Climate Change

What does Sup Forums think about climate change? Is it just a meme?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=vTiH6Itu_aQ
xkcd.com/1732/
inquisitr.com/3262309/missing-sunspots-may-trigger-mini-ice-age-on-earth-blank-sun-means-winter-is-coming/
nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Bolin
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

No. It is real.

Climate change is real.

It is fueled by solar activity.

Sup Forums and eccentric russian professors arent the only ones that think something is going on.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=vTiH6Itu_aQ

Its real, its just not man made. It's used as a fucking scare tactic right out of 1984. remember when it was global warming? or was it a war with east asia?

Apparently, that image is proof of an ice wall at the edges of flat earth! Kek

I dont believe it's as big of a problem as its made out to be.

There's sufficient evidence from both sides of the argument entailing whether human impact is argument significant factor or not.

Personally im not convinced that we have reached the "point of no return" of climate change" but I do believe that climate is changing, thats a known fact. I'm waiting for somebody to convince me that humans are having a significant impact. It's fine for people to give me scientific reports proving that it's true, but then began the question of how authentic they are?

Also this 97% of scientists believe climate change is real is complete horse shit.

elaborate

chyna invented it

The answer to climate change is to stop cutting down rainforest. All other measures are a waste of time/money. However western governments have failed to make that happen since the 50s and 70s so have now given up.

Anything else is a mere sideshow. Wind power, solar (unless you are in a sunny country), Nuclear, all the rest of if.

>Is it just a meme?

it is yet another dirty jew scheme for global domination

Wait, you mean the climate is changing? Holy shit..

Incorrect.

Co2 is a greenhouse gas - this means that when light passes through it, some of the heat gets trapped inside the gas instead of being reflected. this has been a well known physical phenomenon for hundreds of years.

The idea that Co2 is behind the current trend of global warming, however, is newer, and only a few decades old. but it's obvious when you look at the rates of co2 at the atmosphere and consider it's physical properties.

So yes, climate change is massively accelerated by humans since humans accelerate emissions of co2

I fail to see how keeping rainforest in tact will stop the climate from changing, but I'm no climate scientist so don't mind me.

Also coming from an engineer here, i think it's safe to say that nuclear and hydro power are the most reliable and efficient energy systems, and i would go as far as saying the future of power for humankind.

What do you think of Spooks?

XKCD says it's true
xkcd.com/1732/

>The answer to climate change is to stop cutting down rainforest.

That won't make much of a difference? Sure the machinery required will output greenhouse gasses, and if the wood ends up being burned it also will, but that's absolutely nothing compared to those released when burning fossil fuels.

Do you mean because the trees are taking in CO2 and outputting oxygen? Thats true, but every single tree on earth could be destroyed with only a marginal (by that I mean potentially catastrophic, but no where near "extinction event" level) change to global O2 levels, the vast majority of it comes from photosynthesizing algae on waterways and oceans.

>Climate change is real.
>It is fueled by solar activity.

thats about correct. CO2 is essentialfor life as without it plants would die

>it's fueled by solar activity
>Incorrect.
>this means that when light passes through it

You're not the brightest are you?

Regardless of the state of greenhouse gasses, climate change will always be "fueled" by solar activity.

>this means that when light passes through it, some of the heat gets trapped inside the gas instead of being reflected.

you're a fucking spastic

It might be the case that no-one has said this to you before, but for your sake it needs to be said.....
Two things are very clear from your post:
1. You have a low IQ
2. You are unaware of your low IQ
The reason it is important that you become aware of your situation is so that you do not take your opinions too seriously.

there was an ice age 10,000 years ago

In this case you should be able to tell us first what 'soalr activity' is measured in and second by how much it has increased.

Jewnon was right.

4u.

longwave radiation hits the earths surface and some is re-emitted as IR. this IR interacts with co2 in the atmosphere like shown in gif related.

...

Oh yes, I love it when people disprove me by calling me unintelligent, that sure proves me wrong!

humans affect the climate esp. make their environment "uninhabitable" dirty see the chinks in china ...

BUT the overall world climate? hell i.d.k. maybe a little as for the most parts the sun's activity affects the climate

inquisitr.com/3262309/missing-sunspots-may-trigger-mini-ice-age-on-earth-blank-sun-means-winter-is-coming/

You verily ooze stupidity, and it is that same stupidity which renders you incapable of seeing it.
Don't shoot the messenger, champ. Be grateful to me for taking the time to help you by pointing it out.

Don't need papers. You just need to read and understand the tl;dr

human activity has led to increaseing levels of atmospheric co2
co2 is a greenhouse gas
the greenhouse effect is real and can be demonstrated easily in the lab

The valid question on the issue is how much warming will there be. This is where things get messy.

Anybody else getting a bit concerned that we're training skynet with this new Captcha?

Incorrect

Climate change is influenced by orbital variation which fluctuates the amount of solar radiation the planet is exposed to.

>Ice age
>winter is gommin
>A year solid of record hottest months form June 15 to July 16

You assume NASA and co haven't accounted for the three main elements of the earths orbit? They have.

But you to are asserting that the sun has increased its output substantially enough to drive the observed warming? The rocket people disagree.

The word you're looking for is irradiance and yes, it is increasing.

nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

But,

>Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

Mfw nasa just got their study out where they said the ice is growing, and not shrinking which the FN guessed. It's just like the wars. It's only about money.

If you mean sea ice, that can easily grow or shrink depending on the year's weather. Ice THICKNESS is the real measure of permanency.

That's decreasing in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Sea ice cover means nothing.

>also isnt the whole meme not that we wont evolve but that muh ice caps will melt and cuck us all?

OP is a phaggot

Climate do change called seasons. Taxing people because of nature is just absurd.

>American says this

So proud of you brah. Gimme a hug. But it's a bit more complex than this. Parts of antartica are gaining, parts are losing land based ice (shelf). The parts that are gaining are gaining as a result of increased snowfall over land. The losses are driven by melt and calving.

that sun "minimum" is expected to be sometime 2030 ...

...

>Taxing people because of nature is just absurd.

True. How about taxing people for the damage they're doing to the earth?

The solar cycle you're thinking of is only 11 years long. We've had two full cycles of maximum/minimum since the early 70s and the trend has still been warming.

This.

NO really he isn't. Sea ice is irrelevant to sea level change as sea ice floats atop water, displacing water at the same time. Melting this won't affect sea levels. Land based ice (ice shelf) does affect the sea levels.

It's real but nobody gives a fuck about it.
Politicians just use the "I'm going to stop global warming" to get libtard vote, but they do nothing besides planting few trees.
If they just build more nuclear plants and got rid of the coal one's, our planet would be saved.

People that actually deny the climate changes:

People that meme about what they think about climate: 99999999999999.......

Seriously. Shut up. You have NO CLUE. Whatever you think you think, you do not know because you cannot grasp such a large and dynamic and ANCIENT system.

Just shut the fuck up. Learn, and never think you've learned anywhere enough. Because you have not.

>Believing we have not made any technological progress since biblical times

wew lad

We've gone too far to turn things back to what they were. It's going to change and we're going to have to adapt with it. There's no mechanism available to us that can actually change the course of what's happening in time to maintain the way things are right now.

>If they just build more nuclear plants and got rid of the coal one's, our planet would be saved.

Czechs once again confirmed based. I think the term 'watermelon' is pretty accurate when describing supposed environmentalists who reject nuclear.

I have snow in my city, and I'm not in Siberia.

So you're suggesting we shouldn't even try to comprehend it?

>gone too far

pic related

and paying who?

Paying to upgrade infrastructure. Here's the bit you'll really hate though. Serious action would require global coordination.

Learn from it, adapt to it, stop trying to control it because you are a spec of a spec to it and you can only realistically adapt to it.

IT does not care.
IT has killed countless millions of entire species in the brief 3 billion years of Earth's history.
IT smacks the fuck out of the planet with rocks that contain a thousand times more kinetic energy than all the nuclear weapons on earth combined.
IT causes volcanoes to erupt that plunge the planet into a gentle cooling period of about a few hundo years where entire continents get covered in a mile or more of glacial ice.

IT will not change. You better learn about IT, and learn to adapt, lest you be one of the next species IT makes extinct.

I'm not saying that the earth has never been hotter. I'm saying that the trend of the climate migrating toward a higher temperature in the next 70 years will continue no matter what.

Given civilization only really got up and running at the end of the last glacial, then it's pretty clear that our survival and how well we do is very dependent on our climate.

Climate change is a Joo hoax in order to cash in at the alternative energy market.

Back than Joos made a "Global cooling" hysteria, now it's "Global warming".

But the change you're talking about is being amplified and driven by our activity. There ARE things we can do about our carbon emissions.

>global cooling

Admittedly I'm too young to comment on what was being hyped back then, but a look at the scientific literature shows cooling never to have been the popular opinion.

We already built two nuclear plants and there are plans on expanding them, but I'm not sure if we build them for energy or for making Austria mad.
I also love the environmentalist logic
> we must built more wind and solar power plants!
we must save environment by building massive structures that produce 0.1 farts of energy everywhere instead of one building capable of supplying energy to a whole country.

Well at least you're not trying to tell me its wrong so have a (You)

That may be true, but losing our shit because we are supposedly 'killing the planet' isn't exactly helping. And I don't see how taxing emissions will help either.

You know that scientific truths are not decided by consensus.

One argument is right, the others are wrong. If that 1 argument happens to be in the minority, it doesn't matter, it's still right. If 97% of climate scientists agree (they don't), that doesn't mean the argument is any stronger (or weaker). Scientific arguments rest of facts, not consensus

>but I'm not sure if we build them for energy or for making Austria mad.

Either is good no?

We're building a bunch of new ones. Well, I say we. We being the French and Chinese, who will own them and have been promised a rate of double what we currently pay for our power. Yay..

When do I get an environmentally sensible NatSoc government? Is it really that much to ask? I don't want to pay the yellow-jew and baguette-monkeys for muh power, especially when it is the French and Chinese states respectively that'll benefit from it. Literally taking money from British citizens and straight into the hands of the French and Chinese states. Neoliberalism needs to fucking die.

There was a strong Global cooling hysteria back than. But Joos are even more original than that: Global dimming
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Yeah, wonder what comes next.

>But the change you're talking about is being amplified and driven by our activity.
Nope. We ain't nowhere near big enough to make a dent son.
You're being an egotistical idiot if you think nature sees us as anything but a speed bump.

We are tiny.

>There ARE things we can do about our carbon emissions.
And it won't do dick because you can't control the other 99.99% of the shit affecting climate.
Tackling carbon is just self-masturbation for our species. The illusion we're helping.

In reality, we get hit with a 400m rock and GAME OVER for all of current human civilization.

And that's a TINY rock. They get a hell of a lot bigger and meaner.
Oh, and then there's Yellowstone! Good ol' Mt.Yellowstone! You know what the yellowstone in "Yellowstone" is right?
It's also known as brimstone.

Pfff... And their first call was that we must emit more CO2 to stop it.
And it was proposed I think by a Swedish scientist that said that it MAYBE can help.

Consensus is bullshit because they are money on the table.
Actually there is so much money people from outside of climatology are making them.
All that green propaganda is made to extract both power and money.

>That may be true, but losing our shit because we are supposedly 'killing the planet' isn't exactly helping. And I don't see how taxing emissions will help either.

It is quite a pressing issue so I can understand the way it is being pushed, though a lot of the solutions proposed by the elite of the green movement are bullshit. Our fucking green party wants to shut down all nuclear FFS.

> And I don't see how taxing emissions will help either.

Taxing the biggest emitters of co2 could encourage them to clean up their act, and the monies made should go to building a new cleaner power infrastructure.

CO2 effect is marginal. In the past we've had levels 10 times what we have now and according to the "math" published by the IPCC this would have caused the oceans to boil away. They didn't then and they won't now.

CO2 DOES invariably add to global temperature but on a scale so minor that even doubling it would cause a small change, not to mention it's logarithmic, IE the more we add the smaller the change.

Fuck off Goldman Sachs.

>You know that scientific truths are not decided by consensus.

Yup. But you're not making the case for global cooling are you?

You are absolutely right when you say there is one objectively correct answer. This is why I like science. I suspect the correct answer is yes, co2 does cause warming.

Because taxing the rich so far has worked out perfectly...

I'd rather see them pay their income tax than see us implement an emissions tax. The two are basically the same thing anyway.

Human activity has had numerous direct and observable impacts on the earth. Deforestation, coral bleaching. Us. Hole in the Ozone. Us. Increasing co2 to levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years? Us too.

So then the question becomes does this increase in co2 lead to an increase in global average temperatures? I'm tempted to say yes it does as the mechanism by which the greenhouse effect works is pretty well known.

Start taxing water vapor because it's the biggest greenhouse gas.

literally no

Its real for sure, but I mean there has always been climate changes coming and going. Of course this Current one is faster because of modern World
But its not like we'll die because of it

>And it was proposed I think by a Swedish scientist that said that it MAYBE can help.

Arrhenius? His work was over 100 years ago.

Go design an original flag Maley-monkey

Just going to leave this here

I don't think the IPCC has ever predicted runaway greenhouse effect.

When we had levels of co2 ten times higher than today, the planet was 10-20 degrees warmer, not to mention the continents were in a different place. Essentially that world would be unrecognizable to us, and likely uninhabitable, certainly for 8bn people.

Yes it's the biggest fraud there ever was on science. Their trying to destabilise oil companies so renewable energy companies or electric cars for example like tesla can make money as shit. Their both bad because their only objective is to make money. They don't give a shit about the environment. Now their always trying to associate pollution with global warming. Pollution is one thing and it's bad cause it poisons water food, etc. But is naive as fuck to think that humankind and change the climate of the entire planet just because our cars release CO2 besides satellite data shows that between 1980 and 2016 there was no increase in global temperature. Also don't fall for that shitty CO2 graph that al gore faps to.

>Deforestation
Level of forestation in American didn't change for 100 years.

I know nothing about coral bleaching but ozone holes apparently are not a problem anymore.

>Increasing CO2 to levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years
And you just assume it causes global warming. Around 5% of CO2 right now belong to human activity. CO2 makes for 0.04% of atmosphere.
Water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas making for more than 90% of all of them and it's amount is adaptable.
Atmospheric transparency to radiation didn't change is more than 60 years.

>I'd rather see them pay their income tax

You can dream...

And I don't think they are strictly the same thing. It would depend how it was managed. I'd like to see the money raised on any dedicated taxes to be handled by a dedicated apolitical group under UN auspices with FULL transparency, that is every penny accounted for, and all of it going directly to cleaner power projects around the planet. Note I'm no saying this is the perfect system, just attainable as things currently stand.

The only way we can "unite" as a species is through an existential threat that forces us to put aside any petty differences.

Global Warming/Climate change fits this exactly. It's a globalist poly to unite the world under one totalitarian government.

Water vapour is short lived and kinda self-regulating. Get too much of it and it'll condense into clouds and rain down. Water vapour is more a function of temperature than the other way around.

see

I was just using these as examples of when humanity has directly affected the planet in meaningful ways.

>Around 5% of CO2 right now belong to human activity.

Do you mean in terms of emissions or total atmospheric composition?

>Atmospheric transparency to radiation didn't change is more than 60 years.

This is incorrect. Satellite data shows that less IR leaves the earth than should, teh missing being absorbed and re-emitted by co2 (and h2o) in the atmosphere. This is considered proof of the greenhouse effect working in the atmosphere as lab experiment predicted.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Bolin

And since it adapts to temperature and has a leading greenhouse gas role you must look on behavior of water vapor and not CO2.
Now you can consider that not changing amount of CO2 give stable climate but changing amount of the chief greenhouse gas doesn't destabilize climate.
It's because greenhouse effect isn't some out of control effect. It's has dampening component. It doesn't accelerate itself.

True I was probably generalizing a bit but you understand where I am coming from with big business and carbon emission.

>A perfect system
>you can dream

took the words right out of my mouth

>Increasing co2 to levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years?
Did you know that the UK was under a half-mile of ice, 14000 years ago?
Did you know sea levels used to be up to 400 feet lower than today?
Did you know that people farmed in Greenland 1000 years ago or so?

You puny man. Do not think yourself so important as to be anything but a hiccup in time.

All the carbon controls in the world will not change the inevitable.
Best we adapt rather than fight God.

After all adaptation is what we do best!

If you actually look at the scale we have been 'warmer' for a long time. But yes, as far as we are concerned, we have not been in a period as warm as we currently are. Trying to predict the future survivability of our species off that alone is foolish as such.

There is nothing can be done about h2o. It comes from evaporation from bodies of water and groundwater.

co2 is the focus because it can be and is affected by human activity. The atmospheric concentration of h2o will not change unless there are other actors at play. As we warm more is held as vapour in the atmosphere. vapour and clouds act differently, with clouds blocking more heat getting to the earth in the first place, with h2o having a net impact of trapping more heat. Essentially ho2 isn't accumulating in the atmosphere in the same way co2 does. If water vapour in the atmosphere does start to increase in concentration, that is because we are warming. This is when you get into the territory of positive feedback.

I'm trying to word this in ma way that is clear to understand, but I suspect I'm doing a shit job.

Its one of thew things Sup Forums goes full retard on.
Claiming its not real and a lie.
Even if it wasn't real why would you deny it. Any chance to get away from the oil jew is a good one

>Did you know that the UK was under a half-mile of ice, 14000 years ago?

yup.

>Did you know sea levels used to be up to 400 feet lower than today?

makes sense if all the water was sitting atop the UK

>Do not think yourself so important as to be anything but a hiccup in time.

Personally no. 7 billion mes probably yes.

>All the carbon controls in the world will not change the inevitable.

The inevitable used to be considered a slide into a glacial period over the next 1000 years or so. There's a chance that we've averted this. I guess this is a plus. But the same mechanism by which we may have averted a glacial period may also lead to temperature increase that fucks us just as hard.

I dunno why you still claim humanity can have no effect on the world when I gave you examples of how we already have.

>After all adaptation is what we do best!

You may be right. I tend to think prevention is cheaper than cure.

>Trying to predict the future survivability of our species off that alone is foolish as such.

Foolish? I'd say it's a perfectly valid part of self-preservation.

>earth is a closed system

I have bad news for you user. This is the one assumption climate models keep making that causes them to be terrible at predicting future patterns. Solar activity had presented a reliable model for 10+ years, making it the better model to explain the phenomenon of climate change.

Find me that satellite data (not some models) because I'm pretty sure it's not or I used wrong words.

CO2 warming causes more vapor more vapor causes more clouds. Not so complicated.
You can't give leading role to CO2. Now temperature dropped despite increasing CO2 levels but what do we know.

The biggest issues with climate change right now are the more extreme weather systems and salt water intrusion in costal drinking water supplies.

Other than that I really don't understand how warmer temperatures are ZOMG end of the world scenario.

Are you really presuming to understand a system with literally MILLIONS of separate factors and BILLIONS of variables?

Because that's what I'm seeing here.
1. Why only carbon?(let's be real here it's because "carbon" is something poorer nations can leech off of)
2. Are you really stupid enough to think we can STOP "climate change"?
3. How do we know we've "stopped" climate change?
4. What happens if we "stop" climate change then cause a horrific environmental disaster?
5. Why do human societies flourish in warmth and suffer in famine and plague in the cold?
6. Why do we want it colder?
7. What will we do when the next ice age comes on and NYC/Montreal/Chicago/Boston/Seattle/Ontario/etc are once again buried under a mile of glacial ice?
8. No, seriously, what do we do? Because ice ages can and WILL make global warming and a few stupid islands going underwater and some desertification seem trite and actually comfy by comparison.

BTW, please note that science has learned these ice ages happen literally within MONTHS to WEEKS. Usually brought on by a meteor impact or a supervolcano.

its not the end of the world, but it is massive disruption to existing ecosystems.

come gather round people wherever you roam
and admit the waters around you have grown

But saying that our survival is dependent on the climate () is entirely baseless. Self-preservation does not necessarily mean survival (if you want to get really technical).

p.s. see

Trees are what you would call a "carbon reservoir" in that they remove CO2 from the atmosphere and fix it in the form of biomass. When a tree dies the carbon is still stored in the wood, and some is released from decomposition. Usually a new tree will replace it.

Now if you clear cut large sections of forest you remove the trees, usually set them on fire releasing massive amounts of CO2 and prevent new trees from taking its place.

I actually haven't seen any studies estimating how much potential carbon storage we've lost, would be an interesting thing to research.