Global Warming

Red pill be on Global Warming. Is it a myth, or a real thing? Are the corrupt jews in office using it as an excuse to grab tax payers money?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
youtube.com/watch?v=BY-gRFSaP7o
thegwpf.com/28155/
tech-know-group.com/papers/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf
interpol.int/content/download/20122/181158/version/3/file/Guide to Carbon Trading Crime.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=FHkPadFK34o
youtube.com/watch?v=DChIeR5bO-4
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Global Warming hardly exist, but climate change does exist

Explain. Obviously the earth has warming cycles, but theres no way that it's as big of a deal as the media makes it out to be, right? Filthy god damn jews taking our money!

>Is it a myth
Maybe
>a real thing?
Probably
>Are the corrupt jews in office using it as an excuse to grab tax payers money?
You know it

The world is getting hotter and it's almost certainly because of men.

I don't know if it will have the catastrophic effects feared by many, though.

Polar bears can swin, maybe they should adapt : )

According to scholars who block new research because the matter is "settled" even though much less complicated science is still being researched

The west could have stopped polluting so much a long time ago if the US hadn't killed the nuclear industry and went on their damn wars for the oil.

But even then, it wouldn't have mattered much because Asia would still be polluting.

Now, with so much trade with Asia, the more we make our energy expensive, the higher our production costs in general, and the more we end up importing from Asia (using their dirty energy). Which suits the globalists just fine. They love offshoring. And we pay for it with blood and oil.

Green energy doesn't work well with free trade.

What is needed is to have some way to make Asia stop polluting so damn much. Because we easily could (but as it is it would require more protectionism).

Well accordingly to the projected expectations based on past years trend 2100 is expected to be around 6-7C hotter than 2016.

That will probably prevent human life to be viable in a lot of places.

Now to say if that's our fault or just the world temps going up and down it's probably impossible as we started monitoring temps just from last century.

Surely we're making water a lot shittier.

So we need Hiroshima 2.0?

>Polar bears love to ride on ice drifts
>media reports it as "POOR STRANDED POLAR BEAR CLINGS ON TO THE LAST PIECE OF HIS HOME DESTROYED BY GLOBAL WARMING!"

That would be polluting too.

I don't think they will ever go solar/wind. Too expensive. They don't care enough about the environment. If they don't do it, then the US probably won't do it. It would mess with their trading too much. And with the petro-dollar scheme due to collapse at some point, they can't afford to be this uncompetitive. And they don't want to cut trade with Asia for world order reasons.

Asia would have to switch to next generation, safe nuclear power plants. Maybe it'll happen over the next decades.

Well my take on it as follows
>global warming is caused by our rapid increase of CO2 in the atmosphere
>cows add more co2 than anything
>no body complains about cows

So either global warming isn't that big of a deal, or scientists are literally choosing beef and dairy over living on the planet.

> wind is too expensive

...

> solar is too expensive
Solar and wind both becomes cost competitive with natural gas once you tax on carbon externalities

Until you can get China and India to stop burning, dumping, and shitting everywhere there is little reason to consider changing.

California could stop driving completely and both of those two shitholes will still drive the planet off a cliff.

Climate Change is very bad and happening, poisoning of our most necessary resources for profit(predetermined failure of product).
Global warming is happening, not why people think tho, if you close a system from internal heat exiting you also block it from entering in an equal amount. The external heat is increased so it is inevitable.
>math

when you take wind to scale it can't really hold up to demand, especially when you realize that the most ideal places for wind aren't necessarily close to anything, honestly tidal is a much better solution because 90% of all human settlement is near the ocean

Is Asia gonna do that?

If climate change does exist the US is not going to do very well, especially the southern states.

If it doesn't exist than you not much will be gained since the US has been largely ignoring it anyway.

Hey has anyone here ever drained an in ground pool without a pump? Does the siphon thing work? Cuz if so, couldn't you just point it back into the pool and have free perpetual hydroelectricity?

China
- cap and trade system
- carbon pricing system

India
- Solar subsidies
- Coal taxation/ban on coal imports

Both countries have had GHG reductions, reductions in energy consumption, solid policy, and a commitment to the Paris treaty

And it's not just an abstract commitment -- they have had real results in GHG reductions
The US on the other hand is appointing people who think climate change is not occuring to the EPA and wants to withdraw from Paris.

>Climate change is real
>It has been both hotter and cooler historically
>The sun drives the temp, and our atmosphere controls the dissipation
>CO2 is a trace gas, rarer than argon
>Our influence on avg temp is unknown
>Hotter temps means more vegetation and higher crop yields

air contains 0.035% CO2
the manmade portion is 5-10% of the entire CO2
blaming 0.0035% is discrimination to the minority
CO2 lives matter

Their energy is still a lot cheaper and dirtier than the west in general.

Fake industry.

Weather weapons.

You lie.

Of course it is, but you can't say they're not trying.

China, India, and other powers who signed Paris are probably behind the US in terms of emissions but not for long. They are catching up and will soon outpace us.

And besides, the US an extremely wealthy country. We should be setting the lead on taking care of the planet. By waiting for other minor powers to catch up we are embarassing ourselves. I think the US is probably the only country where a good plurality of people think climate change is a hoax.

...or the cow/co2 thing is being hyped up by vegans.

You can cover the entirety of North America in solar panels and it wouldn't produce half of the electricity needs of the United States alone; and that's assuming that all of North America gets as much sun as Florida, which it doesn't. The numbers are out there, feel free to do the math yorself.

>Red pill be on Global Warming. Is it a myth, or a real thing?
Real, but also history. Temperature and CO2 emissions have leveled off already, and will probably decline in coming years. Warnings of irreversibility or runaway effects were clearly fiction.
>Are the corrupt jews in office using it as an excuse to grab tax payers money?
Possibly. I'm more inclined to think our leaders were just misled by the alarmist propaganda.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

Also, we would only use solar? Wind, geothermal, nuclear, etc..

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

>We should be setting the lead on taking care of the planet.
This has consequences on trade. The more the west makes its production expensive, the more it has to import (which ends up polluting even more overall).
It's funny how those who want us to pollute even less also oppose protectionism (which would allow the west to pollute A LOT less).
What they truly want is globalization.
I would be OK with green energy if it also came with protectionism.
But as it is, it's a scam.
>minor powers
This century might already belong to them.

>That will probably prevent human life to be viable in a lot of places.
go inside turn up AC

>Most Americans think this is the solution to climate change

>wealthy
arent you like 20 000 000 000 000 in debt?

Would be kinda' hard if solar panels are taking up all of your real estate.

In a world where nuclear power exists, I don't really understand the wide spread use of the others. Solar has some merits in isolated, low current draw applications that receive sunlight consustantly. Wind has as many drawbacks (bird/bat strikes, unreliable, unsightly) as it does positives. Geothermal has it's place but it will never be as efficient as nuclear.

Kek will protect Gaia

First he will destroy America

You have no idea what u are talking about. Covering a minuscule surface would be enough to power the whole country. Solar panels produce ~100W/m2.

Most of it is debt we owe to ourselves. Biggest buyer of US debt is Americans. Energy subsidy contribution to that debt is remarkably small, it's mostly entitlements and military.

I wouldn't prioritize nuclear, it's just part of the puzzle. The reason is mainly the potential for accidents. Ideally we would put our nuclear plants, along with solar power satellites and potentially heavy industry/mining/automated manufacturing in space, and Earth just becomes zoned light residential area. But this is possibly a century away, and requires people to actually work towards a common future.

Global warming is real in that we have warmed since the last ice age. The increase in CO2 trails behind increase in temperature. Contrary to the sky is falling narrative, this natural warming and the rise of CO2 concentrations are leading to a greening of the planet and longer growing seasons.

Manmade climate change is a jewish meme designed for the redistribution of wealth via carbon shekels.

Judging by the artifacts it contains, that photograph is very likely a montage.

youtube.com/watch?v=BY-gRFSaP7o

First, most of the "Co2 is good for agriculture" people are paid shills for oil and gas. So don't pretend like the shills are only on the pro-environment side.

Second, Co2 increases crop diseases. This is well studied. This makes the agricultural systems more fragile.

Third, your "greening" and crop yilds will not matter if the ice caps melt, sea levels rise and inundate your farmland. Or if droughts and unpredictable weather decimate yields on year.

The Earth has never been static.

It doesn't matter. There's nothing we can do to stop it.

It's debatable at best. long term weather prediction is basically impossible and carbon may actually be a good thing.

thegwpf.com/28155/
tech-know-group.com/papers/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf

Also the carbon tax solution these 'climate experts' are pushing is a load of shit. some new tribute tax isn't going to change any weather paterns.

interpol.int/content/download/20122/181158/version/3/file/Guide to Carbon Trading Crime.pdf

Reminder for Sup Forums:

youtube.com/watch?v=FHkPadFK34o

Nigga just cause your flag looks like a kike flag doesnt mean I trust you with numbers. Need some citations with that. Im from Hawaii and our house is covered in panels and I only get like $15 bucks from the power company on top of a $0 bill at the end of the year from selling power to them.

There is no way I am consuming 200mw.

Not only that but we aren't exactly dumping the proportionate amounts of nitrogen to match the co2 to feed the plants, so without a surplus of nitrogen and water they won't grow like oil and gas shills say they will

Whoops wrong thread

Obviously it's a good thing, if we didn't have greenhouse gasses we would be frozen

air is 78% nitrogen and about .04% CO2. nice try fuckwit. don't think the nitrogen is getting to scarce.

Here's what I don't understand: if the models are inaccurate, you realize they could also be wildly underestimating the problem, too? I get not trusting scientists, but shouldn't that mean you use the precautionary principle? We only have one planet, and the consequences of being wrong are irreversible.

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."

So far the models have been wrong by overestimation. Changes are they will continue to be wrong by overestimation and not underestimation (and this is true for a number of reasons that I won't bother going into). Yes, if there's even 1% chance that we're actually fucked, we should take precautions, and it's what the world is largely doing.

What I think most people who are skeptics don't like it how the discussion around this issue assumes that this is 100% settled science and anyone who disagrees is an ignorant retard who doesn't know anything.

THIS

Well, based on all those previous projections that have been spot-on, I'm sold.

life flourished on this planet when co2 levels were way higher. so not too worried there. I don't distrust scientists. the article I posted was written by the founder of green peace, phd in ecology. also contrary to the hype there are plenty of scientists who are not on the 'sky is falling' bandwagon.

This is a stunningly monocausal explanation.

There are plenty of studies that don't assume a positive H20 feedback, and those that assume a higher H2O feedback don't necessarily get a higher temp because of it.

H2O is only one of many feedback cycles. Another feedback cycle is deforestation due to droughts. A third example is ocean acidifcation removing the ability for the ocean to sink carbon. There are many examples outside of H2O, so I don't get how you're claiming this as fact.

Plus, even if you don't have H2O feedback, that only covers temperature increases, and not the other negative effects of CO2, of which there are many.

>Although there's plenty of nitrogen in the air, it's not in a form plants can use. They can only absorb nitrogen in the form of ammonium, nitrite, and nitrate. One way plants have access to these forms of nitrogens is decomposition of organic matter by soil organisms.

That's burgerland education for you I guess

The incalculable amount of variables which factor into climate are impossible for us to comprehend much less measure, disseminate and discern each influence with every other corresponding variable affected. It is closer to chaos than picking out a handful of environmental flags and stating such a blanket explanation as fact.

Even the simplest of processes become near chaotic when examined in ever increasingly smaller scale much less planetary. Improvements in data collection with disregard to localized environmental and topographic variables (changed or underreported), coupled with the sheer amount of data collected for comparison antiquates previous data in scope and methodology.

Climatology is political party, which explains the wildly unreasonable reaction to qualified dissension in peer review, refusal of data sharing and dismissal of the need for reproduction when errors and falsifications are present. If it had remained in the scientific realm, it would still be called Meteorology. That every climatologist concurs, what they were taught and are now teaching is fact, means nothing. Experimenter bias can be attributed to much more than a salary in the prestige of fronting humanity saving research in our dire final hour, receiving awards and accolades and earning a prominent place in the regulatory behemoth established to counter the contrived results before they show no fruition. It might just focus data gathering at predetermined locations of concentrated production of the conformational data required.

The embedded politics are on display when all importance is placed on halting progress and limiting freedoms instead of countering the perceived effects through their own means of collection, disposal, or production of whatever they imagine will balance things out.

If man's influence on climate change was correctly represented as a hypothesis, it would not currently be the basis for the regulatory systems being devised, causing apoplectic opposition to the devastating economic ramifications and repression of civil liberties. Then research with the removal of politics being of foremost prominence in the exclusion of experimental bias would ensure the integrity of the studies and true consensus can be found.

Life flourished *generally*, but only wayyy before humans came around. Humans, their fragile agricultural system, extremely overpopulated countries, and heavy industries have never been subjected to the unique cocktail of CO2 impacts. It's ultimately about a risk you are willing to take, and I think the planet's carrying capacity is very fragile, just looking at the percentage of the global population that is either near a coastline, underdeveloped, malnourished, or threatened by drought. It is a serious destabilizing security threat even if many people can survive unaffected.

As for your article, there are good models and bad models. One good model is Richard Muller and Berkeley Earth. One bad model is the hockey stick graph.

plants grew pretty nicely in co2 rich prehistoric times with out anybody giving out nitrogen supplements. enjoy paying a carbon tax for the original sin of existing leaf.

It is Jewish myth to take yur tax paying money for something that is not even real

>Comparing prehistoric times to now
How fucking stupid are you?
Enjoy paying for a brand new trailer when a massive tornado rips it up you fucking hillbilly

Those polarbear pics you see are because they want to have a better place to look for food, not because they're scared of the mean water.

>There are plenty of studies that don't assume a positive H20 feedback, and those that assume a higher H2O feedback don't necessarily get a higher temp because of it.

The GCMs that are cited by the IPCC all rely on a +H2O feedback that results in a net positive temperature forcing. (Note that more water vapor does not necessarily mean higher temps.) This is the core of AGW theory.

There are certainly papers that discuss other possible feedbacks, but they are separate "agw" theories, and not the AGW theory that everyone is fighting over. That's because their feedbacks are relatively minor and/or there's no real evidence that they are operative. They are merely "what if" speculations.

>Another feedback cycle is deforestation due to droughts.

And how the fuck do you get net deforestation in a climate with MOAR water vapor AND more CO2?

I wonder if AGW theory would be a thing if hipster liberals had to live for a year on a farm.

>A third example is ocean acidifcation removing the ability for the ocean to sink carbon.

We can't put that much carbon into the biosphere.

>Plus, even if you don't have H2O feedback, that only covers temperature increases, and not the other negative effects of CO2, of which there are many.

Let me guess: you think CO2 is a 'pollutant', don't you?

FLATEARTH.there are 12+ continents. Poisoning will not be allowed as it will poison the "aliens" aka those living with us. The TRUEAGENDA,ITSWHORULESUSFINALYITMAKESSENSE.youtube.com/watch?v=DChIeR5bO-4 undeniable that earth is flat. mathematicly and visual shown, fucking spread this. Prove it shit on the world order NOW.
>GLOBALWARMINGISAMISLEDTRUTHABOUTPOISONINGRATHERTHANHEATING