/sci/ - Science & Math

Climate change is a political scapegoat. It doesn't matter. What matters is that we are removing carbon from the earth and injecting it into the atmosphere. There is no one on this planet who thinks this is a good idea long term. It's a finite one-way resource which will eventually run out and inevitably lead us to the solar/wind/nuclear solutions we should be using right now. Unfortunately the oil industry is so incomprehensibly large and powerful and invested that I fear we will never break free until required to do so by mother nature.

>>11325334
>My uneducated layman’s opinion is-

Gonna have to stop you there.
The current warming trend is 100% manmade.

>>11325363
my opinion is based on the fact that Earth is 4 billion years old and we barely have hundreds or thousands of years of recorded weather history

>>11325334
>Give me a quick rundown on climate change.
natural vs manmade is irrelevant. Ecological collapse, desertification, severe weather events and rising oceans are inevitable. The only thing we can do now is try to reverse it and deal with the consequences of the disaster debt we've already put on ourselves.

>>11325375
>natural vs manmade is irrelevant
if it's natural how do you reverse it...?

>>11325369
> my opinion is based on the fact that Earth is 4 billion years old and we barely have hundreds or thousands of years of recorded weather history

No it isn’t, don’t lie to yourself.
Earth has been warming over the course of the last century and CO2 concentrations have increased due to human activities over the same timescale. What else are you blaming the warming on?

>>11325334
Ocean levels were 10 meters lower 10,000 years ago. There are port cities in the desert. Dinosaur bones in Antarctica. A thousand years ago, grapes grew in Newfoundland. I don't get it either.

>>11325377
>if it's natural how do you reverse it...?

Are you dumb?
Trees are natural. It is therefore impossible to get rid of trees.

>>11325334
>Give me a quick rundown on climate change.
Greenhouse gasses absorb and reemit infrared radiation back at the surface of the earth.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Humans add something like 40 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. That is the weight of over 100,000 empire state buildings... every year. About 30% of that gets absorbed into the oceans where it reacts with water to form carbonic acid leading to ocean acidification. CO2 in the ocean is good for some things, algae, and bad for others, coral, things that make shells.
"Surface waters are now 30 percent more acidic than they were at the start of the industrial era."
There has been a "2-degree increase in global average surface temperature since the pre-industrial era"

>>11325377
you're saying that in the event that it is proven that climate change is not a direct result of CO2 emissions, we're incapable of devising a way to alter the weather at all? These things are not equivalent. There are companies in China that are literally deploying weather machines to force it to rain in certain places.

>>11325378
how do you know the earth wasn't this warm a million years ago? we don't have any data going back event remotely that far
>>11325384
your analogy is retarded
a better one would be: a tree naturally grows up, let's make one that grows sideways
which illustrates my point:
if the temperature changes are natural wouldn't it be stupid to try to reverse it?
>>11325389
>There has been a "2-degree increase in global average surface temperature since the pre-industrial era"
what about compared to 10,000 years ago? 100,000? 1,000,000?
You're comparing temperature data on a scale of hundreds of years when the earth is billions of years old
>>11325394
if the earth does indeed have natural cooling/heating patterns how would you change that on a global scale? wouldn't it be a bad idea to interfere with that?

>>11325394
are you really this brainwashed and retarded or are you getting paid some nice cash at least?

>>11325404
>if the earth does indeed have natural cooling/heating patterns how would you change that on a global scale?
when you ask the question "are humans have an effect on the Earth" with the assumption "the Earth is too big for humans to have an effect" you are begging the question. This is a failure of conceptual understanding.
>wouldn't it be a bad idea to interfere with that?
why are incels on this website so opposed to society changing? Change puts us in a compromising position and those who can't adapt will die. I suppose you can argue that we should just let most people die, but if it's in our power to unnaturally stabilize the Earth's climate in a place that's most comfortable for humans, why not? Who is nature that fighting against them is so wrong? We do it every day trying to save species from extinction or preserve islands or forests that are naturally disappearing.

>>11325404
> how do you know the earth wasn't this warm a million years ago?

Doesn’t matter whether or not it was.

> your analogy is retarded

You’re retarded. Gotcha,

> if the temperature changes are natural wouldn't it be stupid to try to reverse it?

No.

>>11325407
brainwashed by what? That mankind is capable of altering its environment? That they're forcing it to rain over Beijing? These are facts.

Short rundown

Trees and plants take CO2 and excrete oxygen. CO2 is bound in them and goes underground. Humans dig up carbon stored underground for millions of years and vaporize it releasing it into the atmosphere at a staggering rate never seen before. They believe this is perfectly okay and wont change the balance one bit and that anyone pointing it out is a low iq retard. You are here.

>>11325404
We have paleoclimatological records though and they show us CO2 has a causal relation with a warming climate. I believe we train our physical models using this data an the climate system lets itself get modeled pretty easily, it is just statistical mechanics in the long run after all.

>>11325356
>>11325334
Incorrect. Stop trying to be contrarian. Climate change is real, urgent, and an existential threat to millions.

>>11325421
Clearly the only sane person here.

>>11325334

Here is NASA admitting that not only is it not melting as fast as they said, but they can’t actually measure most of the continent. They only measure the coastlines. The map is provided here.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2836/antarcticas-contribution-to-sea-level-rise-was-mitigated-by-snowfall/

Here is the “fastest melting glacier” in Greenland. Actually growing for a third straight year.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145185/major-greenland-glacier-is-growing

Most of the ocean is unexplored. Most of Earth is ocean. Which means if you do the math, most of OUR PLANET is unexplored. The science is settled? How? Why does Neil Tyson say he & his buddies think they know the whole universe? https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html

Here they found an ACTIVE VOLCANO under a melting glacier. Yet, they scramble to act like this doesn’t make a difference. Ask Hawaii about volcanoes. They do make a difference. They dictate things that humans can’t control. Including ice melt. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/volcano-antarctic-ice-melting-pine-island-glacier-sea-level-climate-change-global-warming-a8423131.html

Here is the Founder of the Weather Channel saying the whole thing is a political lie & the term “denier” is a way to quash questions & healthy scientific skepticism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GRYGQBFVic

Did you know we have something called trees? You could plant them. Doesn’t involve taxing the entire world, taxing Americans, taking money & screaming alarmism about the world ending.
https://interestingengineering.com/ethiopia-plants-350-million-trees-in-12-hours-breaking-tree-planting-record

So what’s a “science denier” or a “climate denier”? It’s a made up propaganda term. Their own science says most of Earth is unexplored & unknown. Glacier cycles, volcanos, oceans. All beyond human comprehension right now.

There is no room for debate. The debate began in the late 80's and concluded over a decade ago. Climate change is real. The data is real. The evidence is overwhelming.

The only reason someone would deny the importance and threat of climate change would be if they dig their heads in the sand, drink the Trump kool aid, or are certifiably low iq (usually all 3).

>>11325446
>We don't have every inch of our oceans and glaciers intricately mapped out
>Climate change is FAKE

None of the "evidence" you've cited is real, factual evidence, nor is it directly related to climate change. This is just conjecture.

>>11325446
>Most of the ocean is unexplored. Most of Earth is ocean. Which means if you do the math, most of OUR PLANET is unexplored. The science is settled? How?
this is some flat earth tier brainlet reasoning lmao

>>11325453
>None of the "evidence" you've cited is rea
So reports from Nasa are fake?

>>11325382
>10 meters
More like 100

What i'm skeptic about is the Runaway Greenhouse Effect, people are claiming that we are going straight into one, but the earth has been significantly warmer in the past and that hasn't caused an RGE, just a couple thousand years ago we went through the roman warm period that peaked at +3.4°C, and then the earth temperature dipped into a cool period.
There has been also a period where the earth got absurdly hot in the Paleolithic but i dont know if that caused a runaway effect or not.

>The only reason someone would deny the importance and threat of climate change would be if they dig their heads in the sand, drink the Trump kool aid, or are certifiably low iq (usually all 3).

....Or because they don't care, since the Oil Cartel is doing 99% of the damage and they aren't going to change. So why should I do anything if the situation is hopeless? Climate change will only be solved through technology, not changing human actions. So for me, I don't care about climate change since I strongly believe that technology will solve it. And if it doesn't solve it, climate change doesn't affect me since I will be dead before the effects of it reach me. So I don't really care about Climate change.

>>11325446
The terrestrial biosphere only make up a small percentage of the carbon cycle with a very short residence time. Plating trees won't do much when the ocean is the major player and we're crippling it's ability to uptake CO2

Due to the strong circulation along the south pole, Antartica has a stronger buffer against climate change as opposed to the Arctic

>>11325356
Yea but this is literally how everything works

>system stable as is but stability depends on limited resource
>system assumes resource is permanent
>resource runs out
>system unstable
>instability leads to random behavior in the system, some constructive of new systems, some entirely destructive
>destructive actions act as stress tests for emerging constructive actions
>constructive actions refined as a result
>after some time, constructive actions add up to more than destructive
>the system has adapted to new circumstances
>the system is stable
>goto step 0

>>11325588
Those warm periods were regional and not global. In the past where the earth was hotter the ecosystem developed in that warm steady state and lived there. We have had a generally cooler steady state in the more recent past with the CO2 not going above 300ppm and when it rose it did at a rate of about 50 ppm per couple thousand years. Now we're have increased it by 100 ppm in 100 years.

>>11325369
>we barely have hundreds or thousands of years of recorded weather history
holy shit what the fuck are you talking about lad?

>>11325334

>>11325588
most scientists don't consider the RGE plausible at least in the case of the earth becoming Venus. hitting +10C or so is still very possible though.

>>11325446
>Glacier cycles, volcanos, oceans. All beyond human comprehension right now.

are you fucking kidding me

>>11325448
you know some of us believe in it but aren't willing to dive headlong into $15 trillion scatterbrained confiscatory scams written up by a bunch a bureaucrats

>>11325982
>regional
You could walk from South America to indonesia from several different directions. Not Anon.

>>11325356
Except the carbon will always return to the new flora and fauna because Earth has feedback mechanisms that self-regulate unlike Venus.

Bill Gates is right also, Solar/Wind/Battery are a wank that are way too far off and energy is only 25% of the problem, Nuclear supplemented by renewables and even LNG for the 3rd world and clean coal are all a mixture of solutions that all need to be looked at seriously.

On top of that, agriculture and manufacturing are going to need a myriad of solutions themselves and we still have to address real pollution and the plastic mountains choking our ocean biosphere.

Let's be real lads

>>11325448

You forgot plain old some-men-just-want-to-watch-the-world-burn nihilism (no, nihilism does not preclude above-average intelligence so don't bother with that feint).

>>11325334
Your stance is dumb as fuck. Unless you think that the archaeological and geographical records are just made up.

>>11325334
It's physics and chemistry, not history.
It's the good old greenhouse effect you probably already heard of.

>>11325446
>first point
What is your point? The deviation from the expected value is what is relevant, not that there is deviation at all.

>second
Google trend

>third
Tinfoil hat retardation

>fourth
So if I take an ice cube out of my freezer it will melt just as fast at 5c as it will at 100c. You should publish and collect your nobel.

>fifth
Weather channel(s) repackage publicly available (free)information then sell it to you, they arent credible sources of anything except profiteering.

>sixth
You have zero grasp of the scale or timeline of the problem or indeed the mechanism of it.

Giving absolute cretins like you political franchise was one of the biggest mistakes our civilization has ever made.

>>11325334
>My stance has always been that we don't have enough recorded history to determine how much of climate change is natural vs manmade.
Climate change being manmade is directly observable, not based on historical correlations:

http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

Also how much history do you think we need? We have millions of years of proxy data.

>>11325404
>how do you know the earth wasn't this warm a million years ago?
So what if it was? It's the rate of warming that's the problem, not the temperature.

>we don't have any data going back event remotely that far
Incorrect.

>a better one would be: a tree naturally grows up, let's make one that grows sideways
This is easy to do since trees grow in whatever direction the light source is. You are falsely conflating current warming being natural (even though it isn't) with manmade warming being impossible.

>what about compared to 10,000 years ago? 100,000? 1,000,000?
Over the past million years, the fastest warming has taken thousands of years rather than a few hundred.

>You're comparing temperature data on a scale of hundreds of years when the earth is billions of years old
Humans care about the next hundred years regardless of whether it's noticeable across Earth's entire history. Human existence is barely a blip in Earth's history. Are you a human or a rock?

>if the earth does indeed have natural cooling/heating patterns how would you change that on a global scale?
Are these patterns magic? They have causes that can be exploited. Regardless, we know client warming isn't part of a cycle because we already know the cause is not natural. And we can see it is completely against the natural cycle that has determined temperature over the last million years.

>wouldn't it be a bad idea to interfere with that?
Natural doesn't mean good.

None of your arguments are original, you've picked them up from some entry level denier blogs. You have a long way to go.

>>11325363
>1 degree
>warming trend

>>11327835

>>11325334
Stop wasting people's time, climate change is undeniably a human caused event.

>>11325446
Cool post with references dude. I may not have noticed except for all the attention you got from female participants.

>>11325334
>Give me a quick rundown on climate change.
Leftoid propaganda garbage.

>>11325334
Bullshit, when i was a kid I remember some scientists telling me that I would be dead by the time i hit 15, bullshit about sea level rising, it is all political, especially with the paris accord. I'm a geophysicist btw.

When I was 12, a climatologist stuck his fingers in my mouth and butthole. He told me it didn't matter if I told anyone because everyone would be dead by 2015 from ozone depletion.

>>11325334
don't you love it when people make claims about stuff you can't test and then keep pushing it on you so they can tax you?

let's see how many months go by before someone tell these people to fucking plant a tree.

>>11325334
We’ve increased global temperatures just enough that permafrost melt is collapsing the ground in vast swathes of northern Asia and North America, releasing thousands of years worth of trapped methane and carbon dioxide created by decomposing plants and animals, about 3 times the volume of greenhouse gasses produced by mankind since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It’s destroying infrastructure in northern Alaska and Russia, and in the Yamal peninsula, as Thermokarst collapse is de-shelving vast areas of forest, and explosions of methane are forming miniature lakes from all the meltwater. Thermokarst lakes are now forming in places that they never used to, and coastal tundra areas have found their ecosystems completely transformed as meltwater from permafrost runs off into the ocean. Most climate models do not take this into account, just the sheer volume of carbon that’s being released into the atmosphere his way. We have reached the point of no return.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6478735/

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/21/10280

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190430121755.htm

https://mass.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/ean08.sci.ess.earthsys.permafrost/melting-permafrost/

The Death Stranding has begun.

>>11328736
>Look, humans are making the world warmer and thus a better place to live!

Oh no.....

De-shelving of 30-foot thick permafrost layers in northern Russia collapsing entire forests.

Crater caused by thawed methane hydrate explosion.

More forest de-shelving

>>11328741
>thus a better place to live!
Proof?

>>11328764
>Hur dur how is a warmer place a better place to live

Less cold weather. Longer growing seasons.

>>11328765
>getting cancer is good because it means I get free icecream after chemo at the hospital
Ignoring negative effects doesn't make them go away, /pol/tard.

>>11328775
>Ignoring negative effects doesn't make them go away

Sure, but the positives outweigh the negatives.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

I’m going to really enjoy the lack of snow, the warmer summers, and the warmer winters.

>>11328781
>Sure, but the positives outweigh the negatives.
Proof?

>>11328781
Wrong.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

>>11328811
>nooo Muh animal species Muh coral

Idc lol

>>11328821
Not an argument.

>>11325334
Here is the true redpill: climate change is a real thing that actually happens, but realistically we have no idea how or why. All of the models completely fail to take into account fluctuating solar intensity which immediately invalidates them. This doesn't mean climate change isn't happening though.
However, this does not stop vested interests from using it to get money and power and people from hating each other over it, regardless of the fact that it's a very poorly understood phenomenon.
Tragically, the climate change debate sucks all the air out of the room when it comes to actual problems that we 100% cause and 100% could reverse, like soil erosion, nitrogen runoff, insect population collapse, deforestation, and so on and so forth. They all get sucked under the 'climate change' umbrella, which is at this point a poorly understood and unsolvable problem, and these very real and very solvable problems then become poorly understood and unsolvable as well while people make lots of money and create jobs off of the idea instead of the reality.

>>11328847
>but realistically we have no idea how or why.
Speak for yourself.

>All of the models completely fail to take into account fluctuating solar intensity which immediately invalidates them.
Why are you lying?

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096511718300653

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD025869

Also, this is an odd claim since solar variation is very weak compared to the forcing from CO2, so it's hardly invalidating to treat insolation as a constant. Pic related. Regardless, fluctuations in solar intensity are taken into account in the most widely used models. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and your opinion is invalid.

>>11328847
>realistically we have no idea how or why. All of the models completely fail to take into account fluctuating solar intensity which immediately invalidates them.
Objectively false. We don't take into account fluctuations in solar irridance because they're not important, that lies within the domain of meteorology, weather forecasting, not climate science. The only large scale change in solar output is that the sun has been getting hotter over billions of years, but that's an impossible explanation compared to the warming observed over the past 50 years.

>>11328847
Solar forcing is basically 0.

>>11325363
>The current warming trend is 100% manmade.
lmao

>>11328847
climate change happens because we pump lots of co2 in the atmosphere mostly

didn't need to read all that shit

>>11328982
>Bruh it's just 2C, the planet maintains like what? 33C average surface temperature, that's nothing bro.

>>11328982
If the same amount of CO2 was 100% of the atmosphere the warming effect would be the same. You're a fucking moron.

>all these shills ignoring empirical data

Who’s actually pushing this? It feels coordinated.

>>11329025
Probably nobody. Decades of oil shilling in America have pretty much rendered climate denial as a socially acceptable conspiracy. Most of America is brainwashed, but it's still fun to see them try to wrap their brain around the truth once you present it to them.

>>11329025
There are a significant number of bots on /sci/ employed by large oil companies to mislead the public. They're on pretty much every platform, welcome to reality.

>>11328982
Your silly chart is wrong. Human CO2 is about half of current CO2.

>>11329016
You're just one more silly religious fanatic spreading the gospel of secular Armageddon. And you get so excited and hysterical when defending your faith that you become completely incomprehensible.

>>11325363
>The current warming trend is 100% manmade.
go back to /pol/

>>11329075
heh yeah, armageddon...

>>11329069
Wrong.

>>11329090
Oh no, a kangaroo died. Please, take all of money and give it to the government so that this never happens again.

>>11329080
Whoah there newfren, consider observing more threads before the next time you post. We here at 4chan strive to encourage scholarly discussion with formal, well thought out arguments.

>>11329102
Oh a lot more animals than just that kangaroo died, trust me.

>>11329075
You're just another bloated CONSUUUUUUUUUMER from the market worshipper CULT, who likes to pretend that your gluttonous lifestyle is a victimless crime.
Now piss off, CLOWN.

>>11329075
>the guy spreading pseudoscience is calling others religious fanatics
I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand such simple concepts, but the percentage of atmosphere taken up by CO2 has nothing to do with whether it's the cause of global warming. Global warming is caused by the change in greenhouse gases, which is 100% manmade.

>>11329136
>fires didn't exist before humans
Yes, religious fanatic, yes, of course. Heretics and doubters must be imprisoned. Next tell me how all cultures are equal, for that faith-based belief too is a part of your liberal mythology.

How many years do you think we have left to live before global warming is irreversible? Go ahead, give me your predictions.

>>11329165
>fires didn't exist before humans
Who are you quoting retard?

>How many years do you think we have left to live before global warming is irreversible?
What do you mean by irreversible?

>>11328847
>>11328982
>>11329075
>>11329165
Notice how the retarded deniers never ever try to defend their lies and misrepresentations of the science, they just move on to the next one. Too bad they've completely destroyed their credibility and no one is actually taking them seriously by the third lie.

>>11329165
The effects of global warming are already very likely irreversible in the timeframe humans have left on the planet, as far as damage to the ecosystem. Climate science can only give you a range of possible answers based on what we know at that exact moment. Truth is, predicting human actions is hard, and the fact that the climate is a dynamic system adds another layer of complexity. However, with that being said, I'd say 2050 would be the tipping point, give or take 5 years, as my personal prediction.

>>11329173
>What do you mean by irreversible?
What do you mean by dodging the question?

Use whatever definitions you like for whatever words you like. Just tell me what you are predicting for global warming. You just got out of your first Marxist sociology 101 class and now you understand how the world works, so tell me all about it. Give me some predictions, because after all this science is quite straight forward and evident. If you have irrefutable data that explains why something is occurring, surely you have at least SOME data predicting what will happen next.

>>11329190
If you're referring to the UN prediction from 1989 as a lie, you're right, but I don't take credit for that lie. That's purely the 'climate scientists' and the governments who use them for rabble-rousing useful idiots like you.

>>11329194
>What do you mean by dodging the question?
Not dodging, just need clarification because I suspect it's a loaded question. Practically anything can be reversed if enough effort is put into doing so. Now don't dodge the question: what do you mean by irreversible?

>Just tell me what you are predicting for global warming.
Pic related.

By the way, when are you going to explain how the percentage of the atmosphere is relevant? Or are you just admitting that's yet another bullshit denier meme? I better not see you posting it in yet another thread even though you know it's bullshit.

>>11329192
>I'd say 2050 would be the tipping point
Until what ?

>>11329212
Until our current agricultural output becomes unsustainable, until the real devastation sets in. Of course there are some good arguments towards 2030 being the year, but I don't believe that personally.

>>11329201
Which climate scientists said this?

>>11329213
You need me to define the word irreversible? Not able to be undone or altered.

>that graph you googled
So where do you think we are on that graph right now?

>By the way, when are you going to explain how the percentage of the atmosphere is relevant?
How could it POSSIBLY not be relevant, you fool? There has been more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past than there is now.

>>11325334
IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT (3x)
AND I DON'T FEEL FINE.

>>11329212
until its too late to let off the throttle
until the brakes burn out
until this train goes run-away

>>11329234
>You need me to define the word irreversible? Not able to be undone or altered.
OK, then what is irreversible is meaningless, since anything can be undone with enough effort. But all effort comes at a cost.

>So where do you think we are on that graph right now?
We are about 0.7 degrees from the 1980-99 average.

>How could it POSSIBLY not be relevant, you fool?
Because, as I already said and you failed to respond to, global warming is caused by the change in greenhouse gases, not the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

>There has been more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past than there is now.
Yes, and?

What can realistically be done to tackle climate change?

Is veganism really the way forward?

>>11329386
unironically yes. Also changing the public perception of nuclear fuel. And wiping China and India off the map.

>>11329386
Carbon tax and nuclear power. Not that hard.

>>11325334
Let's say the trends in climate change we are seeing now are natural- then why should we not use our abilities to change our environment to do so on a literal level. But as I understand it our knowledge of earths past cyclic changes had dramatically long cold spells, but nothing significantly warmer. If anything our temperate easy global climate was unusually long.

Once again however particularly it doesn't matter how or why the climate is changing, only that it is and this is a clear negative for how we've built our world. Immediate action is needed or we'll face large crop failures coinciding with our relentlessly growing population. The timetable might be up in the air as to when we see dire consequences (Australia turning to a crisp is pretty dire if you ask me), but is undeniable we are on course for it.

Humanity right now is like a frog in a pot set to boil. The only way climate action will ever succeed is when short term incentives for monetary greed are sufficiently present. The construction opportunities in solar and the great PR of EVs have is a great step but may ultimately prove too little, too late. It's a question of softening the blow at this point.

>>11329298
>since anything can be undone with enough effort. But all effort comes at a cost.
and sometimes the cost is too high, so not everything can be undone.

know how I know you don't understand physics? it's the whole concept of the 2nd law. anyway you're just that idiot economist/carbon tax shill that knows just enough about climate to btfo deniers, which honestly is jack squat.

>>11325334
Everyone should watch this film:

https://youtu.be/9vP7DiQSPbc

>>11329474
>this is a clear negative for how we've built our world
>we
>our world
Fukuyama was right.

>>11325363
>The current warming trend is 100% manmade.
brainlet

the real issue is plastic pollution, not global warming, the global temperature naturally fluctuates

>>11329681
>in central greenland
damn you idiots still try to get away with this?

>>11329386
Vast reductions in consumption. This just means people buying less crap and less new crap.

More sustainable agriculture and food production (yes this means way less meat. No we don't have to become vegans).

More efficient transport. Public transport and bikes instead of cars, supported by higher density living. Fewer plane flights and more skype.

More sustainable energy generation (nuclear or renewable).

Incentives for corporations and countries to pollute less and punishments for the bigger polluters.

Basically shit is gonna suck.

>>11329758
Central greenland is the only place with ice cores deep enough to get climate data that far back dumb cunt

>>11329386
We're going to need to make some serious cutbacks on all of our consumables in the near future if these braindead politicians keep prancing around the issue.

I suppose an easy way to start off is to kill off all the chains whose foods are literally killing us anyways, like your Burger Kings and whatnot.
I also second the notion of nuking China into orbit in a figurative sense.

It's going to be a bit rough but I'm already desperate to have occasional snow days in winter again.

>>11329584
>and sometimes the cost is too high, so not everything can be undone.
Thank you for agreeing with me.

>know how I know you don't understand physics? it's the whole concept of the 2nd law.
LOL, nice projection. The Earth is not an isolated system, so the 2nd law does not apply.

>anyway you're just that idiot economist/carbon tax shill that knows just enough about climate to btfo deniers, which honestly is jack squat.
A hell of a lot more than you, apparently.

>>11329681
>the real issue is plastic pollution, not global warming
Proof?

>the global temperature naturally fluctuates
Current global warming is an order of magnitude faster than the natural warming shown on your graph. When such rapid changes occur naturally, mass extinctions follow.

Also, your graph is bullshit. It comes from a Greenland ice core record whose last data point is from 1855, many before "present global warming" and much colder than "present temperature." It's also showing the temperature in one place in Greenland, not global temperature.

>>11330046
Ice cores are not the only source of proxy temperature data, retard. See >>11327287

The graph in >>11329758 uses multiple data sources from around the world to construct global temperatures rather than one local temperature.

>>11325334
If someone (politicain, pundit) cites data that was collected by a researcher but comes to a different conclusion that the researcher who collected the data, you're being tricked. It should have been obvious from the get go. Researchers present findings, politicians should argue over what to do about said findings. Nope, we got politicians disputing the findings. Easy red flag. Look to the people collecting data, then look to the politicians not disputing the data.

>>11325378
>Earth has been warming over the course of the last century and CO2 concentrations have increased due to human activities over the same timescale. What else are you blaming the warming on?
and i was masturbating when 9/11 happened.

>>11330436
>the effects of muh deforestation, muh topsoil runoff, and muh strip mining are reversible!!!!
>humans can reverse dem with effert!!
>da climut change will be bad for muh grof, bad for muh space colonies
>so we need muh carbun tax to fund nucular and have infinite ecomomic grof for eber!!!


Ok, boomer...

>>11330493
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

>>11330790
>the effects of muh deforestation, muh topsoil runoff, and muh strip mining are reversible!!!!
>humans can reverse dem with effert!!
Yes, technically.

>da climut change will be bad for muh grof, bad for muh space colonies
>so we need muh carbun tax to fund nucular and have infinite ecomomic grof for eber!!!
Who are you quoting?

>>11330827
>Yes, technically.
Uh no, absolutely not. It's like reversing aging.

>>11330834
You can replant trees and replenish soil. It's not like reversing aging.

>>11330945
Your understanding of the world is paltry.

>>11330957
Sure buddy, tell me more about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

>>11330963
Essential nutrients (that take millions of years to weather from rock), once dissolved in the oceans will again take millions of years to become part of complex organic systems on land once again. The work (Joules) is done by the sun.
That's my feeble attempt at educating someone who has no interest in chemistry, physics, or ecology.

>>11330963
Btu whatever you probably think uranium dissolved in sea water is enough to power millions of years of growth. so you're a lost cause. and pretty much a retard.

>>11328765
This is a common misconception. Plants don't get energy from temperature, they get it from sunlight. Plants also need water. Warming means more evaporation and less water for plants in summer. This can turn fertile regions in America and Europe into steppe.

>>11330976
You really have no clue what you're talking about, which is why you fail in every thread.

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

>>11330978
And you think it isn't, because... REEEEEEE CONSOOOOOOOOMER REEEEEEEEE

>>11331001
But evaporation is clouds and clouds is rain and rain is snow and snow is ice and ice is a lowering of ocean level. I would have some extra blankets, just in case.

>>11331027
Brainlet

Humanity's understanding of the weather is tenuous at best, let alone the climate.
So when some washed up statistics gambler pretends he knows how we're impacting the climate, I laugh very loudly.
Well it's not as if it actually matters, ecological policy is just another ponzi scheme. Don't worry those billionaires profiting from it will continue to take their private jets everywhere.

>>11329681
>the same bullshit graph that's intentionally lying about when the record ends
That Greenland record ends in 1890

>>11325334
ok im going to let a little secret slip. dont tell anyone. most of the planets temperature in any 1 area in the northern hemisphere especially is controlled by the magnetic field of the earth

the dynamo has been intermitently more active recently. this has changed some things like the direction of the artic air currents. normally people think its all the jet stream. no . some of it is the magnetic field affecting the air currents by focusing energy from the sun through the upper atmosphere. the pole shift was seen and its tilted slightly now from its previous position

this made europe warmer last year and america cooler. this happened during the grand solar minimum as well. most of the squaking about it being hotter last year was from europeans who cant stand 80 degree weather

co2 meaningless. the earth has been around a long time . electrical activity in the atmosphere cleans most of that shit up. methane meaningless insane amounts of decomposing matter has existed through the earths life time. you can do the math if you want on how much is produced from a single pound of plant matter (not wood) then think about how much methane should be in the atmosphere given hundreds of millions of years worth of life (not even all the time that life has existed on earth). whats in the oceans is only a fraction of what exists. deposits in the ground is only a fraction as well. why isnt methane 2% of the atmosphere at least?

>>11331285
>Humanity's understanding of the weather is tenuous at best, let alone the climate.
The climate is easier to understand and predict than the weather. The weather is determined primarily by chaotic turbulent flow of the atmosphere, while climate is primarily determined by the amount of energy in the atmosphere.

>So when some washed up statistics gambler pretends he knows how we're impacting the climate, I laugh very loudly.
You can directly observe it, it's not based on "statistics."

http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>Well it's not as if it actually matters, ecological policy is just another ponzi scheme. Don't worry those billionaires profiting from it will continue to take their private jets everywhere.
Hmm, I wonder who's peddling a scam, scientists or /pol/tards who can't stop lying?