/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11390197
Shhh the first places to get wiped out will be Africa and the middle east because of the changing migration patterns of deadly parasites and other deadly creatures just ignore the talk.

>half a degree
its more than a full degree though. if ur gonna shitpost, at least get your facts correcr

>>11390197
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s
tropical: lat 0 - 23.5°
subtropical: lat 23.5° - 40°
temperate: lat 40° - 65°

>>11390205
>migration patterns
And habitable zones that one is really important :)

We don't need ice caps. Once they melt the cities are gone. This is a win-win you should be on the side of climate change fuck the haters.

>>11390197
and human civilization has survived for less than 10 thousand years.

>>11390371
if you are an anthropologist you'll realize we have had human civilization since around 200,000 b.c., but we can't say anything about that for some reason, that and life didn't originate in africa. Lots of stuff is kept hidden or swpet under the rug because it would cause turmoil, you can't even get published on discoveries that are too disruptive.

>>11390197
Yeah no shit life is gonna go on.
But not our human society as we know it.
Life is gonna turn real shitty for us.

You're all wrong it's 2020 years old, relatively recent in history

>>11390764
We know life didn't originate in Africa. The oldest human fossil was found in mainland China and Africans have Neanderthal DNA.

I kind of assumed we have had civilization for max 800,000 years.

>>11390197
Life will survive.

Our extremely vulnerable economy will not. It's not going to cause human extinction or anything but get ready for gigantic crisis and wars that follow.

>>11390205
>Shhh the first places to get wiped out will be Africa and the middle east
The populations there will not sit down and die, and the habitat of tropical disease-carrying species is extending farther and farther north. It may be in your best interest to either build up a few African and Middle Eastern countries for peopel to stay put in, or actually prepare for the consequences of disease-ridden half-a-billion refugees overwhelming your border guards :)

>>11390764
>life didn't originate in africa
Well, yeah. That's because life itself appeared way before "Africa" even existed as a landmass.

Smartassery aside, the fossil of the first direct ancestor of the modern Sapiens Sapiens was found in Ethiopia, that sounds pretty African to me.

>>11390197
Complex life has not survived for billions of years, multicellular life only emerged somewhere 1.8b years ago, sexually reproduction is only 1.2b years ago, and what we call animals only 750 million years ago. The ozone layer didn't even form until ~600m years ago. And an estimated 99% of species that ever lived are extinct (with humans causing much of the megafauna portion of that). And as time progressed species became ever more specialized and inter-dependent, on the existence of other species.

So major changes like a 5C+ temperature increase like we're facing actually has a devastating effect, maybe even worse than a combo of deforestation, pollution, desertification, ocean acidification and warming and poaching but when all combined add up to the majority of species we take for granted going extinct, we've managed to extinct like half of all species in just the last 100 years alone (and that's somewhat BEFORE the effects of climate change start extincting stuff, it's mostly been due to all the other things stated above up until the late 20th century) so it's an ongoing process that's already well underway and only gets worse and worse the less we tackle it. Life on earth as a whole is incredibly resilient but it's also more inter-dependent than ever and the choice is simply how much of life on earth we want to save, all of that constitutes the real wealth of the planet and it's getting killed off fast.

>not knowing the first thing about the history of your planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life

>>11390814
>The oldest human fossil was found in mainland China

No the oldest human fossil was found in Africa.

>Africans have Neanderthal DNA.

We already know there were earlier migrations out of Africa and back migrations so this isn't surprising.

>>11390205
Hundreds of millions of black and brown refugees will flee uninhabitable equatorial regions to majority white countries in the northern hemisphere.
You don't want that do you?

>>11390197
>average temperature rises by half a degree
>we are here
>"don't worry about it just keep going"
>average temperature rises by half a degree
>average temperature rises by half a degree
>average temperature rises by half a degree
>"too late to do anything about it. guess we fucked up life for most of the species on the planet. well shucks"

>>11390205
nobody is "getting wiped out" m8. there will be less and less arable land in africa, thus less and less food for the population. some of them will die, but most of them will try to stay alive at all costs and try to move into more habitable climates

>>11390197
FUCKING KIKES FUCK OFF. You fuck up the oceans and fuck up the air and then make climate change a leftist position just to make smart people skeptical of it. FUCKERS.

>>11390197
If we're talking Celsius then yes we are fucked. The difference between living in a house that's 76 1/2 degrees and 82 degrees is the entire world of heat

>>11390197
Because it's not like about 95% of species have been wiped out during this time or anything. Why do you think humans are immune to it?

Just because you don't understand what will happen doesn't mean nobody does. 2 degrees warming is a disaster, 4 degrees warming is a catastrophe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skFrR3g4BRQ

>>11390923
We cam always just shoot them as they try and come over the border.

NOOOO STOP MAKING FUN OF GRETCHEN THUNDERBURP!!!!!
>#BELIEVEHER
>#BELIEVESOIENCE
>#BELIEVEWAHMAN
<--BUT DON'T BELIEVE THIS SCIENCE, ITS FAKE NEWS LOL

>>11392028
because i dont remember that one mammoth civilization that went to the moon. humans might as well not be considered animals at this point considering that we are beyond anything they have ever achieved by 1000fold. like we make a big deal out of an animal when it can figure out it can crush a nut using a passing car. and yet that dumb fucking bird never considered "what the fuck is that thing? why is it moving? its not made of flesh but another material" seriously that whole "humans and animalz the sameXD" meme has to fucking die.

>we may end up with eocene climate
>greenland is actually green
>vegetation on antarctica
>life's everywhere
can you imagine the horror

>>11392169
>>life's everywhere
Except in the regions where the flora didn't adapt to the new temperature quickly enough and that are deserts now. Or coastal regions

>>11392169
i want this world

Behold the power warming!

>>11392176
sure, body

>>11391032
>make smart people skeptical
If they were so smart they wouldn't ignore the science simply because left wingers tend to agree with it

>>11390197
Why are there so many mentally ill right wingers on this board now?

>>11392315
you're on 4chan anon, what did you expect?

>going from 300 to 400 ppm of CO2 is going to do jack shit
this is such a lie. the marginal greenhouse effect due to CO2 levels off after 100 ppm. If anything, oceans might get a bit more acidic. But they are probably pretty well buffered so i wouldn't worry about it.

>>11391012
Why don't they do that already? It's not like there isn't a ~billion people starving currently...

Who is going to let them in anyway? Starving people don't get asylums even today.

>>11390197
>>life on earth has survived for billions of years
Who cares? This is about HUMAN life, retard.

>>average temperature rises by half a degree
>>THIS IS THE END WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Yes.

>>11392324
you are a brainlet anon

>>11391012
so we need to hurry the fuck up and elect some people that will let us gun them down at the border

>>11392357
*You are a brainlet, Anon.

>>11392169
this is how scandinavia wins

>>11392197
>why yes I think climate change is good
>no of course I'm not a russian shill, that's silly haha

>>11392053
For all the comparisons people like you do between the 2011's Refugee Crisis and the Barbaric Invasions, you sure don't seem to understand the sheer scale of half a continent hauling ass and trying to get somewhere else.

By the time this crisis happens, it won't be Middle-class motherfuckers who want to send Money back to their families or/and Plan to get back someday. It will be a gigantic horde of all kibds of people, a giganti human mass that will have certain death behind itself and only possible death in front of itself... and this mass will likely be armed.

Be as it way, you won't be able to shoot and bomb them all.

Like it or not, you're better off developing a select few countries nearby.

>>11392065
>Human genders have different IQ
Nobody denies that, the problem Is that your conclusion Is that a minimal change of IQ should turn all women into breeding sows and mothers.

>>11390197
Glacier:
>OH YEAH, I’M GONNA...
>MMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLT

>>11392047
And now find the numbers per capita. And check where all the cheap stuff for Europe and the U.S. is produced.

>>11390197
>Look mom I did a strawman

>>11390923
>>11391012
>>11391023
>They don't know that Italy and Hungary are killing African migrants
>They don't know that the Australian Royal Navy were caught blowing up boats full of migrants 4 months ago
>They don't know that "White Supremacy Terrorism" is directly correlated to Africans
>They don't know that White Terror is the most effective form of terror on earth
>They don't know that Nazi sympathizers are growing exponentially
ACCELERATE :)

>>11390197
that little cunt has in op's picture has no idea of capitalist innovation

>>11392583
>Da greedy corporations will create magical new technology using their greed wizardry duuuude

>>11392583
How's that corporate boot tasting?

>>11392583
>just wait a little longer goyim. we don't have anything yet and there's no major breakthrough in sight but stop thinking about it. think about the 15 people who die in terror attacks every year in the west instead!

>>11392169
Vegetation doesn't appear by itself, and the places who have the most life are horrific tropical jungles that impedes civilization.

>>11392573
>>They don't know that Italy and Hungary are killing African migrants
A news faker than a three-dollar bill. Neither Orbán nor Salvini have done shit about it beyond screeching.

>>They don't know that the Australian Royal Navy were caught blowing up boats full of migrants 4 months ago
The Australian Navy can blow up dinghys, whoopede fucking doo.

>>They don't know that "White Supremacy Terrorism" is directly correlated to Africans
>>They don't know that White Terror is the most effective form of terror on earth
You only wish, wanker. Islamic terrorism does much more damage and has made several thousand people (including (You)) believe that they're some sort of invincibile amorphous entity that suddenly appeared on 9-11.

>>They don't know that Nazi sympathizers are growing exponentially
2 to 4 is an exponential growth, but not impressive.

>>11390197
When any weather event happens, is it possible to know whether it was mainly caused by man-made climate change, or whether it would have happened regardless, or perhaps been even worse without man-made CO2 in the air?

Has there ever been an extreme weather event happen in recent times, and it not be blamed on man made climate change?

>>11392668
Need an answer to this ASAP.

>>11392681
It's not about the weather.

>>11392668
>Has there ever been an extreme weather event happen in recent times, and it not be blamed on man made climate change?
The floods in Spain and France last Summer haven't been blamed on climate change; neither did the typhoon who hit Rome in Fall; or the regular SEA monsoons

>>11392687
So extreme weather events can't be attributed to climate change, or man-made CO2 emissions?

>>11392689
False: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7828155/Extreme-weather-caused-climate-change-hit-continent-2019.html

>>11390197
What if life of bio-brainlet? Plankton will literally die and therefore there will be more CO2 and less 02 in the atmosphere, ofc it isn't going to kill everyone now, but after it being irreversible we will literally have a clock to world extinction

>>11392668
>When any weather event happens, is it possible to know whether it was mainly caused by man-made climate change, or whether it would have happened regardless, or perhaps been even worse without man-made CO2 in the air?
No.
But when the number or intensity of such events changes over the years then this is a good indication of climate change

>>11392691
>events
yes
>event
no

>>11392712
>But when the number or intensity of such events changes over the years then this is a good indication of climate change
Doesn't climate change go both ways though? It either changes negatively or positively. Is there a balance in nature for this? Or is the main change happening now, negative?

>>11392708
You’re retarded and insane.

>>11392714
So a weather event can be attributed to climate change if it's grouped in with other weather events? But on its own, climate change played no part? Isn't that seriously retarded?

>>11392357
I'm 100% right. 300 to 400 ppm CO2 results in insignificant greenhouse effect.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-effectiveness-of-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas-becomes-ever-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/

According to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~390 ppmv, (parts per million by volume). Accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level.

This inconvenient fact is well understood in the climate science community. It can be accurately modeled using the Modtran program maintained and supported at the University of Chicago.

The logarithmic diminution of the effect of CO2 is probably the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming from CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv.


Remarkably, IPCC Published reports , (TAR3), do actually acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information is in their report. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate).

The diminishing percentage effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas as acknowledged by the IPCC and its concomitant diminishing temperature effect are as follows:

increment cumulative

0-100 ppmv: according to David Archibald / Modtran data ~2.22°C ~2.22°C

100-200 ppmv: plants die below this level of CO2 +~0.29°C ~2.51°C

200-300 ppmv: noted as the preindustrial CO2 level +~0.14°C ~2.65°C

300-400 ppmv: current level IPCC attributes all as Man-made +~0.06°C ~2.71°C

400-600 ppmv: business as usual till 2100 +~0.08°C ~2.79°C

>>11392691
Dude, it can and will be blamed on anything people want to blame it on. Due the chaotic nature of the weather it's impossible to reliable determine what was or wasn't the cause of that or any event.

>>11392729
One extreme weather event is just that, extreme with respect to the average.
If the number of extreme weather events rises and the average changes, you have a trend you need to explain. And man-made emissions can explain it.

>>11392729
>So a weather event can be attributed to climate change if it's grouped in with other weather events?
Yes
>But on its own, climate change played no part?
Wrong. "We cannot prove A" is not the same as "A is false". Learn logic
>Isn't that seriously retarded?
No, it's statistics

>>11392735
cont'd
Accounting for the diminution effect the actual temperature reductions achievable, the calculated achievable values are in the range of few hundredths to a few thousandths of a degree Centigrade. As the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, these miniscule levels the temperature effects for all the efforts of those nations attempting to control their CO2 emissions, (only about 12% of world CO2 emissions), are marginal, immeasurable and thus irrelevant.

These minute temperature changes have to be seen in the context of normal daily temperature variations at any a single location of 100C to 200C. It can be as much as 400C to 500C over the course of a whole year.

Although the IPCC tacitly acknowledges that this crucial diminution effect with increasing concentrations effect exists, it certainly does not go out of its way to emphasise it. Like the Medieval Warm Period, that they attempted to eliminate with the Hockey Stick graph in 2001, the panel knows that wide public knowledge of the diminution effect with increasing CO2 concentration would be utterly detrimental to their primary message.

“Man-made CO2 emissions are the cause of climate change”.

The IPCC certainly does not explain these devastating consequences for the CAGW theory in their Summary for Policy Makers. This is because the IPCC is an essentially political organisation, that is solely tasked with the promotion and presentation of Man-made Climate Change from CO2 emissions, as an accepted and non-contentious fact for world’s politicians.

>>11392744
(cont'd)
Thus the IPCC is entirely misleading in its central claim for Policy Makers, as they say:

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Any unquestioning, policy making reader is lead to assume that all increasing CO2 concentrations are progressively more harmful because of their escalating Greenhouse impact. But the opposite is so.

From the present concentration of atmospheric CO2 at approaching 400 ppmv, only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas remains.

This can only give rise to a maximum of a further of ~+0.21°C. Thereafter beyond 1000+ ppmv the effect of increasing levels of CO2 can only ever be absolutely minimal even if CO2 concentrations were to increase indefinitely.

It is for this irrefutable physical fact that the widely held alarmist policy ambition

“to constrain Man-made temperature increase to only +2.0 °C”

could in fact never be reached, however much more Man-made CO2 was emitted.

It is impossible to ever reach the much vaunted policy upper limit of +2.0 °C that has been promoted by politicians as a target upper limit of temperature effect caused by man-made CO2 emissions.

>>11392739
>Dude, it can and will be blamed on anything people want to blame it on. Due the chaotic nature of the weather it's impossible to reliable determine what was or wasn't the cause of that or any event.
Why would people blame weather events on man-made climate change when they can't be sure what actually caused it?

>Vegetation doesn't appear by itself
No shit, Leeuwenhoek?

>>11392565
>Per capita

>See, these few inhabitants of Antarctica
each release thousand times more greenhouse gases than a Bangladeshi farmer. Antarctica seriously needs to reevaluate their society!

>>11392742
>If the number of extreme weather events rises and the average changes, you have a trend you need to explain. And man-made emissions can explain it.
But how do you know it wouldn't have risen without man-made emissions? Or that it would have risen even more dramatically? And are non-extreme weather events recorded in the same way, with an average?

>>11392747
In short, there will be no greenhouse effect due to CO2 because we're already near the max level of warming that can be caused by CO2. The planet has gone through periods of 1000+ppm CO2 and lo and behold, the Earth didn't turn into Venus. What could happen as i said before is ocean acidification and possibly ecological disruption because C3 plants can operate better in higher CO2 concentrations. But like, none of that is global warming which is what the alarmists claim. Go pluck my duck, warmists ;0

>>11392748
Please socialize.

>>11392743
>Wrong. "We cannot prove A" is not the same as "A is false". Learn logic
So are you saying "we can prove A if we arbitrarily categorise the event into a group of other events", but "we cannot prove A if we don't make this arbitrary categorisation".

If so, how does grouping the events together actually prove A?

>>11392754
wrong
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

>>11392760
1 event = weather =/= climate
weather over the long term (multiple events) = climate

you could have looked that up yourself m8

>>11392758
I know the answer, just wanted to see if you had the honesty to answer it too. Clearly you don't.

>>11392769
So is 1 event equal to 1 weather? Or does 10 events = 1 weather? And does 100 weathers = 1 climate? How is this quantified?

>>11392782
Just google it. Are you genuinely retarded?

>>11392787
>Are you genuinely retarded?
What's most likely is that either I'm retarded, or the whole event/weather/climate stuff is retarded. I'm going with the latter, because it seems like arbitrary bullshit.

>>11392776
Honestly, go fuck yourself.

>>11392728
Yeah, yeah, whatever Anon. Keep your mind shut to logic, ignorance is a virtue

>>11392825
I'm blaming climate change for your grumpy mood.

>>11392831
No, it's a bad weather.

>>11392835
Does weather = one event? Or is weather multiple events?

My big problem is how am I supposed to know anything I am doing is helping the environment. For instance working 40 hour weeks is taxing enough and expecting met o bike everywhere is asking a lot that would add hours to my commute time not just to work but to groceries etc. And if I did that it seems to me that all I really have accomplished is I personally feel better about myself I will feel as if I have made some difference for someone but the only life I really effected is my own and I just made it a pain in the ass to just live my life now I have to bike everywhere for hours and now I only have like 2 hours of free time I already deal with depression. It's not that I am unwillingy to sacrifice it is just that there is no confirmation my sacrifice helped anyone at all it feels like it is just a net negative. I mean maybe biking to work ocassionally would be good for the exercise but to just not use my car ever is pretty insane especially living in a city with no public transportation.

>>11392839
I'm not that bored, sorry.

>>11392849
Dude, your bike riding won't make any difference, stop being that naive. Want to make a difference, put yourself into position when your decisions will actually impact the situation.

>>11390205
Imagine all the niggers flooding Europe.

>>11392858
That's the thing I am not a charismatic person. Nobody really values my opinions or thinks anything of me. So there is nothing I can do and honestly thinking the world is going to end and I can't do anything about it seems really counter-productive. Especially when day to day life is nicer than it has ever been for many people. It's not that I don't believe we could destroy the world it is just that all of this stuff reeks of political figures scared they are losing power desperately trying anything to gain it back. For instance in America there has been a downward trend in voter participation. You know why? because our politics is so corrupt people are giving up on it.

>>11392871
Don't worry. Go hold a sign or something.

>>11392871
Bro, start listening to Greta Thunberg speeches, she's super inspirational. We need to follow her lead and then we might have a chance.

>>11390197
>>life on earth has survived for billions of years
You've survived for several years so a bit of torture is OK right? Your family has survived for many generations so it's OK if I kill off a bunch of them, right?

>>average temperature rises by half a degree
Why are you lying? It's more than a degree. Also, this is a meaningless statement. A few degrees of warming would be fine if they occurred slowly over hundreds of thousands of years, giving species and ecosystems enough time to adapt. This is the usual course of life on Earth. But instead we are getting very rapid warming, which in the past has caused mass extinctions.

>>THIS IS THE END WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE
Who are you quoting?

>>11393096
Why do you do this? Do you not understand that people don't have a problem with the ideas you are putting forth the problem is the lack of any mention of what needs to be done. All you really accomplish is making people afraid of something they really don't know enough about to warrant.

>>11392735
>watts
yikes, I hope you posted that link ironically

>>11392324
The radiative forcing is approximately

5.35*ln(400/300) = 1.54 W/m^2

Using a typical climate sensitivity of 0.8 K/(W/m^2) we get 1.74 degrees C of warming. Hardly marginal.

>>11391012
those hordes are ALREADY coming
it honestly wouldn't be much of a change

>>11392565
>reeee why wont you eat the bugs and live like slaves like the chinese

>>11390764
t. not an anthropologist
don't pretend you know what you're talking about, retard. Reading infographics on pol doesn't make you an anthropologist.

>>11393170
You don't seriously believe that, do you? There's about a billion people in Africa.

>>11392735
Really bizarre fake numbers.

https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/ed-hoskins-pseudo-science-claptrap.html?m=1

>>11393113
Everything put forth is instantly shot down by
>muh economy
>muh jobs
>I don't want to
>it's impossible because "they" won't join
etc.

>>11393113
>Why do you do this? Do you not understand that people don't have a problem with the ideas you are putting forth
If people don't have any problem with it, why do these threads keep getting made?

>the problem is the lack of any mention of what needs to be done.
It has been mentioned over and over again. Are you not listening or are you just attempting to shift the goalposts? What needs to be done is limiting greenhouse gas emissions. According to leading economists, this can be done most efficiently with a carbon tax and nuclear power.

>>11392309
Instinctively distrusting leftoids is an extremely high IQ move, actually

>>11392555
>Nobody denies that
What a dumb and bizarre lie to casually tell.

>>11392656
>fake news
Learn how to use liveleak

>>11393218
There's "distrusting" and then there's "shilling literal oil industry propaganda without payment". Only the right seems to take part in this.

>>11393230
Then where's the LEftist media crying about it? Surely literally going out of their way to fucking kill immigrants is going to be top news, when you decry them for rejecting them?

>Muh cover-up that it works.
Yeah, no.

>>11390210
you say that but even in the worst case senario we can use genetic engineering to make more heat resistant plantlife.
In addition to that as far as i am aware plants in worse climates are grown in greenhouses. And one would assume that after this many years the plants on average may have grown more resistant to the heat through evolution.

>>11390814
>less than one million years
>out of 400 million years

climate change will wipe out humanity but the rest of the planet's going to keep on truckin.

>>11393432
>And one would assume that after this many years the plants on average may have grown more resistant to the heat through evolution.
One wouldn't. Evolution takes time, a few years are nothing.
And the seedlings come from places specialized in producing seedlings, not from the plants grown each year

>>11393335
They were but both nations are now controlled by white nationalists with basically an Iron curtain.

Haven't you seen the interviews? They're far too busy with the 2020 election.

>>11393482
>Italy is controlled by white nationalists with basically an Iron curtain
What did he mean by this

>>11393486
I'm not going to find it for you because it's on twitter but surely you saw the videos of the Italian ships sinking migrant boats and leaving them without life jackets?

Deny it all you want, but don't cry when mass shootings happen in your nation because you know exactly what's happening.

>>11393492
>I'm not going to provide any proof but surely you must believe me
No.

I do remember videos of some fishermen watching migrants drown instead of helping, but those were from the pre-Salvini era. And you didn't explain what he meant by this >>11393486

>>11393482
I'm Italian, you fucking retard. I think I know about what's going on in my country more than you do.

By the way, currently Salvini is not governing right now either, and it has been made clear as day that Salvini expelled a single-digit amount of criminal immigrants, but the current administration has been sending them back by the dozens (and they are rather leftists), the only thing he did was creating a fuckton of criminals out of the immigrants that would've just eked out a non-disruptive existence in the centres.

>>11393492
>I'm not going to find it for you because it's on twitter but surely you saw the videos of the Italian ships sinking migrant boats and leaving them without life jackets?
Fishermen not doing anything isn't the Italian navy actively sinking them, you microbrain.

>>11390205
>wiped out
You fucking retard Africa was hotter 200,000 years ago and beings even stupider than blacks thrived there.

>>11392767
but adding more CO2 to the air displaces other gases
kek wtf are they talking about

>>11393578
And?

>>11393604
but you're not "adding more heat to the system" if the marginal amounts of CO2 trap insignificant amounts of radiation. the altitude of heat loss will essentially stay the same no matter how much CO2 you add

>>11390197
Yeah she's retarded, climate change happens naturally. Based on historic trends, it's impossible to make a causation between humans influencing the climate and natural occurrences. The Earth isnt even the warmest its been in the past 100 years. """Climate change""" is a hoax created by the leftists to scare people.

Also nice file name.

>>11393685
Nice unsourced talking points, shill

>>11393641
>but muh CO2 is saturated
Tell that to Venus. How you people exist is a mystery to me.

>>11393641
>if the marginal amounts of CO2 trap insignificant amounts of radiation.
Who said that the amount of radiation trapped by marginal amounts of CO2 is insignificant?

Unless you give us money the earth will literally turn to venus with where it rains lead and is hotter than an oven and is literally hell.

>>11393766
Eat my ass, nigger. Sure I think humans contribute. We arent the primary reason for the temp increase and it won't be the end of the world.

Look up the Medieval Warming period or the Roman Warming period. Don't believe its a leftist scam? Then how come the only solution is for big daddy government to come in and save everyone? Why don't they propose nuclear power; the cleanest, most efficient and most reliable power source?

>>11393893
>Sure I think humans contribute
No one cares what you think, you're an anon.
>We arent the primary reason for the temp increase and it won't be the end of the world.
Nice unsourced talking point.
>Look up the Medieval Warming period
Classic shill talking point. The MVP global avg temperatures were NOT higher than today.
https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

>>11390197
>open an encyclopedia
>search ice age and heath age
You can thank me later fucking Swedish bitch

>>11393898
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

>Unsourced talking point
>Provides no source for why a 1 degree C increase would trash Earth

>open an encyclopedia
>search ice age and heat age
>now cry
You can thank me later fucking Swedish bitch

>>11392767
>https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Why would you post unsourced drivel. Their simple thought experiment is not comparable to historical data. Believe what you want, but don't support taxing others because you are afraid of boogyman

>>11393913
Humanity kinda developed in a specific period of such, and data points show that in any other period it was a much more gradual change than a drop or rise in temperatures observable in a human lifespan.

>>11392565
Wow, I didn't know the effect of greenhouse gases accounted for emissions per capita rather than the total. Let's just dilute the emissions to lower the per capita levels and then we've solved anthropological climate change

>>11393945
Well, given that India has a huge amount of extremely poor people, getting them to lower emissions would probably require Pol Pot-esque genocides.

China reducing industrial emissions is more realistic, but they are trying to an extent, if anything else because after the 2013-2015 period they don't want to have a suffucating smog cloud in their cities, and they know they stand to lose the Tibetan Glaciers.

>>11393912
Your linked paper and graph don't address the point in my post at all, retard. GLOBAL average temperature, i.e. not one sea temperature near Iceland

>>11392176
yeh all ecosystems aren't already full of superior invasive species that would call it a field trip or anything

>>11393966
Read the first paragraph fuckface. In case you don't want to, here:

https://co2coalition.org/2017/01/03/documenting-the-global-extent-of-the-medieval-warm-period/

More reliable than your article.

>>11393685
>Based on historic trends, it's impossible to make a causation between humans influencing the climate and natural occurrences.
Wrong, retard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

>The Earth isnt even the warmest its been in the past 100 years.
Wrong, retard.

>>11393641
>marginal amounts of CO2 trap insignificant amounts of radiation.
Wrong, retard.

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

>>11393913
What exactly is your point?

>>11393919
>In short, there will be no greenhouse effect due to CO2 because we're already near the max level of warming that can be caused by CO2. The planet has gone through periods of 1000+ppm CO2 and lo and behold, the Earth didn't turn into Venus. What could happen as i said before is ocean acidification and possibly ecological disruption because C3 plants can operate better in higher CO2 concentrations. But like, none of that is global warming which is what the alarmists claim. Go pluck my duck, warmists ;0
Why would you post unsourced drivel.

>Their simple thought experiment is not comparable to historical data.
What historical data?

>>11393945
>Wow, I didn't know the effect of greenhouse gases accounted for emissions per capita rather than the total.
You're talking about who has to reduce emissions, not the effect. This is like saying China should go on a diet because they eat more food than the US.

>>11394003
So, the article is claiming that there are over 1,200 papers providing evidence that the MWP was global! Well, let's look at a few of the papers that supposedly claim this. You can find all of these here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-20.891973099999998%2C25.825896300000068&z=8

Like this one:

https://www.clim-past.net/10/1581/2014/cp-10-1581-2014.html

This paper says that Ugandan crater lake levels were low during the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climate Anomaly:

"The lakes appear to be sensitive to large-scale climatic perturbations, with evidence of a dry Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA; ca. AD 1000–1200)."

No temperature reconstruction, no discussion about whether the MWP was global.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo554

Also no temperature reconstruction, no discussion about whether the MWP was global.

Ooh, how about this one? http://www.peapaleontologica.org.ar/index.php/peapa/article/view/91:

"During the mid- to Late Holocene, by about 6700 cal. yr BP, a climatic change towards colder and wetter conditions may have facilitated the expansion of dense forest on the Pacific Andean slope in southernmost Tierra del Fuego. By this time, the mire also changed to ombrotrophic conditions, contributed essentially by Sphagnum, reflecting greater water depth and less mineral input. During the last 1000 cal. yr BP, the record showed a decline in the Nothofagus frequencies at ca. 500 cal. yr BP most probably related to colder conditions."

No mention of the medieval warm period, or whether it was global.

>>11394003
Here's a doozy (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618211001443):

"The data cannot be used to differentiate the climates of the “Medieval Warm Period” and the “Little Ice Age”. The maximum lake level in Sua Pan of 908 m a.s.l. during the last millennium, however, indicates that independent of drier or wetter climatic phases the lake never approached its higher levels of the early Holocene or of the Pleistocene which thus seems to confirm a general trend to greater aridity."

Etc., etc. The blog is treating its readers like gullible rubes.

Also,

>co2coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition >The coalition receives funding from the Mercer Family Foundation and Koch brothers.

TL;DR: Get fucked, shill rat.

>>11394003
First paragraph of Easterbrook:
>The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900–1300 AD, when global temperatures were somewhat warmer than at present.
This is contradicted by your second source, which claims we can't know whether it was warmer, and that the best evidence we have shows temperatures below modern temperatures. Good job at proving your own source is full of shit.

>>11394003
This is the scientific paper equivalent of those climate denier open letters that are supposedly "signed by over 500 scientists".

>>11390371
Gobekli Tepe is 12000 years old ,civilisation goes back much further.

>>11394358
Non sequitur.

>>11394290
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/6facts/lobbyists_deny.html

>>11390197
she's savolaxid phenotype not fetal alcohol syndrome

>>11394232
wtf happened before 1880

>>11394398
I'd love to see an updated version of this, I can only image it's gotten far worse since 2014. Oil shills seem to be in overdrive these past few years

what's the current projection for the polar caps to be gone

>>11390964
this

>>11394419
"fetal alcohol syndrome" is retardspeak for "looks weird"

I've been on /sci/ for a few days now and I swear the average user is in middle school

>>11394469
I know of no reputable scientific institution that claims the polar ice caps will disappear.

>>11394446

I'm a geologist and I genuinely consider climate change deniers to be dumber than fucking creationists.

>>11395002
you're a complete moron

>>11395042
>says the guy who thinks he knows a topic better than scientific experts

>>11395002
retards gonna re

>>11395062
I'm not trapped in their bubble where descenting thought isn't allowed.

>>11390197
There's a distinction between "life" vs. "us" you stupid retard. "Life" has survived for billions of years. The vast majority of specific instances of life on the other hand have not, both in the sense of individual organisms and in the sense of different species. 99.9% extinction rate for all species that have existed so far, so the odds aren't as good as you think.
Also dinosaurs were around for 165,000,000 years while we're only up to 200,000 or so. There's no reason to feel like we're particularly well protected from disaster. I'm not even getting into whether or not the climate change thing is something you should be seriously invested in because you're fucking up these fundamentals before that discussion even begins.

>>11395070
You're trapped in a delusion where evidence and reasoning aren't allowed.

>>11392099
>because i dont remember that one mammoth civilization that went to the moon.
How the fuck is our having sent a few people to briefly stand on the moon and immediately return to Earth going to make us any less extinct from a major impact event than other species were the last time that happened? That's rhetorical and it won't. If you can get people actually living and reproducing on a non-Earth surface somewhere like the Moon or Mars in a way that's self-sufficient and doesn't require a habitable Earth to keep it going then you'll have something. We're nowhere close to that right now and we're wide open for any number of cataclysmic events before we get anywhere close to approaching that, if we even ever have any sort of prospects for getting close to that (which we might not; a self-sufficient non-Earth habitation scenario would be pretty fucking difficult as far as hypothetical engineering feats go).

>>11395002
>I'm a geologist and I think that people who disagree with me about other people's fields of specialization are ignorant
wtf does a geocuck even know about atmospheric science or biology? if someone thinks that having a specialty degree makes them an expert in their field then how could they possibly rationalize acting like an expert in fields they don't have qualification in?

>>11392598
>>11392618
>>11392648
do not underestimate

>>11395086
Because I had to pass atmospheric science and ecology classes to fucking get my degree, you mental deficient

>>11395086
I have a degree in geology and I can guarantee you he knows more about the atmosphere than you do

>>11390197
>THIS IS THE END WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I'm not sure I see the problem here.

>>11395070
Dissenting (corrected that for you, dumbfuck) thought is not only ALLOWED but ENCOURAGED in science you FUCKING MORON.

But once the evidence is overwhelming in a certain direction, you better have some FUCKING GOOD EVIDENCE if you want to counter the consensus.

And climate deniers don't have that. It's obvious to anybody with an IQ above 50 that all the denialism is just politically-motivated, unsupported claptrap.

>>11395086
That image is horrifically fucking stupid. Think of the CO2 created by ALL the cars, trucks, buses etc. in America being driven EVERY DAY. Versus a few flights.

Obviously flying is polluting yes, which is why some environmentalists try and cut down on it, or refrain from it altogether - have you done the same yet? No, then you don't have the same legs to stand on as they do.

But the other issue is that we can't easily decarbonise flight yet. Electric commercial passenger planes are nowhere near to being a reality. But things like cars / trucks / buses, we ALREADY HAVE electric versions of those vehicles.

Dumb fuck.

>>11395081
No, you are.
>>11395234
>Dissenting (corrected that for you, dumbfuck) thought is not only ALLOWED but ENCOURAGED in science you FUCKING MORON.
>But once the evidence is overwhelming in a certain direction, you better have some FUCKING GOOD EVIDENCE if you want to counter the consensus.
This climate bullshit isn't science, it's pseudoscience at best, and there's way too much political pressure for it not push the scientists in a certain direction.
>And climate deniers don't have that. It's obvious to anybody with an IQ above 50 that all the denialism is just politically-motivated, unsupported claptrap.
You monumental retard, it is your side that is most politically motivated - you've got all the famous climate activists too. Don't pretend like your side is squeaky clean you fucking weasel, you're completely full of shit.

>>11390764
>civilisation
>200,000 years
objectively fucking wrong dumbcunt
we also already know that the fucking mesopotamians got wiped the fuck out due to changes in climate eradicating their water supply

>>11392169
>can you imagine the horror
Yeh i can't wait for all the formerly mild places to become australia and places like australia to turn into Avernus

>>11392668
>is it possible to know whether it was mainly caused by man-made climate change, or whether it would have happened regardless, or perhaps been even worse without man-made CO2 in the air?

Never on a specific event level, by definition climate is long term and not on the time scale defined as bad weather. Shit like australia having 9 of its 10 hottest years after the year 2000 (not sure if this is the exact stat don't argue over this shit) is an extremely concerning trend tho

>>11392729
You need to pretend like you've ever taking a fucking course on statistics

1-in-100 year events can and will happen eventually

If they start happening every fucking 5 years you're in deep shit cause it means your probabilities changed

>>11392752
Historical data you inept moron
The entire reason you can spot a deviation is because it appears different to what has been happening in the past

>>11395394
But you don't actually know if it was man-made CO2 that caused the increased temps since 2000, particularly since CO2 can have a cooling effect as well. So climate "science" is completely full of shit?

I would like to remind you all that sea level rise is occuring at an exponential rate and a non-insignificant portion of the world's population live in big coastal cities that are extremely difficult to relocate

>>11395347
>This climate bullshit isn't science, it's pseudoscience at best, and there's way too much political pressure for it not push the scientists in a certain direction.
Agreed, and the moon is made of cheese.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXHNzNxV6RM

>>11395408
>das racis

>>11395407
>But you don't actually know if it was man-made CO2 that caused the increased temps since 2000
Wrong, it's directly observed: http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>particularly since CO2 can have a cooling effect as well.
Explain.

>So climate "science" is completely full of shit?
Projection.

>>11395398
Still makes no sense you retard

>>11395407
>since CO2 can have a cooling effect
It doesn't though. It is actually trivially easy to measure the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing earth radiation and figure out what the net energy balance is. This is one of the most easily demonstrable both in theory and in practice, and we have been measuring solar radiation and outgoing radiation for ages now with satellites

CO2 blocks rays in the infrared spectrum for the most part. The incoming energy from the sun is peaked in the visible spectrum. The outgoing radiation from the earth is peaked in the infrared. If you could think, you would realise that you're blocking more that is going out than is going in.

>>11395419
>I'm too stupid to understand it
>it makes no sense
Not the same thing, retard.

>>11395418
>>particularly since CO2 can have a cooling effect as well.
>Explain.
certain morons think it blocks harmful radiation from the sun even though infrared is fucking irrelevant for incoming solar radiation

>>11395419
>still makes no sense
yeah you clearly haven't done fucking statistics have u

>>11395404
Yeah but we're talking about a chaotic and dynamic system you utter mong - historical temps didnt exist in the same current climate system, they can't offer you solid information.

>>11395412
> the moon is made of cheese.
You're a complete disgrace for believing that.

The earth is dying, now pay me to fix it

>>11392099
>that whole "humans and animalz the sameXD" meme has to fucking die.
This
Humans are actually fungi

>>11390197
>life on earth has survived for billions of years
not humans, nor the creatures that make up the ecosystems we depend on
>average temperature rises by half a degree
so far. BAU projections >4 degrees
>THIS IS THE END WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
nobody is saying that. the worry is the collapse of ecosystems, rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and associated social unrest will make life very shitty for future generations.
congrats on all your (You)s though, I hope they help satisfy the empty feeling!

>>11390197
"Ecologists" dont want to "save the planet" they just want to legally steal your money in the name of their ecologist ideology.

the climate hoax is just another massive huxleyan media hoax to distract people from paying attention to what the real problems in their lives are

>>11395070
>descenting thought

>>11395638
>>11395673
>shill rat gets exposed
>starts dumping his propaganda folder
Get fucked, shill rat.

>>11395808
What are you even doing here? What's you point? You have a solution for this problem or what?

>>11394562
they are wrong then because they definitely will

>>11395379
i guess the mesopotamians shouldnt have been burning so much fossil fuel

>>11395234
>>11395234
>Dissenting (corrected that for you, dumbfuck) thought is not only ALLOWED but ENCOURAGED in science you FUCKING MORON.

What is the consensus on gender the? Nature reports "that experts agree gender is not based on chromosomes or gentiles?" Why was the japanese scientist guy fired from his job when he did a study on the relative physical attractiveness of different raced women from polls? Why is the studying of human skulls taboo, when you can clearly see the differences?

>that hideous boomer meme
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/reddit/

nature magazine:

articles(.s.l.a.sh.)

slash/
d41586-018

-07238-8
>The research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and female, and gender as a spectrum that includes transgender people and those who identify as neither male nor female. The US administration’s proposal would ignore that expert consensus.

>>11395434
>Yeah but we're talking about a chaotic and dynamic system you utter mong
Earth's climate is not chaotic, weather is.

>historical temps didnt exist in the same current climate system, they can't offer you solid information.
Gibberish.

>>11395441
I'm not trapped in your bubble where descenting thought isn't allowed.

>>11396024
>Earth's climate is not chaotic, weather is.
Climate is weather moron! Your arbitrary distinction is meaningless.

>>11396028
>Climate is weather moron!
Climatologists are not meteorologists.

>Your arbitrary distinction is meaningless.
One is chaotic, the other is not. If this is meaningless, then so is your claim that climate is chaotic.

>>11396035
>Climatologists are not meteorologists.
Climatologists are retardologists.
>One is chaotic, the other is not.
Both are chaotic, moron!

Lol

>>11396052
>Climatologists are retardologists.
You have to be 18 or older to post here.

>Both are chaotic, moron!
Climate is determined by the energy balance of the Earth, which is not chaotic. Weather is determined by atmospheric circulation, which is chaotic. This is why weather is not predictable past a few days, while climate has beem successfully predicted for decades, and hindcasted thousands of years into the past.

Global warming deniers form a sliding scale of denial which is outlined below — in general these beliefs are designed to prevent action being taken.

1- Not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring, pushing the degree of denialism to the verge of the delusional.

2 - Simply deny global warming is happening and maintain that no action is necessary — so we don't have to change anything.

3 - Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity — so we don’t have to change anything.

4 - Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but mostly it's caused by solar activity — so we don't have to change anything.

5 -Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but predicting future emission levels is equivalent to astrology — so we don't have to change anything, Ehrlich!

6 - Global warming is caused by humanity, but it may be a good thing — so we don’t have to change anything.

7 - Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but [insert emotional appeal and/or false dichotomy about how doing anything about it would prevent the world's poor from improving their lives] — so we don't have to change anything.

8 - Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but there are still more serious crises that deserve higher priority — so we don't have to change anything.

9 - Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but it's just human sin, so outside of worthless praying, we don't have to change anything.

10 - Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China and India aren't doing anything — so we don’t have to change anything.

>>11396081
11 - Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, and maybe China and India are willing to do something, but I've heard about this new energy source/technology that's going to completely solve the problem in 10-20 years — so we don't have to change anything.

12 - Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China and India do something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us a shitload of dough — so we don’t have to change anything.

13 - Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments could and should have done something, but it's too late now!
Watch the shills stick to this script as usual

>average temperature rises by half a degree

no scientist on earth will provide evidence or argument for this

>>11392169
>Northern Ireland split into two turds
>one is Catholic the other Protestant

>>11396083

>>11396081
People ITT aren't denying it's real they're saying it won't be the apocalypse extinction rebellion people make it out to be.

>>11396081
>>11396082
And what should we do, stop eating meat, driving cars and having children and import niggers?

Climate change is anti-white propaganda
https://youtu.be/tXlnBQc7euM

What temperature should it be?

>>11396090
>>11396097
>>11396101
Back to >>>/pol/, oil shill rat

>>11396090
>People ITT aren't denying it's real
>>11392324
>>11392724
>>11392735
>>11392744
>>11392747
>>11392752
>>11392754
>>11393578
>>11393641
>>11393685
>>11393913
>>11393919
>>11395347
>>11395407

>they're saying it won't be the apocalypse extinction rebellion people make it out to be.
That describes types 3-8 of climate denial

>>11395903
He isn't saying anything about the cause of climate change, just that it can easily wipe of civilisations if left unchecked.

>>11392618
im a neet

>>11392598
go back to soidit

>>11396114
>im a neet
How do you make money then?

>>11396108
Fuck off dumb tranny

>>11396028
>Geometry and topology are the same thing, moron! Your arbitrary distinction is meaningless.
>What do you mean curvature isn't homotopy invariant?!

>>11396113
well i guess the mesopotamians should have checked their climate change

give me a quick rundown on the apocalypse that global warming brings on

>>11396129
Earth gets hot, everyone dies

>>11396119
Not science, not maths, now go back.

>>11396139
Kys npc

>>11396071
How much weather = climate in your arbitrary bullshit distinction?

>>11396141
Not science, not maths, now go back.

>>11396129
It's warm everywhere, also there's no Netherlands anymore.

>>11396107
Whichever temperature ecosystems and human infrastructure are adapted to. The problem is not the temperature, it's the rate of change of the temperature.

>>11395347
>NO UUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow what a great argument you fucking moronic cunt.

>>11395922
We're not talking about gender you stupid cunt. We're talking about the fucking climate.

And yes I thought the meme was great, I knew 4chan would love it, lmao.

>>11396081
>>11396082
Lmao, spot on.

>>11396090
So you're number 6 on the scale of denial. Got it.

>>11396097
You're dumb as fuck.

>>11390371
Sry m8, as long as DNA of any species survive, global warming is hoax

>>11396244
You're being ironic right

>>11396143
Weather = a few days or weeks

Climate = average over years

>>11390197
>average temperature rises by half a degree
Yeah, that would cause significant changes to the environment

Is there anything close to a consensus on what the death toll of global warming will be? Most people seem to think it will be close to 100%, but all the scientific reports I read warn about less than a billion deaths. How can I properly research this?

>>11396143
>arbitrary
The distinction between chaotic and non- chaotic behavior is not arbitrary. Try again, retard.

>>11396296
Before you worry about deaths, you should probably worry about:

- People from the third world migrating to your country, en masse
- If you live in the US, the southern parts of your country will probably suffer drought which will ruin crops
- Resulting economic damage from droughts and crop shortages
- More extreme weather like hurricanes etc. and the economic damage from that

>>11396296
Fossil fuel burning alone kills millions of people annually.

>>11396340
Name alternative, that realistically able to fulfill energy needs.

>>11396357
Use less energy. The energy consumption of 1st world countries like the US and Europe are 1000x higher than the energy consumption of 3rd world countries like South East Asia and South America. This proves that humans can thrive with less energy but 1st worlders don't want to

>>11396357
Nuclear.

>>11396369
>The energy consumption of 1st world countries like the US and Europe are 1000x higher than the energy consumption of 3rd world countries like South East Asia and South America
And why is it so?

>>11396375
Oil barrons and consumptive lifestyles. You don't have to live in the boonies and rub sticks together for entertainment in order to consume less energy.

>>11390814

Wrong.

look up G. Freybergi idiot

>>11396474
>consumptive lifestyles
You mean healthy economy?
>Oil barrons
I'm sorry?

>>11396357
>>11396369
>>11396375
>>11396474
>>11396490
This guy gave you part of the answer: >>11396372

Nuclear can give us that stable, always-there energy. It's not dependent on weather or time of day, like wind and solar are.

HOWEVER we can absolutely have solar and wind as well. Pic related, solar is the cheapest form of energy on this graph, listed as "PV utility" (PV stands for photovoltaic). And onshore wind has a lower minimum price than lignite coal.

Yes nuclear isn't listed on this graph because it's from Germany and they phased out nuclear. But still, you can see that solar and wind do well compared to fossil fuels.

>>11396081
>>11396082
7 - 13 are not even climate denialism. They are politics. Labeling those types of people climate deniers reduces the effectiveness of the term as it should be applied to people who aren't even interested in the truth.

>>11396636
I'm not the guy who posted that list but they definitely are denialism, you see people saying that stupid shit all the time, e.g.
>hurr durr china is worse than america, blame china
When actually Americans produce twice as much CO2 per capita as the Chinese do.

>>11396709
The per capita argument is nonsense because it's the perfect excuse for people who produce copious amounts of co2 and have a huge number of slave/employees that produce virtually nothing.
Next you'll add people who don't think a carbon tax is a useful way of reducing emissions to that list as number 14 because you're a cash strapped bureaucrat who sees merit in rapidly expanding the word "denier" to include anyone who disagrees with you politically.

>>11392315
rejecting science isnt exclusive to the right, you're making the problem worse

the problem in this case being stupid people refusing to accept that they are stupid and instead going for conspiracy theories to cope with all the people who were clearly smarter than them and looked down on/mocked them

>>11390197
Not the heckin temperarino!

>>11392047
How DARE you

>>11392350
What leads you to the conclusion that slight warming = near or total human extinction?

>>11392555
Yes, that is 100% what most people who notice this believe should happen. And also people shouldn’t have any shared regard for truth.

>>11396136
how
>>11396152
sounds alright

>>11396109
>types 3 to 8
Holy kek it’s like how “hm 5.5 sounds more reasonable than 6” is “Holocaust denial”

>>11392169
As long as Disney World doesn't go underwater I'm good

>>11396778
dude the water level and the 11 gorillion african nigger immigrants

>>11396788
>hm 5.5 sounds more reasonable than 6” is “Holocaust denial
Who are you quoting?

>>11396722
I already said I'm not the guy who made the list but clearly you're too fucking dense to read

>NO YOU CAN'T USE THE LOGICAL PER CAPITA ARGUMENT, I DON'T LIKE LOGIC IT'S NOT FAAAAIIIIIIIRRRRRR
Ah, you're an American I see.

>>11396804
>I already said I'm not the guy
I didn't say you were, and its irrelevant anyway.

You're a dumbass.

>>11396815
Ah you've got literally nothing else to say, no argument at all, like a dumb fuck.

Yup, you're definitely American.

>>11392551
>Be as it way, you won't be able to shoot and bomb them all.
why not?

>>11392573
>They don't know that Italy and Hungary are killing African migrants
we don’t really even get african migrants. we get middle eastern and south asian migrants, from syria to bangladesh. and they simply aren’t allowed to enter.

>>11396824
you're an irritating chucklefuck, and an absolute retard.

>>11396839
Got nothing else to say have you. Thanks for admitting I beat you, dumb fuck.

>>11393945
Wow, I didn't realize having a larger population meant more CO2 emissions. Why don't we just balkanize China and India, have no reduction in industrial output at all in those regions, and solve anthropogenic climate change?

>>11392065
You are a dumb fuck. Yes males do have slightly larger brains on average. And climate change is still real. You fucking moron.

>>11392751
Nobody lives on Antarctica permanently you fucking moron, the only people who are there are research scientists, only living there for part of the year.

If you think those scientists emit a lot of CO2 per capita then take that up with the countries who sent them, you fucking idiot.

>>11393173
Argument from consequences. Which is a fallacy.
>we can't believe X because if X is true then I have to eat bugs!
Not only is the conclusion false, but even if it were true, it wouldn't make X true or false, you smooth brain cunt.

>>11393945
IT'S ABOUT WHERE WE APPORTION BLAME YOU FUCKING MORON

Say you're at university, living in shared accommodation, with 4 others (5 of you in total). Say you all divide the cost of the internet bill equally. And say the monthly usage limit is 1 TB (1,000 GB). So you decide amongst yourselves that you will each have a personal limit of 200 GB per month (1,000 / 5 = 200).

Then say one of your housemates actually uses 400 GB in a month, while the rest stick to their 200 GB targets. This means your household used 1,200 GB in a month, exceeding the limit, and you incur fees. If the 400 GB housemate says "WELL I USED LESS THAN ALL THE REST OF YOU COMBINED SO REALLY YOU'RE THE ONES TO BLAME, WHO CARES ABOUT PER CAPITA, DO YOU THINK COMCAST CARES ABOUT PER CAPITA, THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT TOTAL USAGE", then that housemate would be a fucking moron. The rest of the housemates would justifiably demand that the offending housemate pay any fees incurred by exceeding the monthly download allowance.

This can also be applied to something like a hosepipe ban but not all countries have those so that's why I used an example which should apply to every country.

>>11390197
Sure the planet wil survive. It's an inanimate object. But us as a species will die along with every other mammal larger than a rat.

>>11390197
La Nina is coming!
prepare your anus warmists

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml?bookmark=nino3.4

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/NMME/current/plume.html

http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/sur/pac/nino34.php

https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/department/enso-blog

https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml

to be fair, extinction events are part of the evolutionary history of earth. Either CO2 or a meteorite, what's the difference

>>11392169
>remember how the tropics were an unlivable death zone and all life was pushed to the poles?
Uh huh.

>>11396608
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

>>11397145
Well okay whatever, I'm not a fucking expert am I. How do you think constant power should be achieved then?

I've seen some people propose that electric car batteries be used to store energy that can then be sold back to the grid at peak times, when there's no wind blowing, and no sun shining. Is that realistic though? Maybe someone's electric car battery could power their home, but what about street lights, hospitals, shit like that.

I think nuclear should be an option; I didn't say it should be the ONLY option. It can be part of the mix.

Hydro is obviously another great source of energy but that can have negative consequences of its own, from what I've heard.

Future energy will probably need to be a mix of all this stuff, right?

>>11390197
I'm concerned about the climate, but this "end of the world" shit ticks me off because it makes people take is less seriously.
The planet will remain. Life will remain. Human society however will face a lot of complications.

>>11397066
>APPORTION
Huh, never knew this word existed

>>11390197
>average temperature rises by half a degree
This is a poor argument.
Human body temperature is around 311K, if a fever puts you at 317K you risk dying. That 2 % increase in body temperature is going to fucking kill you. Small temperature changes make a difference.

>>11397268
But you realise that OP, an obvious denialist moron, is the one who is accusing Greta of saying "it's the end of the world", right?

I.e. I'm pretty sure Greta doesn't say that. She says it's important yeah, but she doesn't say "it's the end of the world" - at least I don't think she does.

I don't really know much about Greta. That isn't really who we should be looking to for climate information. I have no problem with her raising the issue though - she sure does it in a much better way than the Extinction Rebellion cunts in London, who have tried to stop public transport during rush hour (you know, the form of transport that means people don't use polluting cars instead), and they recently dug up a well-kept garden at the University of Cambridge, because they're spoilt brats.

>Human society however will face a lot of complications
Exactly, and it would be good to have a thread that can actually discuss this issue (and possible responses to it) rationally. But instead you get all these denialist morons who use conspiracy theory garbage to try and pretend that the problem doesn't even exist.

>>11397099
>he thinks El Nino and La Nina matter

>>11397145
Abbott has no clue what he's talking about.

>land use
Incorrectly assumes nuclear reactors can't be placed together on the same piece of land.

>Lifetime
Doesn't explain why this replacement rate is unrealistic for multiple countries all around the world operating at the same time. Also ignores that modern reactors last longer than 50 years.

>Nuclear waste
Ignores that we have been storing nuclear waste for decades safely without a permanent solution. Ignores that permanent solutions exist but are held up by fearmongering and NIMBYism.

>Accidents
Incorrectly claims that all nuclear accidents were unforeseeable and can't be solved by improved safety measures.

>Proliferation
Ignores that only a handful of countries are actually a proliferation risk and have the means to exploit nuclear technology even if it's given to them.

>uranium abundance
Ignores harvesting of uranium from seawater, a virtually infinite supply that we can already do today and will only become easier if demand for uranium increases.

>uranium from seawater would deplete
Ignores that seawater is constantly being replenished with uranium freon the sea floor.

>exotic metals
Ignores that these metals are actually quite common and found in many sites already being mined today.

Even if you ignore these glaring flaws in Abbott's analysis, the biggest problem with this analysis is that he completely ignores the alternatives. Fossil fuel plants require land and parallel construction. Solar panels require exotic metals. Fossil fuels creates air pollution that kills millions of people annually and is not safely stored like nuclear waste. Renewables are inconsistent and cannot provide baseloads globally. Fossil fuels cause global warming. A fair analysis shows nuclear is the best option.

>>11392551
That's ridiculous. There's no way to prove the migration isn't because they have like 47 fucking children each. In fact that's the most likely cause, given the whopping 2 Celcius (zomg zomg :0) temperature increase.

I'm starting to suspect this "climate refugees" bullshit is more of the same along the lines of "they're doing jobs locals won't do", and the "we need more workers to support the elderly" sleazy bullshit.

>>11397692
you lost me at
>Ignores harvesting of uranium from seawater
maybe because that's a fucking meme,
and so are you. lol
that absolutely ridiculous "point" you make calls into question every single opinion you've ever had about anything.

>>11397293
His argument is based on the historical temperature differences. Ironically, it's your argument that is poor, since it's just reasoning by analogy.

>>11397760
>>11397760
>whopping 2 Celcius (zomg zomg :0) temperature increase
It's blindingly obvious you've never worked a day in your life in agriculture (and I'd doubt that you have worked at all).

>>11397780
Go ahead and prove to me that migrations aren't caused by locally high fertility rates. Or maybe just prove to me that their lands can support their high fertility rates into the future in the absence of climate change. Or is the snarky clown meme bullshit all you've got?

>>11397771
>maybe because that's a fucking meme
Says whom?

>>11397777
>His argument is based on the historical temperature differences.
Which ones? The ones that happened over millions of years?

>>11397823
Anyone who isn't literally retarded.

>>11397830
Not an argument, try again.

>>11397836
"Trying" with people like you is a waste of time and energy - like teaching arithmetic to a monkey. I'd prefer if you just kys.

>>11397841
>I'm full of shit
OK, thanks.

>>11390197
I would like to debate the topic of abortion. It is my contention that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder. Discuss

Someone didn't do their daily oil enema

>>11397771
https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514

>>11397846
Right to life isn't right to life support, see the violinist analogy.

A New vial of cum. Fresh out of the mass spectrometer.

>>11397860
All humans have a right to life support.

>>11397896
so you agree anyone has the right to use your body to provide life support, and you refusing for any reason is murder?

>>11391017
Literally boiling frogs

>>11397826
No, the ones like the warm period slam bang in the last ice age, when lions roamed the british isles.

>>11398005
interesting could you point out on this global temperature reconstruction where this warm period was?

>>11398018
>Around 130,000 – 115,000 years ago, a particularly warm interglacial allowed tropical species to live in Britain. Hippopotamus bones have been found in Worcestershire at Eckington, Bengeworth and Stourbridge. Spotted hyenas, lions and narrow-nosed rhinoceros are also known to have lived in Britain during this time.
https://www.explorethepast.co.uk/2018/10/mammoths-hippos-in-worcestershire/

>>11398043
So please tell me what the difference is between a few degrees of warming over 10000 years and a degree of warming over 100 years.

>>11398063
The most basic and already observable of problems, sea level rise, means we don't have time to move the population out of the way in time due to the retarded cost of relocating coastal cities

>>11390197
Almost sure that life will go on, but we don't.

>>11398070
How do you explain the first two comments by Neil Perth on this page?
https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-intermediate.htm

>>11398158
>citing divining rod guy
lmao

>>11398158
>how do I explain
I don't really have to explain shit, the findings are contradictory to what we knew then and especially now after another decade of satellite measurements.

>>11397896
>>11397917
Both of you fail to differentiate between natural vs artificial life support. Providing life support to babies is literally the function of women in nature. Although pregnancy comes with risk, there's no intentional aggression on the part of the fetus. Forcing someone to provide you with artificial life support is an intentional act of aggression.

>>11398186
You clearly haven't encountered the violinist analogy have you

>>11398186
I don't see how something being natural makes it OK, murder is pretty natural it's present in almost all species, rape is natural, cannibalism is natural etc etc

>>11398186
So as long as there is no intentional aggression on the part of the patient, denying them life support is murder? Even if a third party forces you provide life support?

>>11398193
It's a gruesome fantasy dreamed up by a pro-abortionist. It's also a false analogy because the violinist is an adult. Presumably the violinist takes more 'life' from the victim, in an abnormal way, and it's not possible to carry the violinist around. There's also a sneaky flaw in its description: there isn't a limit of 9 months to the predicament. Also,
>Knocked unconscious
is an act of aggression by a third party. In the analogy there's nothing like society to help undo the situation, just a macabre binary choice.
>>11398197
Pregnancy isn't just natural, it's the very foundation of life, and in most cases it is also 'natural' in the sense that it isn't contrived by a human mind and that in most cases it isn't harmful. Modern technology has also reduced the risk of pregnancy, while suggesting the possibility that civilization could continue without it.
>>11398238
As I said above, it's a stupid macabre fantasy only possible with medical technology. In the real contemporary world, the victim would phone the police, and medical technology would be used to separate the victim from the violinist. If phoning the police wasn't possible, then the scenario is like that of a sick horror film: the violinist might offer to commit suicide, but the captor would probably threaten against this. It's just a sick fantasy dreamed up by a sick woman.

>>11398246
you've failed to demonstrate how the two scenarios are not morally equivalent, you claim it's a false analogy, as the violinist is an adult, does that mean aborting a baby which may have a condition which reduces it's lifespan by 20 years is permissible?

>it's not possible to carry the violinist around
So whether it's murder or not depends on how incontinent it is?

>there isn't a limit of 9 months to the predicament.
the original argument specifies 9 months, but lets say it didn't, would abortion be permissible if a pregnancy was 10 months a year? once again we return to convenience being the deciding factor.

>is an act of aggression by a third party.
is being forced to carry a child to term by a third party not an act of aggression?

>As I said above, it's a stupid macabre fantasy only possible with medical technology.
you've still failed to demonstrate how the two situations are not morally equivalent.

i thought this line was funny though
>and medical technology would be used to separate the victim from the violinist.
like an abortion?

>>11397335
I'm not talking about Greta specifically, never cared enough about her to see what she's saying. But there is no shortage of "the end is nigh" climate enthusiasts.

>>11398267
Not him, but the difference is intent. If some man decided to pick up a baby and bludgeon a woman to death with it, you wouldn't blame the baby for it.

>>11398267
>does that mean aborting a baby which may have a condition which reduces it's lifespan by 20 years is permissible?
What the fuck are you trying to say? A legitimate analogy would be if a guy inseminated a woman but she was dying and doctors transferred her womb and the fetus to its father as the law demands. My suspicion is that most *moral* men would protect the fetus.
>So whether it's murder or not depends on how incontinent it is?
The victim's quality of life is dramatically reduced far more than that of a pregnant woman (or man). And it's not murder on the part of the victim, since the scenario is contrived by the perpetrator such that society can't intervene. As I said, it's a macabre fantasy where the perpetrator is toying with the victim's sanity, and your reluctance to admit this fact speaks volumes about your own personality.

>>11398267
>the original argument specifies 9 months
Fine, but the duration is irrelevant because it has to be contrived. In fact the thought experiment is contrived in of itself.

>would abortion be permissible if a pregnancy was 10 months a year?
It isn't.

>is being forced to carry a child to term by a third party not an act of aggression?
Yes, but the crime lesser than abortion. Preventing abortion is also pro-life, as in, preserving the human race, whereas abortion is anti-life, as in ending human civilization. Only anti-cosmic satanists are pro-abortion.

>you've still failed to demonstrate how the two situations are not morally equivalent.
I don't need to, because the violinist doesn't need to die and neither does the fetus.

>like an abortion?
No, as in rescuing both the victim and violinist, rather than, ahem, murdering the violinist. This is a good example of how you intentionally misinterpret my arguments rather than refute the central point, which I'll state again. It's a macabre false analogy designed to scare people into believing that abortion is a moral act.

>>11397619
>he thinks that an ocean cooling down while being "larger than all of Earth's land area combined" is irrelevant

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