lelelelel

Absolute faggot.

So many blue pill responses in this thread. Can someone who is strongly red pilled on this topic please break it down for those of us who are uninformed. Is global warming real, why is there so much misinformation, and what does the future entail? So far the responses have been unconvincing to say the least

Interglacial means the glaciers have retreated to the polls.

Faggot, you were the one that made that implication. The chart shows CO2 emissions, it doesn't say anything else

Faggot, this board has IDs for a reason. Kys

We know climate change is a natural process. The question is how much effect mankind is contributing.

Some say zero, others say negligible, others say some, a lot, etc.

The correct answer is somewhere around zero to negligible.

We're about to go into a cooling phase. Human input into the climate amounts to a fart in a sports stadium. There are multiple other inputs which effect the earths climate, including the speed of the sun in the solar system.

...

You said the OP's pic suggested CO2 has something to do with global warming. It doesn't say anything of the sort. NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP.

My personal copypasta, no science denier has ever been able to answer it.
if that's true I will have to ask you if you can Please PLEASE. Provide me with evidence refuting the scientific consensus that
1. Humans are emmiting massive amounts of gases into the atmosphere
2 these gases such as co2 and methane reflect heat back into the atmosphere
3 the mean global temp is on a warming trend
4. This warming trend is directly correlated to and caused by the previously mentioned greenhouse gases
5. This warming trend is causing the climate to change.
This is an empirically known causal relationship, this is not debatable.
But I would be ecstatic if you could prove me, the scientific method, and peer review process wrong. As I spend a lot of time worrying about this.

Climate is changing. But not as the globalist elites are pushing it.

Look at the montage they put together for the DNC, complete with celebrity endorsements on "global warming" and why we need to "take action" immediately. The whole thing reeks of preying on feels to misguide the public.

>Aus
>asking on Sup Forums about climate change is
Some shitposters just want to watch the world burn.

Quote me saying that.

What is the trajectory for the next 50 years? Are large parts of the world going to get wiped out by rising sea levels or is that just a myth? Can we look forward to more mass migration of refugees into Europe? How should we prepare for the future?

Then what is causing climate change?
Certainly not solar cycles, certainly not naturally occurring ghg.

Carbon is .04% of the atmosphere, it contributes a minute warming effect.

All climate models that show global warming rely on the extra carbon somehow leading to extra water vapor, which is a much more significant greenhouse gas.

>climate change =/= minuscule increase in global CO2 levels

>Who said it equals that, you fat fuck?

YOU :

>OP's picture, you brain-dead cuck.

Why did you put global warming in parentheses. Do you deny that the mean global temp is on a warming trend?
10 bucks says you're one of those retards that thinks the media changed it from global warming to climate change.

data can be easily manipulated either way so therefor its neither conclusive, nor should anybody care about the outcome.

worry about banks instead

The fact you are trying to justify something to relieve your anxiety over something you feel shameful for, is the exact reason I will no prove to you that man made global marming is a meme.

Enjoy your being a cripple.

Is this true?

I thought water vapor was basically a reverse greenhouse gas and reflected sunlight back into space?

You know why Canada has so many lakes? Because at one time the entire landmass was crushed under a mile of ice. The reason the American midwest is so flat is because giant slow moving glaciers carved away all mountains and rock formations.

See pic related? This is half dome, a mountain in California. The rock face was carved away by a massive slow moving glacier. Look how tall the mountain is, the glacier was even taller.

During the dino days, CO2 levels were 5 times higher than today, and the world was a tropical paradise. The land was so productive, it could support massive creatures the size of a house

This
Fun fact: the amount of EM radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 and returned as heat is actually saturated, whilst that of water vapor is not.
In other words: Increasing the CO2 levels will not increase global temperature, decreasing the CO2 levels will require huge efforts for very little gain, H2 cars will exponentially increase global temperature.

>This is an empirically known causal relationship, this is not debatable

Saying "fact" doesn't make it true. There's debate from scientists all over the world. Here's one former government climatologist who takes issue with your bullshit statements.

perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6

I'm actively looking for evidence that says the contrary, just like everyone who studies the climate is.
There is none, apparently.

Forgot to attach pic, here you go

>what is the trajectory for the next 50 years?
Winter is coming.

Yes, but only to a certain point. The returns start diminishing notably after a point, after which additional CO2 doesn't help at all. Bigger, more efficient plants might of course evolve, that can use the additional CO2.

The thing is ecological regime change takes along time, and with the massive loss of biodiversity even longer. Society will crash and burn long before we have productive land.
Im more than familiar with glacial action, and I don't see any dinosaurs.
The only point I think you made effectively is higher atmospheric co2 concentrations cause the planet to be warmer.

Since I don't see this posted, massive CO2 emissions are also fucking bad because the oceans absorb carbon from the air but in the process they also become more acidic. And once that PH changes, shit begins to die out bigtime in the water esentially destroying the plantlife that also absorbs carbon in the ocean AND annihilating all food sources in the water.

The only thing we can hope for is dying in a race war before the planet is covered in never eneding incindery clouds.

>Sjws think global warming is going to lead to ecological disaster when it is just the next stage in process of evolution
>tfw global warming will actually allow humans to evolve into 100ft giants

Evolution will fix it. The biggest issue is the rising ocean levels that will make every single harbor and coastal city unusable, if the waters truly rise that much.

Most of the CO2 released into the environment will become trapped as biomass. Atmospheric CO2 levels will rise only slightly

Just as in a chemical reaction, when you dump more of a reactant into solution, you only get more precipitate

>that picture
>not realizing natural co2 emmisons are at equilibrium and anthropocentric emmisons/ destruction of carbon sinks are the only change occurring.
>news
>opinion
>electrical engineer is climate scientist
Not even going to bother clicking that link, weak shit.

To make you to think about the legitimacy of their claims so you can break the (((media))) conditioning. For normies "global warming" isn't just a theory, it's fact. They read it on the news, in science magazines, and plus it's getting hot, so it must be true.

Consider Assad's "barrel bombs". Through repetition, from various prominent figures, media linked this term with images of great pain and suffering. Here they desperately try to get the term to stick to him, so subconsciously the public will associate him with the suffering.
youtube.com/watch?v=Shg4SNV8Bdw
But Assad is clever, denying legitimacy of the phrase itself is the first step in subverting their subversion. The globe is certainly warming up, but the narrative the Left weaves is deceptive.

>highest historical CO2 level at 300 ppm
Nope. Prior to the Carboniferous Era, it was at 1500 - 1600 ppm.

is there a chart that shows man-made vs natural CO2 per year ?

...

What's there to redpill you on? Climate change is real but it's not man made. Why is this so hard to comprehend.

Can we then dismiss it as a hoax?

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.