Global Warming

Is it real, or is it a natural circumstance of the earth's changing climate?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0MkTISjmJXM
politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-bossie-citizens-united-227662
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Both?

Man made acceleration of the natural cycle. If we had more forest it probably would have had no effect on the weather. The ozone hole over the pole is entirely our fault though.

Its real and man-made.

The Right is motivated to deny it by greed and Christian delusion.

The Left wants to exploit it to advance various unrelated Marxist causes.

I think everyone can agree that regardless of what the cause is, we need to slow it down so we're not completely hosed in the near future. I don't want any nignogs chimping out because Costco ran out of fried chicken or something.

Where can I get educated on this issue from an un-biased source?

Nevermind, I just read this on Wikipedia:

>The warming that is evident in the instrumental temperature record is consistent with a wide range of observations, as documented by many independent scientific groups.[39] Examples include sea level rise,[40] widespread melting of snow and land ice,[41] increased heat content of the oceans,[39] increased humidity,[39] and the earlier timing of spring events,[42] e.g., the flowering of plants.[43] The probability that these changes could have occurred by chance is virtually zero.[39]

/thread

DAILY REMINDER

* A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C.

* The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming.

* The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate.

* Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 17 years. They are all trending too high.

* In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.

* There is no data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.

* If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about.

* The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever."

Climate change is real in that the earth's climate is not static.

In terms of human influence on it though, it is at best massively overblown.

What makes you think we can? Think of it this way. We are hundreds of years at least away from being able to terraform a planet. What makes you think we therefore have the ability to do similar here?

We don't even fully understand how it all works.

Good luck with that. It's all very political at the moment. Your best bet is to read the arguments from both sides (there do exist academic level augments from both camps - don't buy the settled science meme) and decide between them.

youtube.com/watch?v=0MkTISjmJXM

Does Donald Trump believe it?
No.
So shouldn't you.

>The ozone hole
biggest meme of the 90's, didn't know someone was still into that
ok, i'll bite why would an ozone hole be a bad thing?

radiation

>when russian education fails you

Of course its real, doesn't mean we have to do anything about it though.

Unless you live in a shithole about to be flooded.

It's very real. Co2 emissions have surpassed the 400 ppm mark. This is a direct cause of human use of coal and other fossil fuels. I don't understand people who believe it isn't happening.

radiation from ozone?
im better educated than you bro

>Co2 emissions have surpassed the 400 ppm mark

Meaning what exactly? That's about as meaningful as "You've painted half of your house red. Now the world is going to end".

Radiation and UV rays from the sun. The ozone hole allows more UV rays to penetrate the atmosphere, which is bad

Don't know. Once it got political I find myself unable to trust sources.

I find it hard to believe we aren't affecting the environment. I am just unsure of the effects.

Polar bears swim to ice floats so they can catch seals, they always have. This image is pure propaganda.

>radiation from ozone?
Ozone is radiation shield from sun rays

It's likely real, but I'm not changing my lifestyle to stop it

we will eventually have clean energy affordable enough to the point where it is more profitable to use that instead of fossil fuels and the energy giants will move on to that

no need to ree over coal and oil like leftists want to

That's not the smoking gun. What is is the fact that the polar bear population is booming. Larger than has ever been recorded.

No person of any political affiliation can't deny climate change without being totally insane. The scientific evidence is overwhelming, if you like it or not. We are frogs in a pot of water that slowly starts to boil.

And for the all idiots out there that say that climate change is only about rising temperatures: it's not without a reason that it is called climate CHANGE. Temperatures and weather phenomena will be more and more extreme and this is valid for both directions of the temperature scale. So also expect some serious blizzards in the next years.

>black pill
even if global warming driven by CO2 were correct, world powers would not stop it and environmentalists are too beta to revolt

its real, but over-exaggerated to the point where its not taken seriously anymore.

Arguably one of the most successful false flag campaigns of the 90s and 80s

ozone isn't some kind of a magic gas, you dense burger, air holdes radiation and UV rays too
in fact, since there is MUCH more air than ozone in the atmosphere that tiny little admixture of ozone in the higher atmosphere makes NO FREAKING IMPACT WHAT SO EVER
in fact the existance of ozone in the atmosphere is mere a result of solar rays hitting oxygen, and making it turn into ozone (which is a very unstable gas) and the reason why there are "ozone holes" on poles is due to the lack of sunlight during polar nights

If the black pill is nihilism, that's inaccurate.

What you should be saying is that reality is subjective and therefore climate change is a function of your subconscious or personal universal programme.

In which case, see a shrink or deal with "god's'" plan for you.

This tbqh famalam

I'm sure mankind of altering the climate, but I think the extent to which we are is way overblown.

You need look no further than climate predictions from 10-20 years ago to realize this. The ice caps were supposed to be gone and the coasts underwater by now according to climate scientists a few decades ago. These guys have been wrong so many times, it's obvious there's still a lot we do not know about Earth and its climate.

Ok, but even if their predictions were wrong, do you really think mankind spreading all over the global will have POSITIVE effects on the climate? Clearing forests wherever we can? More and more people all over the world driving cars and wanting to have an energy-intensive living standard like us?

Get a STEM degree and learn to interpret scientific papers. One of the biggest problems with the public's view on climate change and the scientist's trying to give us accurate information is that the researchers have a hard time conveying to the public accurately what's going on.

I'd just like to point one thing out in case someone might bring it up. In the 80s when supposedly scientists were predicting global cooling, only about 25% of them were making that sort of prediction; the others were predicting warming. Time magazine as well as many other notable publications ran huge stories about how scientists were predicting cooling. The public just thinks "wow. neat. look at what these scientists are doing!", then when the media portrays a different view, which in this example is the consensus (of warming) the public loses their trust and becomes even more open to bullshit like the oil industry paying lobbyists to make laws and paint the environmentalists as people who want to destroy the economy, jobs, other things people find important.

I'm just saying, don't buy into the doom and gloom and imminent destruction.

Also a fun fact, CO2 emissions in the US are at their lowest levels in decades. And it's not due to scams like cap and trade, but rather hydraulic fracturing (you know, that thing that liberals and climate scientists would have probably banned years ago if they had their way) and the natural gas boom it created, resulting in more utilities switching their power plants from coal fired to cheaper and cleaner burning natural gas.

I'm not worried. Any kinds of seriously negative effects from man-made climate change are still a LONG ways away, and long before then we'll have switched to cleaner technologies because they'll have actually become more economical.

Trump tricked everyone here.

This is trump's true position on citizens united, literally embracing people from citizens united into his campaign:
politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-bossie-citizens-united-227662

Meanwhile, Hillary promised at the very start of the third debate that she will fight citizens united to get money out of politics.

Hillary is the voice of the people. Trump is the voice of his elite billionaire friends.

Reminder that citizens united is a big reason why corporate money has so much power on modern US politics......

>have clean nuclear energy
>can't use it because liberals
>liberals want more green energy
>can't because oil is too profitable
Good luck with that shit.

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
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 behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“
– Club of Rome, "The Limits to Growth"

Anthropomorphic global warming is marxist propaganda.

> negative effects from man-made climate change are still a LONG ways away,

Problem is, that whenever a certain tipping point of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere is reached, there is no turning back and the effects will become irreversible.

And do you really think that fracking is carried out by fairies or something? Fracking is extremly energy-intensive and consumes and good amount of that energy that it is supposed to deliver.

>Also a fun fact, CO2 emissions in the US are at their lowest levels in decades.

This doesn't matter because the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere don't disappear once they are up there. So every emission will only add up the amount that is already existing.

Since when is nuclear energy clean? Ever heard of Harrisburg, Sellafield, Tschernobly or Fukushima?

Nuclear energy is clean when everything is going the right way, but when it fucks up it can fuck up real bad.

Fossil fuels are 'dirty' while running normally.

I'll take fission plants. over fossil fuel plants any day of the week.

Methane from the massive amounts of meat people are eating nowadays is 5x more damaging to the ozone than CO2 being exhausted from engines. If every body ate slightly less meat, we would make much more progress than carpooling etc. Also, global warming is current on the warming part of the sinosoidal temperature equilibrium. pic related

Yeah, but maybe your graph should more look like A*sin(w*t) with increasing A over time...