/sci/ - Science & Math

Criticising a theory doesn't mean you need to offer an alternative, that's kindergarten tier thinking.
The majority seems to think it's natural earth temperature cycles.

>>10332892
Deniers are incapable of criticizing the theory, they just ignore it and deny the evidence exists.

>>10332887
Related, what's the thought process of adults who go around wearing backwards baseball caps?

>>10332887
The sun god is angry at all the nonbelievers now

>>10332892
But they can't criticize it when CO2 has been shown to be so well linked to temperature. You have to disprove the theory with alternatives when it's already proven.

It's been 60 F all January when it should be in the 20s and 30s . I think we may be entering thermal runaway due to methane releases and forest fire emissions.

why do the models always predict more warming than is being observed, specifically why so much higher after the year 2000

>>10332968
>The brappers killed us all

>>10332969
Because they are alarmist. Predictors being wrong doesn't mean CO2 isn't causing warming just like the weather man being wrong about the weather doesn't mean clouds don't cause rain.

>>10332887
Complex systems can do weird shit, reducing the cause to green house gasses is too simplistic

>>10332996
But green house gasses are the only thing that has been observed to change and the temperature to green house gas ratio is basically exact.

>>10332969
Why does your graph look like it was made by a two year old?

>>10333001
It still doesnt imply that we arent missing something.
If your theory is right I assume the climate would be too unstable to allow for complex organism to evolve in the first place.
Just a guess though, I dont know the data too well

>>10333016
>If your theory is right I assume
It doesn't matter what you assume if you clearly don't understand the theory.

>>10333025
I understand enough about the dynamics of the atmosphere to know that 99.9% who are talking about climate don't understand it either

>>10333030
Ok, then explain this.
>>10333016
>Just a guess though, I dont know the data too well

>>10332969
They don't, why do deniers always bring out misleading images?

Oh and a major error was found in the satellite diurnal correction in 2017 that caused a large cooling bias. The satellite record is now virtually indistinguishable from the ground station record and the models: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

>>10332996
How do you know it's too simplistic? Have you actually looked at climatologists' methodology?

>>10333031
What's there to explain?
I don't follow the news regarding modelling the climate, because its fucking extensive and wrong anyway

>>10333016
>It still doesnt imply that we arent missing something.
Yes, leprechauns could be causing the warming. Saying we could be wrong without any evidence is not an argument.

>If your theory is right I assume the climate would be too unstable to allow for complex organism to evolve in the first place.
Why?

>What do climate change deniers think is causing the earth to warm if not green house gasses?
Your mom's farts are GHGs tho...

There is no climate change.

I have lived on 4 continents and nowhere did I observe anything peculiar.

On contrary, the winters here became even rougher.

>>10333084
>Saying we could be wrong without any evidence is not an argument
Your argument is just 'look its warming, lets throw shit at the wall and see what sticks' and we only say it sticks because the wall was full of shit in the first place
>Why?
Because there are not enough (again, this is just my guess, feel free to prove me wrong) mechanisms that counteract the feedback loop created by green house gasses.

>>10333123
Well that settles it, science BTFO.

>>10333130
>Your argument is just 'look its warming, lets throw shit at the wall and see what sticks' and we only say it sticks because the wall was full of shit in the first place
No, CO2 causing warming is completely causative physics and directly observed via radiative spectroscopy. Ignoring the massive amount of research and data that has gone into this conclusion does not magically make it go away. You have no argument, just wishful thinking.

>Because there are not enough (again, this is just my guess, feel free to prove me wrong) mechanisms that counteract the feedback loop created by green house gasses.
The mechanisms are saturation of radiative forcing and black body radiation in general. The more CO2 there is, the less warming results from more CO2. The hotter the Earth is, the more energy is needed to make it hotter.

You are literally arguing from ignorance.

>>10333137
> science
> implying there anything scientific about climate fraud

>>10333173
Well that settles it, science BTFO.

>>10333123

Learn climate Science, and come back when you can provide better evidence than your anecdote.

(also, the warming is not on a scale that can necessarily be felt directly. I'm not expert, so take what I say with the grain of salt, but I've heard that the temperature only raised in 0.7 Celsius in the past century.)

>>10333130

>Your argument is just <made up shit no one in this thread said>.

Strawman detected.

>>10332887
I don't deny the climate is warming, I do deny that climate change is a settled science. Scientists understand science, but not economics. The "solution" propositioned by the left is a heavy carbon tax (typical answer for white female bourgeois elitists) would have the only effect of exporting energy jobs outside of the US to China, at a time where men of all ages are hurting due to unemployment (not like Leftists care). It's seems they forgot the "global" part of global warming. A carbon tax would probably increase pollution if it leads to more jobs going to China.

You cannot spend up research, if CC is true, the we can only wait until solar panels become efficient enough to compete with fossil fuels. You could solve this problem immediately with nuclear energy, but oh no, how will leftists virtue signal about muh clean energy then? Nuclear is mean and icky, and probably part of the patriarchy.

>>10333233
>I do deny that climate change is a settled science.
What do you mean by settled? Who says this?

>Scientists understand science, but not economics.
Do economists understands economics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nordhaus

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-tax-favored-by-most-economists/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jan/04/consensus-of-economists-cut-carbon-pollution

>The "solution" propositioned by the left is a heavy carbon tax (typical answer for white female bourgeois elitists) would have the only effect of exporting energy jobs outside of the US to China
This doesn't make sense since the carbon tax is at the point of emissions, not at the point of production of fuel. So there is no benefit to fuel being produced outside of the country and jobs needed to produce non-carbon-emitting energy at home is still needed.

Assuming man made climate change is real. Ask yourself if the proposed solutions will actually solve the problem and is not just a scheme to increase taxes.

>>10333257
lol. you're that same delusional ambulance chasing scum bag that thinks you "fight climate change" by selling ever more petroleum products to third world countries as long as you tax your own citizens.

I find it truly amazing that one can believe in such bullshit.

>>10333233
>Scientists understand science, but not economics.
This has nothing to do with science retard. Your argument is is that it's not "settled" because you don't like what liberals are saying.

>>10332887
>it's natural
whenever it was natural, it didn't happen overnight like this

Climate change is largely caused by chemtrails.
>>10333191

>>10333145
>CO2 causing warming is completely causative physics
Of course, it's just not as trivial as you want it to be, in a system we can't even hope to simulate in any sufficient accuracy in our lifetime. So we wait for our experiment to happen. Until its done I'll just wait and see, being ready to have a smug attitude towards idiots who think they can predict the future in such a huge system.
>You are literally arguing from ignorance.
So are you, you just don't know it yet

>>10333286
Climate change is cause by my BIG FARTS

>>10333290
Chemtrails are helping release methane stores.

>>10333297
When you make claims like this, you almost have to by definition automatically provide sources, because no one will believe anything you are saying. Otherwise, you are automatically a troll. And no one likes trolls. You may think in your small little head that you are being funny, or that what you're doing is funny, but most people are just ignoring you.

>>10333330
>>10333191

>>10333336
Thanks, Alex Jones.

>>10333349
No. Actually listen to some of what this guy has to say. Read the site. This is very serious.

>>10333279
Great counterargument.

>>10333275
OK, they are real solutions. Next?

>>10333286

>>10332887
I blame this illiteracy and denial to the name global "warming". The variety of weather phenomenons does not incur in just warming but also extreme weather, including blizzards.

>>10333287
>Of course, it's just not as trivial as you want it to be, in a system we can't even hope to simulate in any sufficient accuracy in our lifetime.
The research that has led is to this conclusion is hardly trivial. And we already are modeling it to an accuracy high enough to see the effect of future emissions. Again, why do you think otherwise? What is your opinion based on?

You refuse to make an argument, just baseless claims. You're not worth even responding to.

>>10333443
No they aren't.

The only solutions being considered are the ones that won't affect "economic growth", which is in fact the cause of the problem. So they are not "real solutions" at all, not even close.

>>10333462
Are carbon emissions necessary for economic growth?

>>10333487
yes

>>10333487
Energy is needed for growth, and the source for the last century or more has been almost entirely carbon.

>>10333492
False. Economic growth and carbon emissions have been decoupled since 2016.

>>10333494
It doesn't have to be carbon though.

>>10333497
It'll be whatever people can find.
Let say alternatives to carbon fuel growth for a time. You don't think people will revert back to carbon in the blink of an eye once those alternatives reach their respective maximum outputs?

They will obviously revert back to carbon with a vengeance, if you will not address growth itself. We're already seeing this.

>>10333504
What do you mean by maximum outputs? There is enough nuclear fuel on Earth to power civilization growing for thousands of years with current technology. The question is not what people will find but which option is preferable. People don't pay for the effects of their emissions, so carbon fuel is more preferable even though nuclear is better. That needs to be changed.

>>10333519
lol. you are so messed up in the head, man... I wonder what combination of judeao-christian values and banking economics voodoo has led to your specific symptoms.

>>10333528

>>10333554
What am I supposed to think when you spout stuff like this?
>What do you mean by maximum outputs?
Can you even read? Or is it just that your ideology does not permit you to conceive of the concept of maximum outputs?
> There is enough nuclear fuel on Earth to power civilization growing for thousands of years with current technology.
Pure hogwash, and even if it wasn't the idea that attempting to increase demand for energy indefinitely won't lead to immense human suffering at some point ignores basic economics, your actual religion. And that's not even taking into account the seriously negative impacts your infinite growth ideology will have on ecosystems throughout the world. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You've been thoroughly brainwashed from a young age. I'd feel bad for people like you if you weren't so dangerous.

>>10333582
What do you mean by maximum output? When will this "maximum output" be reached? You're being vague because you have no argument, you're just spouting platitudes.

>Pure hogwash
Not an argument, thanks for admitting defeat.

>even if it wasn't the idea that attempting to increase demand for energy indefinitely won't lead to immense human suffering at some point ignores basic economics
Who is "attempting to increase" demand for energy? Humans demand energy to increase their quality of life. You are acting like this is some kind of nefarious plot. And we are not talking about "some point" we are talking about a specific problem. You are trying to distract from that problem and draw everything into your obsession with growth, but that is not going to work. Try arguing honestly if you want to convince people of your position.

l

>>10333624
>Try arguing honestly
lol thats rich coming from slickest liar on this board. Your "annonymous" tag doesn't hide your telltale style. Take a hike.

>>10333636
And yet again you fail to respond with a substantive counterargument. Thanks for admitting defeat.

>>10333640
Seek help buddy. You're sick.

>>10333643
Wow, what a great argument, you've convinced everyone!

>>10333653
No. You've convinced everyone that infinite economic/population growth is possible with nuclear power, if only we'd implement the "optimal" carbon tax.
BWaHAHAHA HAHA

>>10333664
Where did I say anything about infinite growth? Why are you lying?

>>10333653
And who could forget that time when you convinced everyone that we can increase production of fossil fuels and reduce carbon emissions if only we implement the carbon tax - oh that magical godly carbon tax...
Comical, to be sure. LOL

>>10333679
Funny how you accuse me of being a liar and then resort to lying about what I've said.

>>10333667
>Why are you lying?
And we certainly can't forget the time when you - personally - poisoned the discourse on practically every subject by inventing the tactic of calling people who disagree with you a liar.
Ahh such fun!

>>10332892
“Natural earth temperature cycles”


Caused by......? Where’s the thermal energy from?

>>10333685
>Funny how you accuse me of being a liar and
Now now, you're always the one that stoopes to that level first.

>>10333687
How am I the one poisoning the discourse when you lie?

Show me where I've said what you said or apologize for lying.

>>10333696
Calling someone a liar when they lie is not stopping to anything. Why do you think you are allowed to lie without consequences?

Global warming is good because it will cause nigger countries to become uninhabitable, killing niggers

>>10332887
If climate change is real we need to adopt clean energy sources fast.
America's whole bubble of an economy is based on the petrodollar. You fuckers kill millions for that shit and have created a whole culture around fighting terrorism etc. What do you except for fucks sake.
Climate change is fake, because there is no other option for America.

>>10332887
I suspect that the natural climate warms up by default without human intervention and is cooled down by events that are currently rare, probably giant volcanic eruptions under specific conditions that create substantial cooling.

>>10333075
Too bad this doesn't drive the /pol/ denialist delusions. Watch how resident schizos drop their (((...))) shitposting as they secretly accuse you of furthering a conspiracy, or harboring gay frogs.

>>10332969
>the models
...it's all about TEH MODULLZ, ainnit?!

>>10333711 but then it will turn every other country on the planet to a nigger country

>>10333871
>harboring gay frogs
Look man, those frogs are just down on their luck and need a place to stay for a while.

>>10332887
>causing the earth to warm
TEH GOD DIDDIT

>>10333233
whoa there you edgy incel

>>10332887
>deniers think
deniers don't think, they are all coal and oil industry shills

>>10333137
Best rename this board to /math/ cause science BTFO

>>10333847
And I suspect that you're retarded

>climate change deniers think
slow down, you're giving them too much credit.

>>10332887
Same-sex marriage

>>10332953
IQ has also be shown really well correlated with race, why do most climate change activists deny it then ?

>>10332887
Warming of the climate is causing the rise in greenhouse gases, not the other way around.

>>10335257
both happen
https://youtu.be/WLjkLPnIPPw?t=4m50s
sometimes temperature lags CO2,
other times it's the opposite

>>10332887
Sun is heating up. Plants like CO2, we'll be fine.

>>10332892
This yeah, if you look at a longer time span you find no deviations.

It's like looking at daylight between 5 and 10PM and shouting the world is getting darker and we're all doomed

>>10332887
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0

>>10335327
yeah no, droughts and heat screw that up
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

>>10335376
a fat midde aged WASP, how surprising

going renewable is smart anyway

>>10335414
ageist and racist. how shameful.

>>10335766
a shit is a dung is a turd
that fucking snowflake can go neck himself

>>10335859
edgy bro

>>10334773

>>10335327
The sun has been cooling for decades and is reaching a minimum. Yet we are warming rapidly.

>>10335766
The boomer WASP think tank employee FEARS the aged Jewish goblin finance mogul

>>10336113
sun cools down to te temperature of earth and earth warms up to the temperature of sun. We migrate to sun and problem solved

>>10333582
Not him but there's only a limit in currently accessible fuel. The oceans and seafloor are rich in uranium, and we recently discovered a method to extract uranium from seawater. This method would be inexhaustible in a reasonable time frame (millions of years) given projected global energy demand.

>>10336369
Don't bother replying to the schizo, he'll just end up calling you a shill for the Bilderbergs or whatever.

>>10333075
>2017
even earlier

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m50s

Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment
Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz
Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California
(Manuscript received 23 October 2015, in final form 22 February 2016)

>>10333075
>Only less than 50 years modelled
Hey dudes my theory is right. :^)
Climate change scientists doesn't understand modelling well enough.

That's the same as saying the number of people on this planet is growing exponentially without some saturation in some decades.

t. Physics grad

>>10332887
It's hella cold here. I no longer believe in climate change.

>>10332887
>What do climate change deniers think is causing the earth to warm if not green house gasses?
It's God's punishment for sodomites having gay buttsecks

>>10335327
But the solar output has not increased in the last few decades. CO2 is the only cause

>>10332887
Chemtrails which prevent plant root systems from taking up nutrients, and therefore, prevent them from effective growth and carbon fixation.

Solar activity also has an effect on climate.

So yes, it is CO2. The oceans are acidifying somewhat, and thawing the methane stores might well be deadly. But chemtrails are a primary causative factor, they're why ecosystems, those we haven't destroyed by other activities, are not taking up carbon properly.

>>10336818
>the number of people on this planet is growing exponentially
corporations, particularly banks and construction firms absolutely depend on this phenomena to maintain profits. 40% or more of the economy is based on these industries. That's why climate change isn't, and never will be taken seriously.

Humans are all just small parts of a system that has become an entity of sorts in itself, and it will devour ever joule of potential energy available to it, similar to fire, or a bacteria colony in a lot of ways. Once the fuel is spent, it will die.

>>10332887
>What do climate change deniers think is causing the earth to warm if not green house gasses?
Deniers don't even understand Earth would be frozen and Venus would be habitable without greenhouse effect.

>>10336863
>still being a fedora 5 years after the fad died out
kek

Hello

>>10336840

>>10332887
Surprised no has mentioned the direction of causation yet. Are gases causing the Earth to warm or is the warming Earth causing more gases to be released (since higher temperature leads to lower solubility of gases)? Pic related, CO2 usually rises AFTER temperature (I'm aware that it doesn't always, so need to give me the skepticalscience page or whatever, CO2 rise USUALLY follows temperature rise). While the order of causation probably goes both ways, with warming causing release of gases, some of these gases causing further warming, there are many other factors contributing to a warming planet. Changes in ocean circulation have been known to change temperatures drastically, it is well known that Northern hemisphere temperatures changed by between 8-12 °C during the Young Dryas. The change in Albedo (which has decreased massively in the last 12,000yr) is probably also a contributing factor.

I'm entirely for cutting emissions, fighting deforestation and ecosystem collapse, developing more renewable energy sources, and encouraging sustainable practices worldwide. What I don't like is the idea that governments should be giving a bunch of money and power to international agencies who claim they will use their power to help the world fight climate change. The very fact that they focus on CO2 emissions should be off-putting, considering the massive amounts of plastic in the ocean and deforestation worldwide are having much more disastrous effects. Focusing on CO2 allows them to control wealthy coutries primarily, while the 3rd worlders causing the brunt of ecological damage have harldy any reprecussions.

>>10333444
>>10333871
>>10336519

You add nothing. Take a hike, you useless yappy twat.

>>10333653
4chan sucks
Im convinced everyone here is either a bot or 12 year olds

>>10338587
>Are gases causing the Earth to warm or is the warming Earth causing more gases to be released (since higher temperature leads to lower solubility of gases)?
Both, it's called a positive feedback effect. But obviously higher temperatures are not causing man to release massive amounts of CO2.

>Pic related, CO2 usually rises AFTER temperature (I'm aware that it doesn't always, so need to give me the skepticalscience page or whatever, CO2 rise USUALLY follows temperature rise).
Well one problem is that your image shows the temperature from one ice core in Antarctica, not global temperature. If you look at reconstructions of global temperature you'll see that most of the warming follows the rise in CO2. Only rarely in history is CO2 the primary trigger for climate change, such as when plants evolve to create lots of CO2 or phytoplankton evolve to sequester lots of CO2, but the greenhouse effect and its related feedbacks are often necessary to explain the full extent of the changes that result from other triggers of climate change. For example, the interglacial/glacial cycle seen in your graph was caused by changes in insolation due to the cyclical variation in Earth's orbital eccentricity, precession, and obiquity, which triggered melting of ice sheets in the Southern hemisphere which then lowered the albedo of the Earth, but these mechanisms alone cannot expansion the full extent of the warming observed. You need the additional effect of greenhouse gases evaporating from the oceans as the pansy warmed to explain all of the warming. None of this contradicts the well-evidenced theory that modern human emissions are the primary driver of the rapid warming observed since they began.

>What I don't like is the idea that governments should be giving a bunch of money and power to international agencies who claim they will use their power to help the world fight climate change.
What agencies are you referring to?

>>10338587
How exactly is plastic floating in the ocean contributing to climate change?

>>10338587
>The very fact that they focus on CO2 emissions should be off-putting, considering the massive amounts of plastic in the ocean and deforestation worldwide are having much more disastrous effects.
What makes you think their effects are more disastrous? Even if you ignore all effects of global warming, the direct effect of toxic pollution from fossil fuels alone kills millions annually.

>Focusing on CO2 allows them to control wealthy coutries primarily, while the 3rd worlders causing the brunt of ecological damage have harldy any reprecussions.
This is like saying the total weight of the 3rd world population exceeds the total weight of the 1st world population, thus it's the 3rd worlders who have an obesity problem and not the 1st world. The average 1st world citizen emits an order of magnitude more than the average 3rd worlder. The first person to go on a diet should be the fattest, not the most famished.

>>10340826
>Well one problem is that your image shows the temperature from one ice core in Antarctica, not global temperature. If you look at reconstructions of global temperature you'll see that most of the warming follows the rise in CO2.

Citation definitely needed. Pic rel is a Vostok CO2 compared with a Benthic dO18 proxy that also shows temperature rise preceding CO2 rise.

>What agencies are you referring to?

They're nearly inumerable. As one example, pretty much anyone that is given money through the Green Climate Fund, especially the World Bank.

>>10340841
>How exactly is plastic floating in the ocean contributing to climate change?

The only time I mention "climate change" in my post is in the sentence:
>What I don't like is the idea that governments should be giving a bunch of money and power to international agencies who claim they will use their power to help the world fight climate change.
I avoid the phrase because I fins it very nebulous, as it focuses on global events, and misses important minor events. Obviously, the extinction of a single species isn't included in the term "climate change", yet is still very signifcant.
So plastic in the ocean isn't linked to many of the phenomena under the umbrella "climate change", but it still has negative effect on ocean life. Animals get tangled in plastic, it is as of right now non-biodegradable, and could have a myriad of negative effects that are unexplored.

>What makes you think their effects are more disastrous?

Because it is clear case of ecological destruction that could be stopped by regulating third-world countries more. The effects of emitting CO2 are obviously not directly apprehendable to the people emitting it, but deforestation and plastic pollution clearly are. You can easily see the change in a forest that has been decimated, you can easily see plastic covering streams and beaches. When the effects of the destruction are so clear the impetus to correct them should be greater.

>>10340781
or a drunk student

>>10340937
>Pic rel is a Vostok CO2 compared with a Benthic dO18 proxy that also shows temperature rise preceding CO2 rise.
This is the wrong proxy to use since benthic stacks have a timing error range of about 4000 years during terminations:
http://moraymo.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2009_lisieckiraymo.pdf

>>10340937
>Because it is clear case of ecological destruction that could be stopped by regulating third-world countries more.
This doesn't answer my question. What makes you think it's more disastrous? Fossil fuel pollution alone causes millions of deaths directly.

>The effects of emitting CO2 are obviously not directly apprehendable to the people emitting it, but deforestation and plastic pollution clearly are.
What does it being more apprehendable have to do with it being more disastrous?

The impetus to solve problems should be based on the actual effect, not on how visible something is. Your argument makes no sense.

>>10342100
>This doesn't answer my question. What makes you think it's more disastrous? Fossil fuel pollution alone causes millions of deaths directly.

In China maybe. Anywhere with effective air pollution control (i.e. the west) doesn't have death that can be directly linked to air pollution. Remember that the air pollution that kills is particulates NOT CO2. Taking measures to control particulates are done in pretty much all developed countries.The papers claiming millions of deaths (e.g.https://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/FINAL_HAP_AAP_BoD_24March2014.pdf)) due to air pollution use ridiculous methods as well. They literally calculate differences in life expectancies in countries as a function of air pollution (particulates that is), with no other factors involved. Since air pollution (again, particulates) is higher in third world countries, which also have high mortality rates, this will show air pollution "causing" many deaths. It doesn't take into account the millions of other factors influencing mortality in third world countries, like the rates of violence, malnutrition, smoking rate etc.

Particulates are comparitively easy to control, simply requiring filtration of emissions. Agreeing with my main thesis, they are mostly produced in third world countries, who have a complete disregard for controlling pollution. Yet, most efforts to combat "climate change" are targeted at western countries.

>What does it being more apprehendable have to do with it being more disastrous?

>The impetus to solve problems should be based on the actual effect, not on how visible something is

Actual effect is best measured by how apprehenable something is. If it requires convoluted methods to show that something is a problem, and there are many conflicting accounts of how damaging it is, obviously it should be treated as less disastrous than a situation where the casual effects can be directly observed.

>>10335725
>"But muh coal and smoke lungs! Think of the money my Lord trump will be losing"

>>10342091
>This is the wrong proxy to use since benthic stacks have a timing error range of about 4000 years during terminations.

So what proxy should we be using? You've rejected Antarctic ice cores and benthic dO18. Should we be using Greenland temperature proxies? I don't think that will help the old "unprecedented warming" argument...

>>10338587
The Paris Agreement is for every country to set their own national targets for decarbonization. Each country has agreed to set progressive goals for emissions reductions and then attempt to meet them. The power is not of the global body, but nations enforcing sanctions for noncompliance in their own rational self interest.

>sun
>natural
both of these possibilities have already been eliminated
there is no possible other cause

>>10332887
Anomaly compared to 20th century average...
The absolute state of science.

>>10342484
The US still uses coal plants that kills thousands annually. The idea that the West doesn't have pollution that can be directly linked to deaths is simply false. And by the same token, deforestation and plastic pollution are mainly third world problems. So it seems like you are employing a double standard.

>Remember that the air pollution that kills is particulates NOT CO2.
Yes, but my point is if you ignore climate change because of other environmental issues, you are still left with fossil fuel pollution being the biggest environmental problem.

>They literally calculate differences in life expectancies in countries as a function of air pollution (particulates that is), with no other factors involved.
This is not correct, read the methodology.

>Yet, most efforts to combat "climate change" are targeted at western countries.
Because as you said, CO2 is not the same as particulate pollution.

>Actual effect is best measured by how apprehenable something is.
No, it's best measured by scientific analysis.

>If it requires convoluted methods to show that something is a problem, and there are many conflicting accounts of how damaging it is, obviously it should be treated as less disastrous than a situation where the casual effects can be directly observed.
This doesn't logically follow. If one value is clearly 5 and the other lies between 10 and 20, the former is still less than the latter.

>>10342501
You should be using a reconstruction that combines several different proxies in order to reduce the biases inherent in each.

>>10342626
What is wrong with this? The baseline of the anomaly has no effect on the trend.

I got a better question,:
How can we stop climate change?

>>10334843
What

>>10332973
Kek

>>10344269
Emit less greenhouse gases

>>10344596
So how can we do this?

>>10345185
I hate this cartoon. The costs of implementing carbon emissions control are quite high. This is why the yellow vest protests are happening. Barring great advances in technology, fixing global warming requires a huge economic sacrifice.

>>10345146
Carbon tax and subsidizing alternative energy.

>>10345199
Letting global warming go unmitigated would be the huge economic sacrifice actually.

>>10332887
farts

>>10332887
>Be earth
>Get warm
>Release trapped co2 from ice and tundra
>Have more co2

>>10345925
Too bad isotope analysis proves its fossil fuel emissions and not from ice. And what caused it to be warm in the first place?

>>10333257
The high up jewish ones dont

Climate change is real. Close the fucking borders and live in your 1° warmer paradise and thank me later. I see nothing wrong with doing nothing to address global warming when dealing with the fallout affects me much less.

>>10333871
>/pol/ denialist
Funny thing is, /pol/ used to have a fair number of environmentalists on it mocking GOP for being a bunch of deliberately obtuse paid off retards. Today's poltards are just a bunch of retarded normalfags LARPing as a board that is long dead.

>>10342100
>Fossil fuel pollution alone causes millions of deaths directly.
Who exactly?

>>10335725
I would rather nuclear honestly.

>>10347240
Why? Do you believe it will give you superpowers?

>>10336863
To be fair If I were God and I spent all this time and effort instructing humans on how to live moral lives only to have them decide to fuck each other in the ass I'd probably set the earth on fire too.

>>10332892
> Criticising a theory doesn't mean you need to offer an alternative
Actually, in science, in order to reject Ho, you have to at least hypothesize an Ha.

So, yes, you need to offer an alternative. To criticize without offering something better is the bebbe-level tantrum.

>>10348980
Good thing agw doesn't have an Ho

>>10348527
Consistent output and don't need to worry about batteries

>>10348527
not him but-
It's clean, safe, efficient. It's actually capable of providing enough power and creates hardly any waste. Solar and wind are shit in a lot of places because peak power production and peak consumption don't line up, which means that you need to invest a shit load into battery storage, which in itself is pretty nasty in terms of manufacturing and end-of-life waste (so is solar). Wind and solar farms are ugly, and those two as well as hydro can have significant effects on the local environment, which is a problem considering just how many of them you would need.

>>10348527
Daily reminder that you already have superpowers. Research remote viewing, remote action, and extraocular perception.

CO2 is increasing. The global temperature is increasing. Is one causing the other? We don't completely know.

Green house gasses is the most reasonable and studied answer to "why is the earth's global surface temperature rising?" It's not the actual, factual, undeniable answer as of yet though.

So for now, its ~80% or more likely that green house gases are warming the planet, but could still be something else entirely.

>>10335330
>It's like looking at daylight between 5 and 10PM and shouting the world is getting darker and we're all doomed
In this scenario you would be correct because night lasts for centuries.

The damage has already been done. We might be able to expend limited resources to lower the peak temperature increase for future generations, but for most of our lives, we will be passengers on the global warming wild ride.

I'm still for going green, don't get me wrong. But I am completely against new taxes like what France did with the gas tax.

>>10332887
Chinese now wealthy enough to live their barbecue owning dreams. Or Ming the Merciless's heat ray. Or the sun perchance. I Believe it more likely to be the later than anything human. Big science thinks it can stifle debates with some Latin buzz words and graphs like OP. It has not made its case well. The big scientific claim, that A is caused by *B, has not been supported by big scientific evidence. (some old quack digging up ice cores? Please.) As one of the *Bs, I feel misrepresented. And it's my duty as a rational being to cry foul.

The sun on the other hand. How much do we really know about it? Not so long ago we were painting it on the walls of caves. We believe we've solved its deepest mysteries, yet fusion power (like immortality) is always 30 years away. Isn't it just possible that IT, and little or nothing human, is the culprit here? Or the Earth itself. We've barely scratched its surface.

>>10349429
We can directly observe how much heat CO2 radiates toward the Earth, so you're wrong, it's essentially certain that CO2 is causing the warming. You wouldn't just need to find something else that's causing warming, you would also need to explain how fundamental physics and spectroscopy is wrong.

>>10349439
>I'm all for going green, so long as I don't have to make an immediate sacrifice

>>10332892

>>10332969
satellite dataset =RSS

RSS is bullshit, it was shown to be so in March 2016.
Only morons like you refer to it anymore.

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m50s


Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment
Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz
Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California
(Manuscript received 23 October 2015, in final form 22 February 2016)

>>10349487
>I'm all for going green, so long as the sacrifice isn't something that primarily affects a large amount of people negatively while increasing the revenue for an entity (the state) who not only encouraged the problem in the first place, but also doesn't have any good ideas to stop it that don't involve increasing its revenue.

>>10349469
Do you have a source to support that? I'm not asking to challenge you, I'd just like to know more.

>What do climate change deniers think is causing the earth to warm if not green house gasses?
Hmm...Ok, the increase in human population correlates with the global rise in temperature. While CO2 may be what's causing the effect, too many humans are the root cause producing the excess CO2. That's what they mean when they say man made. :)

>>10332887
How do you get world temperature data from the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Looks like complete bullshit to me.

>>10349621
Yeah no one measured temperature back then....

>>10332953
There is a simple, obvious theoretical model for why CO2/greenhouse gases would cause some amount of global warming. What is not known is how much CO2 causes how much of an increase in average global temperature (this can also be called the Earth's "climate sensitivity"). There isn't yet any real way to measure the Earth's climate sensitivity, so there's no reason to assume the climate sensitivity is high enough to actually cause major problems for humans.

>>10349616
Thank you

>>10349625
Not globally. I would guess they're only taking data from the US and Europe and trying to extrapolate from that, which might be skewing the results.

>>10349625
Did niggas in Africa check the daily temp everyday in the 1800s? Like do we know the temp of what's now known as the Congo back in February 1st, 1819?

What makes CO2 so potent is causing global warming when it's a shit conductor of heat?

>>10349383
retard alert, full renewable electricity can already be achieved with a strong effort for dispatchment

global cooling
global warming
now climate change
The great pause.
extreme hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, flooding? not happening.

every 10 years, they tell us we only have 10 years left
,
follow the money. climate research comes from govt grants......

The rich and powerful support climate change legislation...weird.

>>10349383
>which means that you need to invest a shit load into battery storage
Why can't we make hydrogen, store it in big tanks, then fuel cell at night. Giant explosive tanks everywhere would be a downside along with the energy wasted in the conversion. Sea level is rising, so lets use our excess water.

>>10333233
Chinese are the biggest advocates of a carbon tax. You whining poltards with your incredibely retarded "global warming is a chinese conspiracy" bullshit should just stay out of this discussion.

>>10349652
Exactly idk but if it is a bad at conducting heat, logically that means is better at insulating. Comfy.

>>10349621
"The most detailed information exists since 1850, when methodical thermometer-based records began."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record

>>10350052
>hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, flooding?
silly low iq bait post

>>10349652
visible sun light passing right through atmosphere --- is absorbed on surface --- surface is emitting heat -- heat is trapped in atmosphere because greenhouse gasses are "shit conductor of heat"

>>10349652
thermos bottles aren't known for well conducting walls

>>10332930
>evidence
Backed up by what control, oh wait...

>>10332887
> earth to warm
Earth is not warming

>>10349597
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Absorption-bands-in-the-Earths-atmosphere-created-by-greenhouse-gases-and-the-resulting_fig8_265041566

Climate change deniers do no exist.

>>10349616
This is false since more humans does not necessarily mean more CO2 emissions.

>>10349639
>cant no nuffin

>>10349647
The starting year was chosen because its data coverage was sufficiently global. In the 1850s there were hundreds of temperature stations and about 15% of them were in the Southern hemisphere.

>>10349652
Because conduction is not the same as radiative transfer?

>>10350168
>evolution is fake because you need a control earth

>>10350443
Ok,
>This is false
>not necessarily
I'm in suspense, which is it? Humans exhale CO2, compare population growth with the rise in global temperature.
Humans are to blame. Humans!

Man made global warming is a hoax.

Tax my automobile more and I shall make it a coal roller. I already have gallons of waste oil that could be burned inside the diesel engine as well as I could remove some parts from exhaust.

>>10332892
If you dismiss something without evidence. The weight of your dismissal will not be impactful.
Denying climate change implies you have an alternative explanation.

>>10350513
Exhalation of CO2 by humans is a negligible source. If we were simply exhaling CO2, CO2 concentrations would be dropping due to natural sinks.

>>10350461
Not the same retard. You can view it happening with viruses and bacteria if you’d like. That’s the difference between real science and climate crap kys.

>>10350875
You can observe the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere directly without a control Earth. It's called radiative spectroscopy. Every observation about the Earth in science is done without a control Earth, you dunce.

>>10350888
So you admit to having no conclusive experimental data at all. Damn thanks. You should have taken gender studies.

>>10350893
So you admit to being illiterate and/or lying about what I said. Damn thanks. You should have taken gender studies.

>>10350898
Lol

>>10332887
I vehemently deny that climate change need to be somehow fixed, SPECIALLY if it's caused by CO2. CO2 is awesome for agriculture.

>>10351090
Is drought awesome for agriculture?

>>10332887
Climate engineering.
https://www.youtube.com/user/danewigington/videos

>>10351156
Not going to be a drought at here.

>>10351174
Right, because most of America's already in one.

>>10351184
I'm from Europe

>>10351186
>Europe matters
If America goes down the rest of the world follows. Besides, you guys already had wildfires, aren't those caused by dry conditions?

>>10351174
>>10350475

>>10351174
there are going to be droughts everywhere up to the central european lattitudes, all of asia, north america, the tropics and south america will be dessicated continuously destroying the quality of the soil permanently and almost completely removing snow pack from mountain systems. You will see the worst water crises imaginable in sw asia and north africa, and the sw na in just a few decades, and this is well before the serious warming begins at the end of the century, right when any carbon fertilization or growing season benefits to boreal climates is expected to peak. Next century will be brutal for all lattitudes, there will be no net benefits for anyone. 50 years of slight agricultural benefits for a tiny, largely fruitless, low productivity, set of regions in north eurasia while destroying the sustainability of life on earth

>>10351191
You had the wildfires in California. And you voted Trump to president.

>>10351202
Yeah, but the majority of Americans deny global warming, just admit that what we're doing isn't helping agriculture any time soon.

>>10334843
>tu quoque
Not an argument.

>>10332887
Oops.

>>10350529
>Denying climate change implies you have an alternative explanation
This is just logically wrong. If a theory is based on measurably incorrect presuppositions, it can be disproven without the discovery of additional information.

>>10351346
The vast majority of the greenhouse effect goes toward keeping the Earth from being a giant ball of ice. It's the change in greenhouse gases from that baseline that is the cause of global warming, not the total amount of greenhouse gases. So your image tells us nothing.

>>10351346
what’s the differential rate of dissipation of hydrocarbons and water vapor

>>10351384
Then do so.

The best way to geoengineer earth to oppose increased co2 would be to actively cut down forest and replace with asphalt, and to sequester as much water vapour as possible.

Get on it lads. Economic growth is at stake.

>>10351640
Those are probably the worst ways you could possibly think of, considering asphalt lowers earth's albedo and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by temperature, not by how much humans release or sequester.

>>10351640
>cut down forest and replace with asphalt
>sequester as much water vapour as possible.

The first conveniently leads to the second.

>>10351649
actually things like rock and asphalt are excellent black body radiators (far superior to water bodies, despite their lower albedo), and so have a net cooling effect. Times during Earth's past when the continents were located near the equator were exceptionally cold because of this.

>>10351658
Albedo is the more important factor.
Reflected light avoids the greenhouse effect while radiated heat doesn't.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/sustainability/articles/pavement_thermal.cfm

>>10351702
Fine, forget the pavement/asphalt then...
The albedo of desert is higher than that of forest, in addition to being a superior radiator.

It would be cheaper to simply defoliate anyway.

We need to geoengineer the shit out of this bitch. Get on it lads. Economic growth is at stake!

>>10351702
What about heat converted to mechanical work or chemical reaction?

>>10351702
I can't believe a banker/shill like you would try to resist this awesome plan.
Not only do you get to grow the economy through logging, you get to geoengineer and prevent massive future losses due to climate change. It's win-win!

>>10351786
Still a bad idea since trees are a big carbon sink. Deforestation for pretty much any reason is going to exacerbate warming rather than lessen it.

>>10351823
>banker/shill
?

>>10351842
Then why are so many climate scientists against the idea of planting trees and expanding forest to mitigate climate change?

>>10351848
You have no comment on population growth, and you're for economic growth, right?

>>10351842
>Still a bad idea since trees are a big carbon sink.
No. Only trees in 2nd growth forests. Old growth forests are carbon neutral
>Deforestation for any reason is going to make warming worse
Only if the trees are not properly sequestered.

>>10351855
Are they against it? I think there was a special report from the IPCC a while ago that said tree planting could mitigate maybe 2% of annual emissions realistically. Just because deforestation is bad doesn't mean forestation is good doesn't mean it solves the problem.

>>10351861
I don't understand what you're asking. In what context?

>>10351878
>Just because deforestation is bad doesn't mean forestation is good doesn't mean it solves the problem.
but carbon taxes will solve the problem?

LOL

What about using some fertilizer on sea algae, so it will grow more and absorb more CO2?

Or just GMO it to be more efficient?

>>10351885
They could potentially, yeah.

>>10351884
Either you're the guy who wrote that once on this site, or you're not.

>>10351899
Just don't forget there is more ecological damage that can be taxed than CO2 which is reversible to some degree.

>>10351899
I doubt it.

>>10332887
The same thing that caused it before humans were burning fossil fuels.

>>10351902
I don't think I've ever written "no comment" about anything.

>>10351915
So Milankovich cycles? According to them we should be cooling. What specifically are you referring to?

>>10351915
What about this is real, but also humans have some effect on enviroment.

avg temp is insufficient measure of climate.

>>10351917
Fair enough.
All of the fossil fuels will be mined and converted to carbon dioxide and released into the atmosphere, carbon tax or not.
And all of the forests will be cut down, geoengineering or not.
Economic growth is everything.

>>10350635
I would also like to keep this wonderfully educational conversation we're having preceding in a forward direction. So 2.92 gigatonnes of CO2 exhaled by humans last year alone is wholly insignificant? If its insignificant did they add it to the total amount of CO2 released last year, what is that anyway. That is just the amount exhaled not the total caused by and I'm getting the impression you're not blaming humans enough. The news said that science said we made the global warmings. Science always blame us for everything, what did we do to be treated like this.
Interestingly since consuming more plant matter than average would mean more CO2 exhaled that would means vegans are literally killing the planet. (cows don't exist)

I can't wait for the government to tax the shit out of me, I'm sure the money won't just get disappeared like most tax dollars already do. Meanwhile non-climate change issues that are getting bad already get ignored. Enjoy your water wars, soil degradation, microplastics and no more fish to eat while the two sides of the government who can't agree over 0.01% of the budget piss your carbon tax dollars on bullshit projects that probably won't even help reduce emissions but will definitely make their mates rich.

We are fucked.

>>10352889
>So 2.92 gigatonnes of CO2 exhaled by humans last year alone is wholly insignificant?
Where did that CO2 come from? It comes from what we eat, the vast majority of which ultimately comes from vegetation which pulled it out of the air recently. So human breathing is practically carbon neutral.

daily reminder

Look at it this way: the human race will have to die out one way or another. Just because it hurts your fee fees, does not mean that climate change will DEFINITIVELY not be the way that this happens.

>>10351915
At least its delaying the next ice age.

>>10332887
>we should reward countries that are the worst polluters and punish countries that are doing the right thing
I wonder why people dislike your agenda

>>10353062
it's an ice age if there is an polar ice cap, this means we are still in an ice age

>>10352954
Wrong! Because carbon sinks are destroyed for this. Forests are cut down and swamps are drained to make space for agriculture. Our ever growing population is causing more harm then fossil fuel usage.

>>10350900

Lol

>>10353107
Incorrect, the effect is dwarfed by fossil fuel emissions.

>>10349443

>muh chineses how dare they have good economy

Vid related - you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuKjwWYyfkw

>has not been supported by big scientific evidence

Of course not, just 98% of the scientific community's consensus - no biggie! Why listen to them when American jingoists can speculate about stars?

>>10353112
What a seething faggot ;)

Next time try an actual science where you can conduct controlled experiments and not just shitty comp sims and observational studies cum guzzler.

>>10353339

>observational studies
>sims based on observational studies
>somehow not experimental

>waaaah faggit cum guzzler waaaaaaaa

Lol

>>10353351
Sad, you can’t even defend your so called science. You a poo or a Chinese mongrel?

Computer simulations cannot account for all variables, also they are subject to programmer bias. Climate science is simply a waste of funding.

>>10353373

>more stupid name callings
>because I called you out on your stupid 'Lol' response
>claiming computer modelling is useless because "w-well sometimes they miss out on stuff"
>ignoring every other piece of evidence provided ITT, like

>>10333075
>>10336695
>>10349527 - https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m50s

>>10350440 - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Absorption-bands-in-the-Earths-atmosphere-created-by-greenhouse-gases-and-the-resulting_fig8_265041566
>etc
>so-called science
>so-called

Well you're definitely not here to learn, but if you want to complain about Chinese people or whatever there is a board called /pol/ where that sort of thing isn't frowned upon - feel free to shit on that turd if you want

>>10353378
Lol

>>10353379

Lol#[x+n]

The Sahara wasn't always a desert, you know.

>>10353373
>Computer simulations cannot account for all variables, also they are subject to programmer bias.
I don't think you understand what models are, or why they're used in science.
Models aren't divine wisdom held be faith, they're predictors which are valuable to the extent they've been empirically verified. Climate models have been through SIGNIFICANT verification, which is why they're trusted by climatologists.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/03/climate-change-denial-changing-minds

>>10350893
You're not a clever fellow

>>10353069
you're right, we shouldn't reward the US for this

>>10333233

Your such a cunt. True Flat Earth tier.

>You cannot spend up research, if CC is true, the we can only wait until solar panels become efficient enough to compete with fossil fuels

Plenty of examples where laws made bad shoot illegal and regulation and enforcement changed industrial output.

It's babby's first brainlet of an idea here

>>10333275

If there is a market, yes we are going to use it against polluters. Those taxes are costs they are pushing on soc

>>10345311

There is so much denial and obstruction at this point I am predicting the onky thing that will reaaly be effective is a global hegemonic alliance between G7 and producers to enforce a global military order to destroy or dismantle coal and fossil fuel use. A gunboat diplomacy heavy on sticks to get developing nations to negotiate decarbonization, with the carrots being participation in new clean energy global mandates

>>10350445
If a hypothesis is unfalsifiable then you shouldn't really act on it, should you?

>>10353150
>Of course not, just 98% of the scientific community's consensus - no biggie! Why listen to them when American jingoists can speculate about stars?
Consensus is not evidence. Fucked up incentives can induce scientists to believe anything.

>>10354162
good thing there's a mountain of evidence then; in fact, that's what the consensus is based on

>>10352889
>So 2.92 gigatonnes of CO2 exhaled by humans last year alone is wholly insignificant?
You fucking moron.
It's about how much carbon is MOVED from under ground to above ground, where it then becomes part of the biosphere/atmosphere.
I don't totally blame you though... the leftist retards pushing the STOP EATING MEAT meme are partially to blame for your epic moronism.

>>10333695
Uuh there is a star pretty close by

>>10355518
We have a pretty good idea of how much energy Earth receives from the Sun. It's not the cause.

>>10355655
retard

>>10355681
ITT: Scientists complain that they're great communicators, but everyone else is bad at listening.
ITT: Scientists think the end of the world can be avoided by sovereign nations independently trashing their own economies on the assumption others will at the same time.

>>10351346
>anthropomorphic CO2
are you a literal toddler?

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1090991462140002304

>>10332892
>natural earth temperature cycles.
Without any cause or mechanism behind them?

>>10355904
Yup. Magical cycles that can't be predicted or understood, but look exactly like anthropogenic forcing, right down to the frequency of the increased downward IR.

>>10355968
crazy coincidence

>>10345199
>. This is why the yellow vest protests are happening

Wrong. That's a lie. In France there is free college and you can get a doctor to come to your house for $75, and taxes fund it. Stop using yellow vest to make your shitty point

Carbon is the pollutant. Tax it.

>>10345199
> fixing global warming requires a huge economic sacrifice

That's the truth. Earlier generations ate your lunch, there is no point in denying that.

Sacrifice was always the only way, with a higher price for every year spent kicking the can.

The problem is modern people don't have any idea what sacrifice is

>>10332887
>We all agree the earth is getting significantly warmer!
No, we don't all agree that. Your side is FAKING data, ALTERING the values giving by thermometers, and asking us to believe their lies are justified.

>>10332930
>Deniers won't accept our faked data. Checkmate.
We've even caught you talking about how you will fake it.

>>10333075
>W-we had to alter the readings from the satellites because, like the ground thermometers, they said we were lying.

>>10356830
>The problem is modern people don't have any idea what sacrifice is
White people are constantly sacrificing. We just don't believe in this leftist sky-is-falling bullshit.

>>10354151
Which hypothesis is unfalsifiable?

>>10356973
>here's two graphs with different data
>therefore the data is faked
How many times are you going to pull this retarded trick? There's no indication that you are comparing apples to oranges. What does the 1982 graph represent? Global sea level? Northern Hemisphere? US? How has the data coverage changed since 1982? How has the methodology changed since 1982? Oh you don't know, you just assume it's fake.

>>10356980
Funny considering Lamar Smith was caught lying about data manipulation: https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

And it recently came out that the one who approved the internal review that John Bates complained about was... John Bates.

>>10356983
>alteration to the data that causes cooling: good, justified correction
>fixing mistake in that alteration: bad, fake data
At least try to hide your blatant hypocrisy.

>>10356984
>White people are constantly sacrificing
White people are constantly forcing other people to sacrifice.
Fixed that for you

>>10333279
> selling ever more petroleum products to third world countries as long as you tax your own citizens.
I find it truly amazing you dont see any gaping holes with this point

>>10333287
>being ready to have a smug attitude towards idiots who think they can predict the future in such a huge system.
Scenario 1 - somehow everyone is wrong and you get to say I told you so
Scenario 2 - everyone was right and our civilization goes tits up as we know it

Absolutely brilliant.

>>10357711
This is a Roko's Basilisk shit tier argument.

>>10356983
>Average US station temprature
What kind of retarded dataset is that? Even ignoring the fact the US isn't the whole world, average station temperature and average temperature over an area are VERY different things.

>>10356983
>>10336695

don't argue, fix it, at least put some solar panels on your roof or buy a fuel efficient car or something like that, it might even save you money

their are workable solutions to climate change that could be implemented tomorrow..... converting power production to thorium molten salt nuclear reactors could be done worldwide. skies above antarctica and the arctic could be seeded with reflective sulfur particles to reduce albido. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/

global warming is real. /pol/tards will piss and winge and deny this. but the solutions to it are easily within reach, blocked by left wing mongoloids and greedy mulitnationals, plus the many countries who are dependent on fossil fuel exports for their economies. the average westerner need sacrifice nothing for climate change to be fixed.... that sacrifice will fall to the opec nations and russia.

>>10360221
from the article I posted: Last year, a public outcry led by several international environmental groups helped shut down a simple experiment that a team of British researchers had proposed. The group wanted to pump water to a height of one kilometer through a thin hose held aloft by a helium balloon. The object would have been to test whether a similar system could someday be used to inject sulfur particles into the stratosphere at an altitude of 20 kilometers.

as i said.... advances in actual solutions to global warming are being stopped by the people supposed to support it, for no other reason than it would take attention and funding away from them

>>10332887
why do they think it's not human caused?

>>10333275
>It's a conspiracy to destroy the poor corporations

Smoking weed causes global warming, that's basic knowledge, what the fuck do they teach you in school?

>>10350893
"You can't know that gravity theory is right, you don't have a control universe"

Climate change skeptics, ladies and gentlemen.

>>10360260
because deniers are retarded