Is Global Warming destroying our planet?

Is Global Warming destroying our planet?

Other urls found in this thread:

imdb.com/title/tt3302820/
imdb.com/title/tt1579361/
neweconomics.org/21-hours/
google.pl/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc&ved=0ahUKEwj3x8Sc5InQAhWJiywKHcvYDJIQ3ywIHDAA&usg=AFQjCNGwPZOlIPPGc6CeuU33FlK12NvDRw&sig2=DoZNfdI3nWVOnpM6EmRpmw
youtube.com/watch?v=pRenGy0cg5s
phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html
youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU\
youtube.com/watch?v=Owm25OHGglk
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

no it isn't

Unproven bullshit for academia fags to write books for and print money.

The God Emperor says no.

perhaps, 2bh i care more environment and animals which they are indeed being destroyed
what do we do /pol /?

yes but I don't care enough to do anything about it

Polar bears are degenerates who deserve death. They come to my town and attack then eat people all the time.

no shit sherlock

Confirmed subhuman

I guess Greece couldn't afford funding for education after all those debts

Donald Trump is too busy fucking supermodels to know anything about science.

yes... but egghead faggots are too scared to tell inbred faggots that RED MEAT (cows > methane) is the real problem, so they're instead just cashing in on CO2 scapegoating before they fuck off to Mars and leave the bottom-feeders tribesplebes here to fight about "muh race" and "muh god"

>red suppositories
imdb.com/title/tt3302820/
imdb.com/title/tt1579361/

Who keeps making these shit global warming threads?

At first I suspected Dicaprio. But I don't think he has time to shit post between banging models and snorting coke on his fossil fuel guzzling yacht.

>Donald Trump is too busy fucking supermodels to know anything about science.
2 Vietnamese Dong have been deposited into your anus, CRT faggot
>/copy-paste

no. it's actually good.

our planet is going back to normal

we can't do much


neweconomics.org/21-hours/

also fuck the polar bears meme

Global warming will make the northern hemisphere bearable
the only reason Africans haven't overrun your half of the world is that it's too cold for us.
We've waited it out, and now with O-zone depletion, and carbon monoxide polluted waters, well you've basically terraformed it for us.

No. Its a lie. You are a moron if you fall for their tricks

google.pl/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc&ved=0ahUKEwj3x8Sc5InQAhWJiywKHcvYDJIQ3ywIHDAA&usg=AFQjCNGwPZOlIPPGc6CeuU33FlK12NvDRw&sig2=DoZNfdI3nWVOnpM6EmRpmw

Establishment views on climate change are anti-scientific.

>21-hour working week
well, being a tradie, I barely have to do that in a month... so, at least I'm not making much of carbon footprint

Any factual evidence that proves against global warming?

jesus christ what a meme

the planet doesn't care what happens to us

Its a meme u dip

No, the Jews are.

Humans effect the environment, but man made climate change is played up to apocalyptic levels to sway the public to allow the elites control of the world and it's populus

Look up Greenland ice cores also

It's destroying the biosphere.

Changing the planet? Sure.

Destroying the planet? No, lol.

The planet's always gonna be here, it's just making it difficult for us to continue living the way we do. On the bright side, it's gonna kill a lot of niggers and other third worlders, unless we finally figure out how to filter ocean water so that we can drink it without going bankrupt.

wtf i hate global warming now

>ethanol

So..... we can have dirt cheap booze? The future is bright.

The planet has been hotter, if you are trying to suggest it hasn't.

>implying you won't fall to the level of third-worlder

No. And laughably so.

Carbon is essential to the human environment. It can be turned into diamonds which are out course a girl's best friend. Girls rule. Women are funny. This is his we're able to function as a society. Otherwise we'd due out in probably a few decades or so.

sure, the planet will heat and cool and move around like it has been doing for millions of years and will continue to do for millions more bringing with it all the catastrophic weather and various uninhabitable climates you should expect

Normally Sup Forums is good at finding out coincidences, but apparently this is too coincidental?

Getting a bit warmer isnt going to destroy a 5.972 × 10^24 kg rock.
But it fucks up nature and we should try to prevent it from getting worse.

Fuel for vehicles

Where are you going to retire Sup Forums?

...

Ethanol burns pretty well.
We can use it in combustion engines for cars.

only our photoshop skills

...

This is latest study for comparison

this
it comes and goes after the warming is done there will probably be another ice age

Quick! Someone call that record sea ice poster.

It's not killing our planet but making our environment inhospitable for many living organism including us. You should take all the climate change deniers with grain of salt as many of them are victims of the merchants of doubt and too stupid to do any real research on the backgrounds of these sites "debunking" climate change.

Merchants of Doubt is excellent documentary and book about this which is definitely worth a watch.
youtube.com/watch?v=pRenGy0cg5s

...

>al gore

kekolino

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."

Maybe, but can we collecitvely do something to stop this, Yes. Is this going to happen realistically ? No. We are fucked one way or the other. So save yourself homeboy and vote Trump.

sauce? this looks really interesting and spoopy

>RED MEAT (cows > methane)

Bullshit. Methane is a greenhouse gas, and stronger than co2. But methan is also far less common in the atmosphere, something like 3ppm to co2s 400ppm. Methane is also chemically short-lived. It actually becomes co2 in the atmosphere after about 20 years.

So sure. It is a real issue. But if CO2 was tackled properly, we won't have to give up meat.

Not a meme at all. Google 'davos 1 billion refugees'

While you're kinda right, so is the Russian The world will be two tier but you and I aren't in the top one. Not by a long shot.

Does this demonstrate that climate change is caused by human activity and not by natural process?

What are people really afraid of? That global warming isn't man made and that we'll stop polluting and giving ourselves fucking cancer for no reason?

Yes.
Next question.

You know what would clear up my doubt? Obummer or some other spokesman saying "man is the primary contributor to global warming."

They never say shit like this, because they know its a lie, they just say "oh yeah, man is A contributing factor." Well no shit.

The other reason I don't believe in this shit is because these guys never propose actual solutions. They just propose shit like "well, this would reduce carbon emission growth by 1% over a 20 year timeline," while flying around in their private jets. They need a strategy to return billions to the amish tech level, not elitist nonsense.

But meat does require more ressources and energy to produce than vegetables and fruit.
And its not too healthy to eat huhe ammounts of meat.
People should eat less, but higher quality, organic meat.
Healthier, better for the envrionment and good meat tastes far better than cheap meat.

>Production increases as does waste

Is this meant to be revelationary?

>CO2 tackled properly

Max forcing for doubling of preindustrial CO2 levels is +1.2C.

Actual forcing will be much less due to CO2 / H2O IR band overlap.

Doubling again (4x preindustrial) would be 1/10th that.

The only proper way to "tackle" CO2 is to sit back and do nothing because it's not a threat.

>he thinks CO2 is a pollutant that causes cancer

leaf education

KYS

No but you are

>stop polluting

Good one.

People are "afraid" of people engaging in massive crony capitalization and subsidies into shit that is just as polluting and just as devastating to the environment, all in the name of crackpot science.

So this whole post boils down to 'If tehre is no confirmed h2o feedback there is nothing to worry about'?

Here.

>New study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier

phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html

>A new study from scientists at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and colleagues confirms rising levels of water vapor in the upper troposphere – a key amplifier of global warming – will intensify climate change impacts over the next decades. The new study is the first to show that increased water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are a direct result of human activities.

>Doubling again (4x preindustrial) would be 1/10th that.

Got a source on this bit? the 1.2 you speak of (1.4 other places) is the direct forcing of co2 alone no?

>So this whole post boils down to 'If tehre is no confirmed h2o feedback there is nothing to worry about'?

No. It boils down to this: the models are ALL trending way too high because there is no H2O feedback.

>muh peer reviewed study!

I can cite papers from the 1990's that predicted the same. Only one problem: temperature rise since then has been consistent with CO2 acting alone.

Observation trumps theory. There is no positive H2O feedback.

The IPCC themselves. Actually read one of their reports some time.

AGW theory hangs on a positive water vapor feedback.

Yes, there is a high correlation between planet surface climate and planet core. It's like the relationship between the Gungans and the Naboo.
The Trade Federation is Global Warming and it's invading and going to make the surface Naboo sign the peace treaty and it will affect the planet core Gungans. It's simple really.

>I can cite papers from the 1990's that predicted the same. Only one problem: temperature rise since then has been consistent with CO2 acting alone.

So you do accept that co2 causes warming. How much of the 1.3 C predicted from a doubling of co2 have we had so far?

So... Nothing would really change than? Rich would keep getting richer and they'd find new ways to pollute...
Again, what are you really afraid of with change here? Change itself isn't a bad thing.

>Doubling again (4x preindustrial) would be 1/10th that.

Where specifically is this part mentioned?

Sorry, didn't answer the second part: +1.2C is the max forcing for a doubling of preindustrial CO2.

Note I said max, not actual. Actual is impossible to predict because of the IR band overlap with H2O, and H2O's presence in the atmosphere is constantly changing and chaotic (i.e. weather).

At the extremes: Chile's Atacama Desert would likely see +1.2C from CO2 over most of the year. The Brazilian rain forest almost never would.

The planet's been way warmer

That picture was taken during the arctic summer. The polar bear swam there because that's where the fish and seal are. POLAR BEARS CAN FUCKING SWIM.

>destroying our planet?

Destroying the planet? No. The planet has been much hotter than it is now, and it came back fine. The Earth warming—whether the cause is us or from something else—probably won't be too good for humanity, though.

No, but it's affecting it.

CO2 emissions have peaked anyways. It's not going to get any worse.

To bad its all a fabrication to impose a carbon tax on you.

youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU\
youtube.com/watch?v=Owm25OHGglk

>So... Nothing would really change than?

People committing fraud and scaremongering on a massive scale to enrich themselves while making the people they're leeching off of feel like parasites isn't "nothing."

>Again, what are you really afraid of with change here? Change itself isn't a bad thing.

Yes genius, someone robbing you at gunpoint is "change," that doesn't mean you should go along with it.

But mIR has a different absorption spectrum. So if you're taking h2o to be an active GHG in this situation (so as to diminish the effects of co2 alone), then why won't the additional h2o mentioned in the article I posted above start its own forcing over and above co2?

Still looking for the bit about 'a second doubling over pre-industrial levels would lead to 1/10th of that'

>Confirmed subhuman

Explain how the planet could be destroyed by global warming.

No. Humans are destroying our planet.

The wrong kind of humans anyway. It doesn't matter. Hard times breed strong people. We'll survive, and be better for it, no matter what horse shit happens.

>To bad its all a fabrication to impose a carbon tax on you.

Of course it is.

Note the only person ITT to offer any kind of refutation to the idea of AGW is this guy and he plays down the significance, doesn't just dismiss it all as horseshit. Cause surely if you were going to do that you'd have some compelling evidence?

Ecoscience. Written about 40 years ago by Obama's science advisor.

>CO2 emissions have peaked anyways. It's not going to get any worse.

That's not how it works. As long as we're putting out more than the planet is capable of dealing with it will lead to accumulation in the atmosphere and seas.

>Is Global Warming destroying our planet?
I think it is. But I think it's a natural process thta's just been sped up for the first time in how many cycles it's had, by human pollution. These things go around in cycles. Your basement was probably a desert then a forest then a desert then a forest over and over before your mom laid bricks on it.

>How much of the 1.3 C predicted from a doubling of co2 have we had so far?

1.2C

The 20th century saw an 0.6C increase. IPCC attributed only half of that to CO2, the other half to nature.

It's common for people to quote the rise since consistent thermometer records began (late 1800's / 0.8C) but the 0.2C difference is almost certainly nature.

>But mIR has a different absorption spectrum.

Dunno what the fuck I meant here.

*h2o has a different absorption spectrum than co2

is what I meant to say.

...

Who gives a shit?

I'll be long dead by the time it actually happens

The planet doesn't get destroyed.

WE get destroyed. The planet doesn't give a shit.

.6 was the figure I had in mind too. A total rise of .8 or so over pre-industrial with .2 of that natural. So this means we've had about half the warming that can be directly caused by co2 alone, assuming that all the .6 was co2 and none was h20.

This is what our God Emperor has to say about it.

And yet we're the only species that ever evolved the ingenuity and drive to make more of ourselves beyond what our environment told us we can and can't do.
Technically we should be the one species that survives through to the end. Why should that cockroach's species outlive us when all it does is rifle through trash and didn't develop the ability to build a bridge or cure disases for example?

i don't fucking know

but I do know that bear is shopped in

Yes and it's mankind's fault. Big oil has a firm grip on our congress and they fund massive disinfo campaigns in our media, paying a handful of "scientists" to spout utterly nonsensical bullshit. This is why you have bluepilled fags here still denying climate change is real; they've been duped so goddamn hard and American education failed them. By the time Americans realize shit just ain't right it will be way too late. The US, China, and other major players need to stop sticking their heads in the sand. Planet Earth is taken for granted. Overpopulation and shortsighted greed will be our downfall.

>But mIR has a different absorption spectrum.

Again, CO2 and H2O overlap. Not completely, but enough to matter.

>So if you're taking h2o to be an active GHG in this situation (so as to diminish the effects of co2 alone), then why won't the additional h2o mentioned in the article I posted above start its own forcing over and above co2?

CO2 is well mixed and stable in the atmosphere. H2O is not. H2O forms clouds, rains out, snows out, etc. So higher H2O might have a positive forcing in one area and a negative in another. And that can change season to season, day to day, even hour to hour.

>Still looking for the bit about 'a second doubling over pre-industrial levels would lead to 1/10th of that'

Without any confounding factors going from 560ppm to 1120ppm could be no more than 1/2 of the forcing from 280ppm->560ppm. (Just think about it. If it helps, think of ND filters on a camera lens.)

But there would be other factors at play to mitigate it further.

And no, I do not remember off hand year/page#. You're going to have to research yourself if you're really interested.

Because sophistication/complexity isn't inclusive to suitability. Our sophistication allowed us to expand and propagate in our current environment but if the environment changes than that sophistication can turn into a weakness. Extremophiles and cockroaches simplicity would allow them to survive beyond us if the environment radically changes.

Pretty much this