What's Sup Forums opinion on climate change?
The vast majority of scientists agree that it is happening AND that its caused by Jewish owned (((fossil fuel industries))), livestock industries and other sources.
Can Sup Forums properly refute the science behind climate change?
P.S. IF CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL does Sup Forums realise that the amount of refugees from rising sea levels will be so huge that Merkel's fuck up will look like nothing in comparison.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
forbes.com
web.archive.org
twitter.com
fake
What's so fake about it?
Why would anyone make this up?
What does your body do to defend itself when some cells trying to mess shit up, overpopulate and take every resources for themselves?
Fever.
Money
>P.S. IF CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL does Sup Forums realise that the amount of refugees from rising sea levels will be so huge that Merkel's fuck up will look like nothing in comparison.
rip holland
cool I watched Kingsmen too you edgy teen
> get a literal asslode of rapefugees to Holland
> pot'em up
> destroy the dams
Climate change is real, but the question is whether it is man made or not.
and no it's not
As long as it inspires us to find new alternative energy sources then the end justifies the means. I don't think carbon tax is gonna do shit tbqh.
Also the argument is if it's man made or not, climate change is definitely real.
> does Sup Forums realise that the amount of refugees from rising sea levels will be so huge that Merkel's fuck up will look like nothing in comparison.
just kill them.
Nature is fractally paterned to maximize energy usage. The same patterns repeat at different levels of complexity and scale.
From a good friend who is a geologist.
>Is climate change happening?
Yes
>Is climate change caused by man?
About 30% of it is
>Can we do anything about it?
Not unless you're willing to wipe china, india, indonesia, and a select other countries off the map. for every step we make in going green they far outpace us in the pollution they create.
Care to elaborate? Have any sources for that?
What's the other 70%?
>Can Sup Forums properly refute the science behind climate change?
CO2 absorbs energy on set wavelengths. If the energy it absorbs on is totally absorbed or saturated then adding more CO2 can't absorb any more energy as it's all already absorbed.
The climate change proponents ignore this bit of physics, and suggest (wrongly) that the atmosphere will after absorbing energy emit energy on the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs on, and that by some means CO2 which is heavier than air will raise up to the upper atmosphere and be able to absorb more energy.
Clearly nonsense.
Yes some CO2 will get mixed up by means of air currents but not very much. And at no temperature that gas in the atmosphere will reach will it emit on the correct wavelengths.
We had about 1.1C/K of possible warming that adding more CO2 over 200ppm could cause. We hit that limit back in the 1990s. This is why we have had a static temperature for the last 19 years.
Simply put adding more CO2 can't cause any more warming.
CO2 was selected because it's the emitted from 95% of our energy production (electrical/transport). Energy is the largest sector of the world's economy and between Energy and Financial totals more than everything else combined.
If you wanted power the largest share of human activity (that is economic activity) is the best place to start, and CO2 comes from 95% of it.
Solar cycles, and the long term equilibrium of the earth's temperature. For the most part, we're right on schedule in terms of temperature. However, this is the first time that C02 has preceded temperature. Historically, C02 changes follow temperature change. That part is made made.
See pic related.
Global warming is a chinese hoax
>We had about 1.1C/K of possible warming that adding more CO2 over 200ppm could cause. We hit that limit back in the 1990s. This is why we have had a static temperature for the last 19 years.
>Simply put adding more CO2 can't cause any more warming.
But what about methane and other GHGs? Methane alone traps up to 100 times more heat than carbon dioxide over a 5-year period.
>CO2 absorbs energy on set wavelengths. If the energy it absorbs on is totally absorbed or saturated then adding more CO2 can't absorb any more energy as it's all already absorbed.
>The climate change proponents ignore this bit of physics, and suggest (wrongly) that the atmosphere will after absorbing energy emit energy on the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs on, and that by some means CO2 which is heavier than air will raise up to the upper atmosphere and be able to absorb more energy.
You have a source for this? Is this from an actual scientific journal?
if you believe in global warming you probably believe the planet is 6000 years old and a magic jew is controlling your soul
Not an argument
>he believes the earth is 4.6 billion years old
bens a dummy
neither is jewry but you'd buy it
>But what about methane and other GHGs? Methane alone traps up to 100 times more heat than carbon dioxide over a 5-year period.
Methane has a half life of 9.6 years. That's too fast to be a worry.
Second given that in both North America and Africa we no longer have herds of billions of graze animals our methane production is far lower than it was in the past. Lastly current methane can trap per part per million 100 times more. New methane not so much. Same issue as CO2 it has more room to absorb but the first half is easier to absorb than the next 5%.
As for other GHGs that's water vapor, sorta important for our whole ecosystem and is locked into a feed back cycle of more water vapor making more clouds that lower temperatures that lower evaporation that lowers water vapor... I'm less worried about water vapor than I am about trying to develop Africa and Asia with wind and solar.
>>The climate change proponents ignore this bit of physics, and suggest (wrongly) that the atmosphere will after absorbing energy emit energy on the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs on, and that by some means CO2 which is heavier than air will raise up to the upper atmosphere and be able to absorb more energy.
>You have a source for this? Is this from an actual scientific journal?
That's just physics. Scientific journals don't publish work that might cast global warming into doubt, they claim it's immoral.
who could be behind this post
A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)
Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
In 1988, a former Canadian Minister of the Environment told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France said: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
>solid mechanics PhD specializing in dynamics and vibrations reporting in
do you have any scientific references?
I would like to read some on it but I'm afraid that I'm biased from the beginning to believe that climate change is fake.
In the past we've had CO2 levels more than 10 times what we have now. The oceans didn't boil away then either. We may not fully understand how our planet controls its thermostat but its pretty damn clear that even with concerted purposeful efforts to destroy our planet we would be unsuccessful.
I'd recommend looking up richard lindzens work. He's published hundreds of papers that are worth reading if you're curious about climate change.
>it inspires us
No. The opinions of theoretical physicists and xenobiologists are irrelevant no matter the topic. So saying "most scientists agree" that people are killing Holy Gaia is disingenuous. "Science" isn't determined by consensus. You can easily google facts like this.
When a theory is debunked and its apologists resort to citing computer-modeled factors with no IRL analog, that's not Science. There's another word for it. No one disputes that Earth's climate changes, but Chicken Littles want us to to think that it didn't exist until @100yrs ago.
What "inspires" investment in Green Energy is the same spur to investment in any other industry: profit. We all hope that some day Green can pay for itself. But until that time arrives, please spare those of us who make-do with what we have your strident sanctimony.
Just going to point out that we knew lead was toxic hundreds of years ago. But in the early 1900s, they realized they could use it to improve various aspects of gasoline in combustion engines. So they started a massive campaign to convince people that lead was 100% safe. They pumped this shit out and polluted the entire world.
Then we found out it was in fact terribly toxic, particularly for the development of children. There's literally no safe lead level. This should have caused an immediate change in our use of this.
It didn't. And the oil industry fought back for decades. The oil industry eventually lost, and science and reason finally came back into the civilized world, but not before decades of damage were done.
The same fucking thing is happening now. We know there's a problem. It's blatantly obvious, even to the common man now. But the oil industry is paying their republicons to keep telling you everything's fine. And since republicans in this environment can never, ever, in any way let a liberal win any argument, this is how it'll be for another two decades at least.
By then, it'll probably be too late. All because we never fucking learn to listen to the smart people.
merci monsieur
first hit I get is skeptical science, those are the hippy globalists that want to take over the world with a neo-Malthusian narrative amirite? (maybe a bit exagerrated though)
If I'm not mistaken these are the people that came up with the 97% of climate scientists believe climate change is man made
>The same fucking thing is happening now. We know there's a problem. It's blatantly obvious, even to the common man now
No. That's false and I doubt even you are stupid enough to think it's true. Not only has every model failed to accurately predict temperature change but even the IPCC has admitted to not only NOT incorporate water vapor feedback but having the summary of their research modified by policy makers(not scientists). What you're complaining about is exactly what climate change proponents are doing.
I'm not denying that companies that profit from fossil fuels are actively working to not lose money but you have either not read what has been published or have a very elementary understanding of physics, chemistry, and spectroscopy.
Happy to oblige, the more that show an actual interest in actual science and not "science" produced by policy makers the better.
>skeptical science
Truly they make politifact appear non-biased.
I find it so very strange when climate scientists tell me that according to 'their models' the earth will heat even though their models are super non-linear and therefore will give very chaotic (= useless) output over a longer period of time.
>skeptical science
kek.
The 97% “study” was an IRL Australian shitpost.
From the skeptical science website, ran by the great Australian scientist John Cook:
>This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade
web.archive.org
Part of what's said about climate change is true, but mostly not. Yes, carbon dioxide raises average temperature. But it scales logarithmically, so doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere drives a constant increase in temperature (how much varies based on the model from 1 to 5 degrees, but empirical data suggests it is one of the low-ball estimates.) Also, the idea of violent storms is essentially BS. And sea-levels would raise so slowly that it would not be disastrous in any sense.
More importantly, Kyoto and Paris couldn't possibly solve it anyway (even if every single country signed on), and clearly have ulterior motives.
In summary, climatologists aren't all that bad, but what is said politically about climate change is 98% certified grade A BS.
in over a century the climate has changed by less than a degree, and people that pretend to know why are full of shit