/sci/ - Science & Math

Population control

>>12155238
global cooling

>>12155238
Changing the meaning of living

>>12155238
Mandatory ass plugs for mammals

>>12155241
this. [I]mpact = [P]opulation * [A]ffulence * [T]echnology

nobody is keen to change their lifestyles. but not having 50 kids is easy. limiting reproduction to 2 kids per/woman would gradually lower the population. that way we could continue our lifestyles more or less and also have a sustainable society.

if we can't do this, if we grow within our confines without self restraint, we really aren't much better than a cancer. to be honest, i don't think humanity will be able to get its shit together.

This takes time, though. Immediately we could push mixed green energy solutions and better grids (it's truly unfortunate that after Fukushima that nuclear power is not an option). In the US we could build highspeed rail to connect the nation. We also need to push to better organize our cities to deemphasize cars; this is half-impossible because cities are already built, but it could also be an excellent way to invest in ourselves

>>12155246
cool

>>12155238
cool picture of earth's past

>>12155238
Defense spending for the inevitable conflict that will ensue. No one will be willing to sacrifice enough to avoid it, so the most logical solution is to be in a position to exploit it for the gain of your nation.

radical disruptive tech or bust

>>12155238
>implying it's a problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGVIJSW0Y3k

>>12155238
Doing whatever Pentti Linkola said we should do

>>12155256
It's very unfortunate that nuclear isn't an option. There is no way we go carbon neutral by 2050 without them

>>12155288
Unless Northern countries are willing to carry out non stop genocides on invading migrants in the second half of the 21st century that map means nothing

>>12155238
Competent federal governance.

>>12155238
Sustainable eco-systems...

Mining trash in ocean.
Using ambiental heat as source of energy instead of ecologically damaging sources.

>>12155238

>>12155342
kill off the soijaks. problem solved.

Contolism

Corona chan has shown that recovery starts quickly. When human activity stops.

>>12155288
lol, that video calls trump a retard.
But comprehending what you watch and see isn't your strong trait, is it now.

>>12155338
Thorium reactors would be on the table if more people listened to Andrew Yang.

Climate change could easily be solved by nuclear fission. We don't need fancy fusion or thorium.
But people are stupid and unreasonably afraid.

>>12155500
Nuclear power is dead and no amount of paid spam here will change that.

>>12155525
And which billionaire is out there pushing pro-nuclear propaganda? Dumbass.

>>12155528
deaddeaddead
cope

>>12155238
capitalism

>>12155532
If you want a leftist to come explain what’s actually going on, you don’t have to troll. You could just ask.

>depopulation
>use nuclear energy
all other measures are pretension and posturing

>>12155338
Why isn't nuclear an option? The small modular reactor is well development and is feasible this decade.

>>12155361
Driving "fuel-efficient" cars in not a solution, it merely slows down climate change slightly, so long as the fuel is fossile. There is literally no way to avoid climate change and use any fossile fuels simultaneously.

>>12155651
Nuclear energy is extremely expensive. The costs are just hidden because the risk of an accident is not backed by any insurer, but implicitly covered by the state of the respective nation.

>>12155651
>feasible
Feasible to be mass-produced? Feasible for shareholders? Who’s going to fund it?

>>12155665
Source? The US government tends to way overstate its expenses to redirect funds to their heart-attack guns and UFOs or whatever.

Also insurance at that level is a racket within a racket. Don’t trust anything you read about it.

We need to mass produce Elon Musk clones.

>>12155676
In the US at least, operators of nuclear plants are required to insure up to a certain amount. However, depending on the probability distribution one assumes for the occurrence of accidents and associated damages, this may or may not be nearly enough to cover the actual risk - at which point either a) liability is retroactively increased or b) the federal government backs the rest. Case b) is what I referred to as "implicitly".
In fairness, hydro power has a similar shortcoming.

>>12155751
>Required to insure
Required by whom? All of this sounds completely arbitrary. Is it expensive just because some executives decided it should be?

>>12155788
By the Price-Anderson-Act of 1957.

>>12155238
From a geopolitical perspective:
Massive life support structures to house units of 10000 humans, hoarding of vitamins and minerals, farming hardy foods only, converting entire agricultural base to vegetables only, using feed just for humans and not livestock. Securing local alliances on your continent, laying out agreements with rivals ahead of time, go ahead and carve up the new arctic now so a war doesn't break out. Lottery system for life support habitation. Sit and wait out the biosphere collapse. Continue emissions since it's fucked anyway, try to get into space.

>>12155806
>Signed by Dwight Eisenhower
>Upheld by the Supreme Court
So, short-sighted American politicians started it all, and no one bothered to fix their mistake. I wonder what Trump would have to say about it these days.

>>12155238
Global warming could easily be solved if we enact laws so people use less energy in countries like the US, Europe, and parts of Asia. We know that in Africa, South America, and other parts of Asia people live good, healthy lives without having to run their air conditioners all day and drive 3 miles to buy a box of oreo cookies.

>>12155822
>Massive life support structures to house units of 10000 humans
Only if the viral marketing is good enough.

>>12155826
And what exactly would Trump do?
Increase mandatory liability for operators? Then energy cost would rise due to increased premiums. Decrease it? Then the potential liability of the federal government would increase, further worsening the underestimation of true cost of nuclear energy.

>>12155880
Well, he said 4 years ago he’d do something about the lack of nuclear energy in the US. Maybe it’s not a priority anymore.

>>12155835
>Viral marketing
I wish I was getting paid for this

>>12155910
nothing is a priority, it's among 20,000+ lies

>>12155252
This. Folks in the global north have to give up the imperial mode of living, while the global south should step away from their ambition to achieve it.

>>12155288
>Based on how GDP responds to temperature
Literally a baseless projection

>10% of the landmass of Earth controlling roughly 5% of the wealth will double that wealth so the other 90% of land and wealth doesn't matter
Anon, I...

a big ol' ice cube

>>12155660
meanwhile we got alternatives

>>12155238
young plants

Kill every person who talks about global warming being a disaster.

The Earth will cool from the then lower population.

It's the only fair way.

>>12155256
We tried this, but then "anti capitalists" and neoliberals decided to put aside their differences and use it as an excuse for mass migration from high fertility cultures.
If you want people to control their fertility, you need to allow them to control borders to prevent others exploiting it.

>>12155651
>Why no nuclear?
It's heavily lobbied against in many countries by both the oil lobby and the green lobby, which usually means political opposition from all sides, as most countries have a "pro business internationalism" vs "green leftist internationalism" two party dichotomy.

France was the most notable exception, and currently has ~80% of it's energy from nuclear, but they voted to reduce this to <50% by 2035.

Colonise venus and mars and send 1/3 of humanity to each planet
Overpopulation solved, global warming solved

>>12155238
The sun is acting up

If the goal is to reduce CO2 output then you want Nuclear powered cities and to design cheap effective transportation that relies on non petroleium based engines.
The problem is no one is currently doing either of those things which leads you to two conclusions:

1: It isn't real
or
2: It actually isn't a big deal

>>12155361
mfw

>>12157128
3. Retards like you deny the problem exists and prevent it from being solved.

>>12157108
*down

>>12155338
>>12155528
>>12155651
>>12155751
>>12156852
>using "nuclear" like it's a noun
Your IQ is in the double digits. Post disregarded and filtered.

>>12155525
>>12155617
>>12155665
>>12155910
>>12157128
Spotted the 200 IQ.

>>12157674
Windmills have existed for 800 years. If they were the powerhouse people are falsely claiming them to be we never would have needed any other power source you fucking nigger.

>>12155238
Cold litter.

>>12157812
Is the pop sci retort about the steam engine has been around for thousands of years. Didn't stop people from using slave labor, or windmills. Not everything is written in stone. Having made some choice in the past is not sufficient reason to make that choice now.

>>12155241
this, but modern economics will crash without a permanently inflating population, so governments and corporations will quite literally kill the planet for money.

>>12155342
anon, governments and corporations are the ones inviting them in. western countries were on course for a significantly lower population, so they're just ethnically replacing us with people who will shit out babies to keep their stocks up.

>>12155238
It's irreversible at this point the best thing to do is geoengineer the earth around a warmer climate, we should start by turning the middle of Australia, the Sahara Gobi deserts into Seas that will lower the ocean levels to balance out the ice melting, it will also stop further desertification of areas bording those places.

>>12155238
Education on the fact that global warming is natural and inevitable and information otherwise is communist propaganda.

Curiously the answer to global warming, overpopulation and reducing nuclear stockpiles are the same.

>>12155238
Some sort of global cooling, perhaps....

>>12159056
What's the natural cause of current warming?

>>12157812
>Literally and figuratively tilting at windmills
Deniers are the dumbest retards on this site.

>>12155238
group of o'neil cylinders on Lagrange points, some of sort of space colony

>>12155361
thanks greta

>>12159995
Kek

>>12159206
>nuclear stockpiles
Did you mean one of the following:
nuclear energy stockpiles
Uranium stockpiles
Thorium stockpiles

>>12155238
>What's the answer to global warming?
>What's the answer to the dinosaur rebellion?
>What's the answer to ghost assassins?
>What's the answer to Hitlers time traveling legions?

Do nothing and problems that don't exist won't hurt you, easy.

>>12161132
So the global average temperature isn't increasing?

>>12155238
Nuclear Power

>>12161124
maybe

>>12155361
Wow. I'm sure if I do this it will make a huge difference, what with India and China industrialising and all.

>>12161179
Oh, it is, but the guy you're responding to doesn't care one way or the other and just wants to oppose lefties and smart people. If you told him his dick was on fire he'd either deny it or claim its what he wanted, just to "own" you.

>>12159990
Fluctuations in heat intensity from the sun combined with the Earth's axial precession create a cyclical effect of warming and cooling ages seen throughout the Earth's geological history, and climate cycles in nearer history that until recently we haven't had the correct instrumentation to accurately detect.

>>12161536
>Fluctuations in heat intensity from the sun
Solar intensity has been decreasing for decades and is near a grand minimum so that doesn't explain anything. Solar variation is much too small to explain such rapid warming anyway.

>combined with the Earth's axial precession
It's going in the completely wrong direction, like the sun. We are in the cooling phase of the Milankovich cycle. Also, this is only noticeable over thousands of years, it has no relevance to current warming.

>create a cyclical effect of warming and cooling ages seen throughout the Earth's geological history,
According to that cycle we should be cooling. Did you even bother to check the bullshit you're parroting?

>>12161612
Nice source, faggot

>>12155528
Charles Montgomery Burns

Too late

it was too late 10 years ago
it was too late 20 years ago without drastic action

>>12161734
you can't read?
does mommy tie your shoe laces for you?

>>12155238
>whats the answer to things changing, i dont like it waaahhh
stop being an autist first of all

1. Fewer kids. If every human can't simply be happy with just one kid for the next 100 years if would greatly benefit us. Think about it. The population would crash but we would have half our population with 100 years of better technology. Parents will suffer for our grandkids. It's great really.

2. Build nuclear everywhere. Everything should run on nuclear power. Hopefully we can get thorium up and running since a lot of people are scared of regular uranium.

3. Better technology. All electric engines for plants and tanks and cars. Food grown out of a lab and not grown. Genetic engineering humans to consume less calories.

4. Space mining. We needs lots of valuable minerals but why not grab asteroid and pull them into our orbit. Or crash them into the moon and mine them up their via robots. Then bring it down to earth.

5. We need more collaboration between nations. No more stupid nationalism. Each state gets 2 representatives like the us senate. They pass bills that are enforceable and are able to regulate the world.

Sorry but anything less just won't do.

Gavin Newsome says that wind turbines and ev's AND NOTHING ELSE will make the wears forests noncombustible in spite of the fact they are filled with housing and have been under active fire suppression since the 1930s. And people in coastal areas think he's a fucking oracle.

>>12162577
*wests

>>12155238
Massive forestation projects + banning disposable plastics

>>12162577
>Gavin Newsome says that wind turbines and ev's AND NOTHING ELSE will make the wears forests noncombustible
you're all a bunch of fucking idiots.
>active fire suppression since the 1930s
o i c, a conservative thinks it should be logged MORE

ya... you're all a bunch of fucking idiots

>>12162505
>2.
"thorium reactors" are uranium too,
they just use U-233 instead of U-235

>>12162505
>build nuclear everywhere
nuclear is an adjective. That's like saying "build soft everywhere." You're retarded. Filtered!

here you can see who is the problem

>>12162592
The population of California was 2 million in 1900. 10 million in 1950 and currently about 28 million living in areas that burned every few years during the aboriginal period and now in many cases haven't seen fire in decades. Paradise and Santa Rosa are examples of what happens when suburbs are built in a tinderbox. Wind turbines and Teslas alone will not fix this.

>>12161612
>Solar intensity has been decreasing for decades and is near a grand minimum so that doesn't explain anything. Solar variation is much too small to explain such rapid warming anyway.

Tsi is only one aspect, there are other things like particle forcing, earth's magnetic field getting weaker, ozone loss due to EPP etc. all in relation with the sun. Solar UV's create Ozone while solar Particles destroy it. Down playing the role of the sun in climate change is amateurish, especially since we don't have a better explanation for climate change, and shows you lack the eye for the big picture.

>>12162816
who?

>>12164062
You

>>12164018
the sheer amounts of cope in this post is physically painful.

>>12164182
I assume you used the word "cope" since "you're right I'm sorry I'm stupid" doesn't fit in the context
You know since I have "cope" wordfiltered to "you're right I'm sorry I'm stupid"
Because that's what it means in this context

>>12164192
No you're an ignorant fucktard spouting buzzwords you heard someone else use just praying no one will call you out for being the retard you are.

obviously we should reduce emissions

>>12155238
Accelerate it.

>>12164018
>Tsi is only one aspect, there are other things like particle forcing, earth's magnetic field getting weaker, ozone loss due to EPP etc.
Yes, all much weaker than the variation in TSI and not correlated with the observed warming anyway. UV variation has no significant effect on global temperature and ozone depletion has limited that effect even more. Incoming GCRs resisted by Earth's magnetic field (which by the way is much less relevant than the Sun's) show no significant trend. They don't explain shit.

>Down playing the role of the sun in climate change is amateurish
I'm not downplaying anything, I'm simply telling you what climatologists have determined.

>especially since we don't have a better explanation for climate change
We do, it's the change in greenhouse gases. Stop denying reality.

>>12164332
''The reduction in total cloud cover is significant in the context of the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] , which indicates that cloud reflect 23% of the 341 Wm−2 (i.e. 79 Wm−2) of incoming solar radiation. The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere, some of which will be lost when it adds to the longwave radiation to space. Of course clouds have many other effects on the earth’s radiation budget many of which are not fully understood, but a change of 5.4 Wm−2 is potentially of considerable significance.

To put this into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report [1] , section 8.5.2, states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 [1.33 to 2.03] Wm−2.

The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone. Even the upper limits of the IPCC’s estimates fall well short of the increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover.''

https://file.scirp.org/Html/22-4700327_50837.htm

>>12164332
''Traditional anthropogenic theory of currently observed global warming states that release of carbon dioxide into atmosphere (partially as a result of utilization of fossil fuels) leads to an increase in atmospheric temperature because the molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) absorb the infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface. This statement is based on the Arrhenius hypothesis, which was never verified (Arrhenius, 1896). The proponents of this theory take into consideration only one component of heat transfer in atmosphere, i.e., radiation. Yet, in the dense Earth’s troposphere with the pressure pa > 0:2 atm, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred by convection (Sorokhtin, 2001a). According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere. Thus, convection is the dominant process of heat transfer in troposphere, and all the theories of Earth’s atmospheric heating (or cooling) first of all must consider this process of heat (energy)– mass redistribution in atmosphere (Sorokhtin, 2001a, 2001b; Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2003, 2004). When the temperature of a given mass of air increases, it expands, becomes lighter, and rises. In turn, the denser cooler air of upper layers of troposphere descends and replaces the warmer air of lower layers. This physical system (multiple cells of air convection) acts in the Earth’s troposphere like a continuous surface cooler. The cooling effect by air convection can surpass considerably the warming effect of radiation.''

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwicq_r8tYfsAhVuo4sKHZvxBBIQFjAQegQIBxAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.306.3621%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&usg=AOvVaw0j68wKngSYpE6C2bN5qrRL

>>12155238
Emit less, which means consuming less. It isn't complicated, just unpleasant.

>>12155238
Mass extinction. Easy, next.

>>12162768
Autist spotted. It's literally a short way to say nuclear power

>>12164578
>George V. Chilingarian (he uses both Chilingar and Chilingarian as his last name) is an American-Armenian Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California (USC).[1] He is one of the best-known petroleum geologists in the world and the founder of several prestigious journals in the oil and gas industry.

>>12164332
''The laws of physics, namely the gas laws, were applied to the gases in the atmosphere that act as ideal gases. The results show that as air temperature increases from winter to summer CO2 is a cooling gas and from summer to winter it is a warming gas regardless of its concentration in the atmosphere. This is contrary to the commonly held belief that CO2 always warms the atmosphere. Back radiation is the sum of the radiation of all of the greenhouse gases back to the Earth. It is a measured value and increases with temperature and vice versa. Back radiation acts opposite to that of CO2, methane and the trace gases. On average, the latter account for 1.2% of back radiation and water vapor accounts for 98.8%. The effect of CO2, methane and the trace gases on atmospheric temperature and climate change is so small as to be negligible.''

https://medcraveonline.com/FREIJ/carbon-dioxide-sometimes-it-is-a-cooling-gas-sometimes-a-warming-gas.html

>>12164652
>oil and gas industry bad!!

>>12164576
good analysis of how much of a joke this """""paper""""" is basically he completely ignores all effects of increased cloud cover except for albedo to come up with his insane number for forcing.

you actually did a great job of debunking this one yourself
>To put this into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report [1] , section 8.5.2, states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 [1.33 to 2.03] Wm−2.

>The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone. Even the upper limits of the IPCC’s estimates fall well short of the increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover.''

if his numbers were accurate we should have seen at least twice as much warming as what was actually observed.

>>12164702
when publishing meme papers on climate science? yeah I can agree with that one.

>>12164704
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/come-on-be-more-skeptical/
good summary for people who can actually read

>>12164717
>https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/come-on-be-more-skeptical/

thanks you have proven the paper to be correct.

indeed the oceans did warm from between the 1980 and 2000. But there is also a factor called thermal inertia of the oceans which slows the process down and delays it.

>>12164766
I said for people who can actually read.

>Do the oceans show rapid warming during the period from 1980 – 2000, followed by slower warming in the 2000s? No, there’s been no slowdown in ocean warming during the 2000s. How is this possible if clouds are – by far – the dominant forcing? Answer : it isn’t. Plus, if changes in cloud cover can produce a change of forcing of greater than 5 Wm-2, we’d certainly have noticed that in the ocean heat content.

>Do the oceans show rapid warming during the period from 1980 – 2000, followed by slower warming in the 2000s

>followed by slower warming in the 2000s

his shitty attempt at a curve fit shows cloud cover increasing through the 2000s which according to his numbers should result in a massive negative forcing, thanks for providing a nice graph which shows exactly the opposite.

>>12155361
*only if you're a developed western country

>>12161179
It's slowly increasing. Becuase it was slowly decreasing for half a century before.

It's called natural climate variability and it's stronger than whatever influence CO2 have on the climate.

>>12165259
>natural climate variability
explain. what natural forgings are currently stronger than CO2?

>>12164649
>literally
You're literally 2.

A transition from fossil fuels to green energy and society is going to have to slow down in the process.
Maybe take that time to address poverty and get personal farming off the ground.

>>12155238
Carbon tax

>>12165267
All of them. Every ocean oscillation, solar cycle and everything else is stronger than CO2.

Also your picture is a classic climate trick. You graft several different data sets together that are all adjusted and re-normalized in different ways to tell a narrative.

You literally grafted a (cherry picked, one out of hundred of available) COMPUTER MODEL PREDICTION onto HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTIONS and pretend there's nothing wrong with it? Really? Why didn't you just draw it freehand in MsPaint? It have the same value for less effort.

Oh yes, because The Narrative. The Grand Storytelling Of The Climate Crisis.

Science? You stopped doing that in the 1950s.

>>12165310
>Transition from fossil fuels to green energy
It's actually a transaction of tax payer money to green energy companies while continuing fossil fuel usage at the same level but adding tax-payed green energy to the mix.

Twice as much infrastructure to build. Twice as much cost. Same actual power output. Less reliability.

>>12165310
>Maybe take that time to address poverty
If you give a shit about poverty, why do you support energy sources that are so much more expensive?

>>12165347
It's why the better choice is just taxing the shit out of carbon emissions, with a rebate to taxpayers.

>>12165382
>taxing carbon emissions
No. Carbon emissions would remain the same, people would trade emission rights. Just adds another cost layer to everything without helping anyone.

Ignore carbon emissions because they're not a problem. How fucking hard can it be to understand it?

>>12165401
>people would trade emission rights
Massively increasing costs which gives huge incentives for technologies which don't emit enabling competition which just doesn't exist today. Do you just not understand how markets work?
>Ignore carbon emissions because they're not a problem.
Empirically false.

>>12165343
>ocean oscillation
short term oscillations are exactly that, they don't actually have a demonstrable long term effect on global average temperature because they're not adding or removing energy just shifting how it's distributed.
>solar cycle
Solar activity and temperature have been diverging, solar activity has been at a minimum yet warming continues to accelerate because anthropogenic forcings are currently dominating.
So you're zero for two not a good look, kind of seems like you have no idea what you're talking about.
>You graft several different data sets together that are all adjusted and re-normalized in different ways to tell a narrative.
Criticizing climate reconstructions is fine, but please provide hard evidence that the methodology or data is flawed. At this point your criticisms of hard empirical evidence is just " I don't like it so it must be fake."
>Science? You stopped doing that in the 1950s.
pretty rich for someone who's unable to provide anything supporting your nonsense claims.

Massively tax petrol and make hydro-electricity mainstream implant some nuclear powerplants for the remaining power needed, develop nuclear reusability

>>12155238
An ice age cycle as its always done

>>12162816

>>12165411
>market worshipper who doesn't understand how technology works spouts meaningless platitudes

necessity drives innovation is line 301-14iix from the Good Book of Economics - the psychotic doctrine / madman manifesto which got us into this situation to begin with.

Why is global warming automatically assumed to be a bad thing?

The earth had heated and cooled naturally over time long before humans were contributing.

And while there are some bad things like species that go extinct, it also promotes new mutations within species.Also, if the earth did warm up it would be cool to see what lies beneath the snow in the polar, presently uninhabitable, regions of the world.

>>12165740
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

>>12164578
Utterly idiotic line of argument. The movement of heat at the surface has nothing to do with global warming, moving heat around doesn't change the total amount of heat. It's about how much energy enters and leaves Earth's atmosphere, which only occurs via radiation.

>>12155238
https://youtu.be/OGjnIG7puzY?t=1h35m28s
"The Trump administration has released an environmental impact statement arguing that since climate change is having such a dramatic impact on the Arctic, the damage from additional oil and gas development would be overshadowed and therefore negligible. "

>>12155361
>Green energy
>solar panels and turbines
>both which require massive amounts of petroleum to make and maintain
Honestly our best option at this point is for China and India to go to war and have Africa suffer some sort of super AIDS. Or we can go with the nuclear option. Nuclear winter isn't so bad.

>>12164690
More irrelevant nonsense. Of course there is seasonal variation in back radiation because if there is less heat being radiated by the Earth then there is less heat to radiate back towards Earth. How does seasonal variation matter for the annual averages? It doesn't.

>>12165259
>It's slowly increasing.
Compared to what?

>Becuase it was slowly decreasing for half a century before.
That's not an explanation. What caused it to decrease and then increase? Also, how can you call both of them "slow" when current warming is several orders of magnitude faster?

>It's called natural climate variability
Natural climate variability is not magic, it has causes.

>it's stronger than whatever influence CO2 have on the climate.
Not currently. Why do you think so?

>>12165343
>Every ocean oscillation, solar cycle and everything else is stronger than CO2.
Source?

>You graft several different data sets together that are all adjusted and re-normalized in different ways to tell a narrative.
Source?

>You literally grafted a (cherry picked, one out of hundred of available) COMPUTER MODEL PREDICTION
No, it's an average of model runs.

>It have the same value for less effort.
The model predictions have been successful. Unless your MSPaint doodles have been as successful you should stop talking out of your ass.

>>12155238
Kill all humans

>>12166155
>>both which require massive amounts of petroleum to make and maintain
Incorrect.

>>12166148
repubs/dems
any growth monger and it's inevitable

>>12166265
>since climate change is having such a dramatic impact
gop deniers need to kys

>>12166290
the documentary is about how public lands are being sold off.
do you think the dems wouldn't do that for the next tesla lithium mine?

>>12155665
>muh meltdown

>>12155822
farming plants is bad for the environment

>>12159995
>Deniers
having a cute phrase for a group of people you don't like just shows you have fallen for tribalistic bullshit

>>12166290
with growth mongers you give yourself no choice but to eventually strip mine the national parks

>>12161477
please talk to a therapist

>>12166298
guess we'll soon see how it goes

>>12155256
You just blow in from stupid town? Developed nations have consistently experienced lower birthrates over time. Hell even the US is below replacement level when you account for immigration. The only nations that are significantly contributing to population growth on this planet are Pakistan, India, and China. And in the future these nations are predicted to go below replacement as well, and Africa is predicted to be the source of growth. Until eventually the world population stabilizes at around 10 billion by 2100 and then starts shrinking. This is all with current trends, it may be far more severe, we could even run into serious populations crises if the number of young people drops dramatically.

>>12166332
seems like you're kinda butthurt by that post
probably because you've got tonnes offpsring
tonnes of adorable little wretched drooling retards

>>12155435
>lol, that video calls trump a retard.
you act as tho i disagree with that. still the better option.

>>12156025
>Literally a baseless projection
so tell me what calamity do you see? some dumb species going extinct isn't a problem.

>Anon, I...
yup, when other markets go to shit you stand to gain.

>>12166369
>still the better option
stupid is as stupid does

>>12166372
even the trumpian retards are brighter than you.

>>12155382
This.
Everyone makes a mandatory break for say three months a year / every 2 years.

>>12155238

>>12165243

>his shitty attempt at a curve fit shows cloud cover increasing through the 2000s which according to his numbers should result in a massive negative forcing, thanks for providing a nice graph which shows exactly the opposite.
>massive negative forcing

nice try at misleading people, there is no reason why it should be massive. Anyways the cloud cover increased and the sea surface temperature decreased in accordance with what he said.


anyways there are numerous studies showing the relationship.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26201324?seq=1

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1703174?seq=1

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/6/e1700584.full?intcmp=trendmd-adv

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi08_Se2YjsAhVEzKQKHfV6Dro4FBAWMAh6BAgIEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcyberleninka.org%2Farticle%2Fn%2F1153763.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1GFx1B2aqrWTYUB7MvqIWG

>>12155238
>What's the answer to global warming?
we really need to stop it

>>12166429
go back

>>12155238

>What's the answer to global warming?

>>12166429
>by azura by azura by azura!

>>12166540
holly shit they just released a new one it's even more serious.

>>12166332
China still has 2 child policy in place. It's the rest of the developing world stubbornly refusing to follow the Chinese example that's the problem. But since woke social science is dominating the discourse we're pretty much doomed.

>>12155241

The entire 1 billion sub-saharan population (all those dirty blacks) has less than 1/7 of the co2 output of the USA.

>>12166464
You're fucking illiterate you clearly didn't even read the study you're defending. He claims the difference should be around 4 Wm^-2 which is an absolutely massive forcing. HE SAID IT WAS MASSIVE READ THE SHITTY PAPER.

>anyways there are numerous studies showing the relationship.
I fucking love you, you keep debunking your own claim with the papers you link. Saves me a whole lot of effort.
>Satellite measurements from January 1985 to December 1989 show that warmer tropical oceans as a whole are associated with less longwave greenhouse effect of clouds and less cloud reflection of solar radiation to the space. The regression slopes of longwave and shortwave cloud radiative forcings against sea surface temperatures averaged from 30°N to 30°S are about −3 and 2 W m−2 K−1, respectively.
This directly contradicts that joke of a paper. It finds that increased cloud cover in the region was a net positive forcing. The exact opposite of what you've been claiming this whole time. Can you read?

Second paper is great too.
>Climatic implications. Cloud forcing reduces the absorbed solar radiation by 44.5 W/m2 and the LW emission to space by 31.3 W/m2 when averaged over the globe (Tables 2 and 3). Thus, globally, clouds reduce the radiative heating of the planet by 13.2 W/m2
13 Compared to 80 W/m2 that's a pretty huge difference completely destroys your argument. I also like this paper because it keeps mentioning how a doubling of CO2 has had a massive effect that has potentially been masked by negative forcings from clouds. It also mentioning how feedbacks due to CO2 increases could cause massive droughts in north america and europe.

>>12166770
it's almost like the US has energy intensive industry that exports things while sub-saharan Africa doesn't.

>>12166849
cont

Third paper is a pretty boring but in a nutshell it shows decreasing cloudcover in greenland has been accelerating melting ice sheets during the 2000s compared to the 80s. Which is kind of bad for you because again Mclean claims more cloud cover in the 2000s compared to the 80s which according to him should result in net cooling. This one isn't a complete self own as it's regional vs global, bit it's still showing the opposite of what you claimed. (reading again could have saved you embarrassment but it's fun for me i guess.)

4th paper is also interesting, but isn't it a little weird to link a paper examining how clouds react to warming from an increase in CO2 and if this is a negative or positive feedback when your entire argument is that CO2 doesn't matter? Kinda weird bro, again try reading reading your links first.

>>12164443
I what way is that an answer?

>>12166863
Actually no.

>>12165411
Germany has had emission certs for decades now, it is not working.

>>12166877
no? if US living standards dropped to something more sensible, let's say in between South American and European levels, it would still have a larger co2 footprint than sub-saharan Africa.

>>12166921
I feel like we are getting close to come to the conclusion that it isn't

>>12155241

Except if that population control referred to shrink the American population.

>>12155361
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>12155238
NLRBE

>>12166921
Not the guy you were talking to, but I am curious about what that map is meant to show, yet too stupid to figure it out

>>12166993
China is blue because a lot of its co2 is actually US co2, it's just that US firms decided to build the factory in China >>12165694

>>12155238
After researching and listening to all the debate over the past ten years I am beginning to think that Climate Change is a convenient smokescreen for masking the dozens of other pressing environmental issues which are doing irreparable harm to the biosphere.

Pesticides. Atmospheric pollution. Soil degradation. Micro-plastics. Over-fishing. Habitat destruction. Invasive species. Mono-culture. To name a few.

These are well understood, well documented, plenty of evidence, very little room to argue against their causes, impact and the consequences. On the other hand climate change is a complicated mess, much of which is highly complex and closely interwoven processes, the impact and consequences of which are still greatly open to debate, especially when the topic requires global cooperation to properly address, which brings in all sorts of additional political and economic factors.

It is convenient then for polluters and exploiters to see the popularity of climate change emerge as popular public discussion since the other issues, such as those I mentioned above, become further sidelined and forgotten.

TLDR: Not much point worrying about the sea levels rising and desertification if the food chains collapse well before then.

>>12166993
Let's say Monaco orders a new power plant. Steel comes from China, turbines get built in France and it's all shipped via the Netherlands. Without accounting for trade French, Chinese and NL Co2 output/capita rises, Monacan doesn't.

>>12166306
Right, you have never used a denigrating name for a group of people. I've noticed that deniers and other retards tend to lack self-awareness.

non whites need to stop reproducing, whute people need to have as many kids as possible

>>12166369
>so tell me what calamity do you see?
Do you understand what a "baseless projection" is? I'm not predicting any calamity, there's just no valid relationship between temperature and GDP that would allow you to make a projection.

>some dumb species going extinct isn't a problem.
It is, actually. Go ahead and look up "keystone species" and "ecological collapse".

>yup, when other markets go to shit you stand to gain.
Except that Russia and Canada have economies that are dependant on global trade and can't sustain themselves in the face of a global economic collapse.

Are you actually retarded?

>>12167003
>>12167085
Thanks I think I understand now

>>so tell me what calamity do you see?
>Do you understand what a "baseless projection" is? I'm not predicting any calamity, there's just no valid relationship between temperature and GDP that would allow you to make a projection.
>>some dumb species going extinct isn't a problem.
>It is, actually. Go ahead and look up "keystone species" and "ecological collapse".
>>yup, when other markets go to shit you stand to gain.
>Except that Russia and Canada have economies that are dependant on global trade and can't sustain themselves in the face of a global economic collapse.
>Are you actually retarded?

>>12167308
>No argument
U mad

>>No argument
>U mad

>>12167320
>Imagine being this butt bothered

>>Imagine being this butt bothered

>>12167333
>Imagine being this rump rustled

>>Imagine being this rump rustled

>>12167349
>Imagine being this tushy troubled

>>Imagine being this tushy troubled

>>12167392
>Imagine being this pooper pozzed

>>Imagine being this pooper pozzed

>>12167312
>>12167322
>>12167342
>>12167356
>>12167410
You may as well give up. Having been a victim myself, I assure you that he has many times more soi wojak edits than you have for euphemisms of “butt-hurt.”

>>12167437
>Imagine being this ass angered

>>12155575

>>12167442
Doesn't even matter. This thread is near the bump limit so it'll 404 soon.

>>Imagine being this ass angered

>>12167464
Imagine being this chute chagrined

>Imagine being this chute chagrined

>>12167504
>Imagine being this keister kvetched

>>Imagine being this keister kvetched

>>12167535
>Imagine being this rectum rekt

>>Imagine being this rectum rekt

>>12167625
>Imagine being this fanny furious

>imagine being this climate changed

>>Imagine being this fanny furious

>>12167654
>Imagine being this sphincter swollen

>>Imagine being this sphincter swollen

>>12167690
>Imagine being this heinie harassed

>>12167453
>near the bump limit
not even close, the limit is 300

>>12167239
>I'm not predicting any calamity
so what's the problem?

>Go ahead and look up "keystone species" and "ecological collapse".
and a new species will take its place. every time a niche opens up something else fills it. you do realize ecology is dynamic and collapses and rebirths are part of the process.

>Except that Russia and Canada have economies that are dependant on global trade and can't sustain themselves in the face of a global economic collapse.
lmao, both countries are extremely resource rich. the only reason they are dependent on global trade is that global tertiary industry is centralized in china. that can change very quickly like it did when industry shifted to japan in the 70s then china in the 80s. literal non-problem that opens up new opportunities. you don't want a flat lined market then you have no opportunity to make gains. ups and downs are good because it's the only way to buy low and sell high.

>Are you actually retarded?
no you just don't understand how to exploit a"crisis".

>>12167239
>>12167964
>It is, actually. Go ahead and look up "keystone species" and "ecological collapse".
here:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/life-recovered-mere-years-after-asteroid-impact
so after an asteroid impact that wiped out so much life everything rebounded in a year or so. so cc is a fucking nonproblem that opens up new opportunities for investment.

>>12155238
Terraforming, and it's the only realistic option that will solve it, not just slow it down. Our population is already critical, developing nations catching up will fuck us.

>>12167978
lol, investing cockroaches

>>12155238
A giant air conditioner or refrigerator.

>>12155238
At this point I would say unironically accelerationism. Humanity as a whole learns almost exclusively from the consequences of its mistakes.

>>12167946
I thought it was 205 or 210. Do different boards have different bump limits?

>>12155238
>What's the answer to global warming?

High temperature nuclear breeder reactors directly used to synthetize natural gas from seawater, which is then used to fuel LNG vehicles.

This was viable since the 70s, there was no need to wait for electric cars and renewables to almost completely decarbonize the economy.

>>12167964
>so what's the problem?
Are you illiterate? Baseless projections are as reliable as tarot reading.

>and a new species will take its place. every time a niche opens up something else fills it.
That's not how that works. You clearly haven't looked up ecological collapse. The changes to the ecology happen too quickly for adaptations to fill vacant niches and it collapses.

>you do realize ecology is dynamic and collapses and rebirths are part of the process.
Ecological collapse is most certainly not a part of ecology. It's what happens when an ecology fails.

>lmao, both countries are extremely resource rich.
Not in any resources that matter and both import more food than they export. It takes years and sometimes decades to convert land for agricultural use, especially in rocky regions like Canada and Russia, and they don't have much land to spare.

>the only reason they are dependent on global trade is that global tertiary industry is centralized in china. that can change very quickly like it did when industry shifted to japan in the 70s then china in the 80s.
Except that a sizeable portion of the global economy went with each of those shifts and your projection assumes that ~80% of the global economy will evaporate while Russia and Canada fight over an extra 5%.

>literal non-problem that opens up new opportunities.
Lol no.

>you don't want a flat lined market then you have no opportunity to make gains.
You're advocating for the global economy to plummet. That's not conducive to gains of any kind.

>ups and downs are good because it's the only way to buy low and sell high.
You aren't projecting any ups, just downs.

>no you just don't understand how to exploit a"crisis".
I don't think you understand anything about basic economics, let alone exploiting a crisis.

>>12167978
An asteroid impact is not a persistent global phenomenon. Are you amazed when dandelions make more of themselves on your lawn each year?

>>12168405
>NOOOOO, WE WERE SUPPOSED TO INHERIT THE EARTH
>HOW DARE YOU RUIN IT FOR EVERYONE
>BILLIONS WILL DIE AND HUMANITY MIGHT EVEN GO EXTINCT
based climate change

>>12167978
Which species do you think primarily survived that period, giant multicellular lifeforms or single-celled lifeforms?
Climate change is not a problem for life, but it will fuck us raw.

>>12166246
Tell me anon, what are wind turbine blades made out of? Now how do they get to where they need to go? And when its not windy out, what do we use for power?

>>12166241
Now you're speaking my language

government mandated infanticide
retirement age pushed to 80

>>12168511
There is no 'us'. Another benefit of climate change is that it will make it very clear to even the most secluded ivory tower inhabitants that most humans are barely better than chimps and just as violent when those they thought were their in-group drag them out of bed and use their books as fuel to cook them alive.

>>12168577
That's only direct social consequences among humans. A slight downward shift in oxygen concentration and the collective IQ of our species drops by half. 10% and we're potatoes. We're worthlessly fragile.

>>12168400
>Are you illiterate? Baseless projections are as reliable as tarot reading.
not that, what's the problem you see that has basis in your opinion?

>The changes to the ecology happen too quickly for adaptations to fill vacant niches and it collapses.
wasn't the case when the meteor hit.

>Ecological collapse is most certainly not a part of ecology. It's what happens when an ecology fails.
then rebounds.

>Not in any resources that matter
precious metals, gas, etc don't matter?

>both import more food than they export.
and when the climate is warmer that will change.

>It takes years and sometimes decades to convert land for agricultural use
canada has a lot of farmland as does russia, the issue is cold weather.

>~80% of the global economy will evaporate
not even close. the us gdp is expected to contract at most by 10%.

>Lol no.
lol yes.

>You're advocating for the global economy to plummet. That's not conducive to gains of any kind.
lmao, perfect time to buy up shit at firesale prices.

>You aren't projecting any ups, just downs.
canada and russia show otherwise.

>I don't think you understand anything about basic economics, let alone exploiting a crisis.
pottery.

>>12168405
>An asteroid impact is not a persistent global phenomenon.
and crops will adapt. they already are as many exist in warmer climates already and can move north ward. not a problem.

>>12155238
>What's the answer to global warming?
Keep ignoring it until the cultists die off, then the problem suddenly disappears.

>>12168690
>not that, what's the problem you see that has basis in your opinion?
Oh, so you're just scientifically illiterate then. There doesn't need to be a problem for reality to fail to conform to a faulty model. GDP is not well correlated to temperature so you might as well scatter sticks or read tea leaves to generate your prediction.

>wasn't the case when the meteor hit.
A meteor does not change the environmental conditions of the planet for very long. Anything that survives has less competition and does not need to adapt to survive. Mass extinctions from sudden climate changes are much more destructive and take longer for ecologies to recover, and those "sudden" changes are an order of magnitude slower than the current warming. Very few species will be able to adapt to the climate.

>then rebounds.
"Transforms" would be more apt. The species that go extinct don't come back and landscapes are significantly altered.

>precious metals, gas, etc don't matter?
Not when 80% of the GDP has evaporated. Natural gas is probably where most of that 5% would come from.

>and when the climate is warmer that will change.
Not unless they convert a sizeable portion of their land for agriculture. The soil is too rocky, the light is weak, and the weather will limit the growing seasons.

>canada has a lot of farmland as does russia, the issue is cold weather.
That's not the only issue by far. Those countries are much smaller than you think they are.
>not even close. the us gdp is expected to contract at most by 10%.
Not according to your source. You've cropped it out, but the original image shows their projection of the change to the global GDP and places it around -80%.

>lmao, perfect time to buy up shit at firesale prices.
There's not going to be anything to buy up. Stocks will evaporate as companies go under and industry will be brought to a standstill do to economic depression.

>>12168690
>>12169099
>canada and russia show otherwise.
A loss of 80% of the global GDP is not a gain. Losing all of your trading partners to economic collapse is not a gain.

>and crops will adapt.
No, they won't. The climate is changing too quickly for them to adapt.

>they already are as many exist in warmer climates already and can move north ward. not a problem.
That's an expensive and unsustainable solution. The land needs to be converted to farmland before it can be farmed, that land will be less productive as solar intensity drops, and there's less land in the North. Besides that weather will limit where you can farm and the weather patterns will change in unpredictable ways as the climate changes which may render existing farms unsuitable for agriculture. Some places will be too wet to grow anything and some places will be too dry and require irrigation and those places will change over time. That means that food will become very expensive in the best case, and mass starvation in the worst case.

>>12169099
>do to economic depression
due

>>12155238

Vertical integration. Fucking seriously. I'd argue that 50-60% of the global warming impact is a result of industries being spammed all over the map and then ludicrous amounts of money is spent in building fuel transport, refining, and then consumption infrastructure to move shit between all these industries to produce goods and services which then have to be AGAIN moved all over the fucking map.

You burn 10-100x gas in moving gas from the refinery to some petroleum oriented industry in another state or another country than you would if you had all the relevant factories in the same fucking town and built all the goods and services in that one specific state, and then the only cost in fuel expenditure came from distribution of those goods and services.

>>12155241

Won't fix shit. Systems are too decentralized to maximize profit, incrementally, even though consolidating of factories and optimizing for footprint (though has a high initial cost) ultimately leads to exponential growth and profitability.

>>12157982
its not about the money and greed isnt baseless

>>12155238
yellowstone

>>12155238

Who cares? We have bigger problems.

Bioweapons, nukes, AI and global warfare generally are far more dangerous than some minor climate disturbances. Institutional stagnancy, decadence and Cultural Revolution 2 are much bigger problems. The self-flagellating millenarians protesting climate change are more of a problem than what they're whinging about. No matter how many times the deadlines get pushed back, their retardation only heightens. There's more to civilization than doing a very bad job of mitigating CO2 emissions: they're throwing out the baby instead of the bathwater.

Global warming can't kill 99% of the world population in a week. It's not nearly as dangerous as smoking by any objective measure. Just build some dikes and disperse sulphate aerosols ffs. Not hard. Real problems don't have easily accessible engineering solutions. We did just fine in the Medieval Warm period and the later cool period afterwards.

>>Imagine being this heinie harassed

https://thebulletin.org/2014/02/more-megatons-to-megawatts/

It's this and seriously reducing high intensity land use.

>>12169315
>Imagine being this intestinally inflamed

>>Imagine being this intestinally inflamed

>>12155238
Distributed small scale nuclear reactors and pumping aerosols into the atmosphere

>>12169578
>Imagine being this orifice obliterated

>>12166304
Farming animals is worse, it requires even more plants.

>>12166921
Part of the problem is too heavy a reliance on cars. It's not intractable but will take a long time to reconfigure the infrastructure. And you'd want to go to 100% nuclear power.
.

>>Imagine being this orifice obliterated

>>12169937
>Imagine being this anally annihilated

>>12169937
>>12169578
>>12169315

The renowned, high-effort wojak poster

>>12169462
>>12169859
>>12170020

The plebeian, uneducated text-shitter

>>12167018
Ocean acidification will get us long before sea level rise

>>12155361
Which is the worst: frozen, canned, or dried food?

Donald J(ew)Trump does much to save the planet because he kills 1000 Americans every day.

>>12166770
4 billion at least by 2100 and standard of living rising rapidly.

>>12155361
all of this shit combined won't make a dent when shipping, construction, and industry still make up for like 70% of emissions. Fuck this liberal feel good bullshit

>>12168277
>Humanity as a whole learns almost exclusively from the consequences of its mistakes.
I've been thinking similar things recently. How really we only learn by trial and error.

>>12170288

>>12170155
The mind numbingly retarded plebbitor

>>12155238
CO2 capture

>>12170365
Nah I think he has a point, getting wojaks takes effort, and wojaks are entertaining too

>>12155238
nuking everything and mass suicides

>>12169099
>Oh, so you're just scientifically illiterate then.
oh pls, i'm asking what you're so scared of, mr nowitall? losing funding for your grant whore research initiatives?

>GDP is not well correlated to temperature
it correlates very well to crop output which is part of gdp.

>Mass extinctions from sudden climate changes are much more destructive and take longer for ecologies to recover
it's not that sudden, it's a 100 year period. also as i pointed out to you the southern flora and fauna will just migrate north. if you live close to the equator that's your problem.

>The species that go extinct don't come back and landscapes are significantly altered.
not a problem.

>Not when 80% of the GDP has evaporated.
it's not even close to that.

>Not unless they convert a sizeable portion of their land for agriculture.
the prairies are already practically all agrobiz and there are farms on the shield.

>That's not the only issue by far. Those countries are much smaller than you think they are.
yeah the map stretches them out to look bigger. they're still the largest countries in the world and they have farmland.

>Not according to your source. You've cropped it out, but the original image shows their projection of the change to the global GDP and places it around -80%.
nope, nice try.

>There's not going to be anything to buy up. Stocks will evaporate as companies go under and industry will be brought to a standstill do to economic depression.
meanwhile in reality, new conditions yield new industry and old are just bought up at firesale prices for their assets.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WHB-1797

>A loss of 80% of the global GDP is not a gain. Losing all of your trading partners to economic collapse is not a gain.
you're looking at aggregates that don't exist.

>No, they won't. The climate is changing too quickly for them to adapt.
100 years is more than enough for migration. it's not a sudden shock like an asteroid.

>>12169106
>The land needs to be converted to farmland before it can be farmed
lots f time to 2100

>that land will be less productive as solar intensity drops
so buy futures while they're low.

>Besides that weather will limit where you can farm and the weather patterns will change in unpredictable ways as the climate changes which may render existing farms unsuitable for agriculture.
right farming will move north.

>That means that food will become very expensive in the best case, and mass starvation in the worst case.
again invest in futures while they're low and become hella rich.

>>12155238
>What's the answer to global warming?
Space mirrors, like pic. related.

>>12155288
I always wondered how zero can further decline by no less than 100 percent. Business maths?

>>12170288
Trump is the leading cause of death in America.

>>12170155
both of you faggots should be banned for this spam shit

>>12170638
???

>>12170700
It's good that mentally unstable otherkin of unspecified gender pronouns are anheroing. Burgers mental health is pretty bad, their heroic actions just improve the statistics.

>>Oh, so you're just scientifically illiterate then.
>oh pls, i'm asking what you're so scared of, mr nowitall? losing funding for your grant whore research initiatives?
>>GDP is not well correlated to temperature
>it correlates very well to crop output which is part of gdp.
>>Mass extinctions from sudden climate changes are much more destructive and take longer for ecologies to recover
>it's not that sudden, it's a 100 year period. also as i pointed out to you the southern flora and fauna will just migrate north. if you live close to the equator that's your problem.
>>The species that go extinct don't come back and landscapes are significantly altered.
>not a problem.
>>Not when 80% of the GDP has evaporated.
>it's not even close to that.
>>Not unless they convert a sizeable portion of their land for agriculture.
>the prairies are already practically all agrobiz and there are farms on the shield.
>>That's not the only issue by far. Those countries are much smaller than you think they are.
>yeah the map stretches them out to look bigger. they're still the largest countries in the world and they have farmland.
>>Not according to your source. You've cropped it out, but the original image shows their projection of the change to the global GDP and places it around -80%.
>nope, nice try.
>>There's not going to be anything to buy up. Stocks will evaporate as companies go under and industry will be brought to a standstill do to economic depression.
>meanwhile in reality, new conditions yield new industry and old are just bought up at firesale prices for their assets.
>https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WHB-1797
>>A loss of 80% of the global GDP is not a gain. Losing all of your trading partners to economic collapse is not a gain.
>you're looking at aggregates that don't exist.
>>No, they won't. The climate is changing too quickly for them to adapt.
>100 years is more than enough for migration. it's not a sudden shock like an asteroid.

>>12155238
global warming science is no different than corona virus.

>>12155361
this shit smells like europe.
i cringe so hard

>>12168517
>We should build non-CO2 emmitting power infrastructure so we will no longer need fossil fuels in the future
>But that requires petroleum now! Therefore it can't be done
Are you really this stupid?

>And when its not windy out, what do we use for power?
Nuclear, solar, geothermal, hydro, batteries, etc.

just vote guys haha just vote for the good guys they will act in our best interest haha just vote for the other bourgeois plutocrat he will fix everything

>>12155361
heres your hourly remider that 100 companies create 71% of greenhouse gas emissions and the "carbon footprint" was a PR effort (basically propaganda) invented by BP to shift blame on the proletariat

>>12170493
>oh pls, i'm asking what you're so scared of, mr nowitall?
Know-it-all*. I never said I was scared of anything, I said those predictions are garbage.

>it correlates very well to crop output which is part of gdp.
No, it doesn't. If it did then South America would have a much higher GDP or crop output that the US. They don't.

>it's not that sudden, it's a 100 year period.
That's the blink of an eye. It's faster than any previous climate change, all of which caused mass extinctions.

>also as i pointed out to you the southern flora and fauna will just migrate north.
That doesn't work for all of the reasons I've already explained.

>not a problem.
It is for humans. We are too dependant on the existing species to survive without them.

>it's not even close to that
Are you failing to read your own source? Russia, Canada, and a handful of insignificant countries double their wealth and the rest lose half or more of their economy. Those countries that benefit control less than 10% of the global GDP.

>the prairies are already practically all agrobiz and there are farms on the shield.
And? They'll have to convert MORE land to farmland just to feed themselves.

>they're still the largest countries in the world and they have farmland.
No, they're not. That's exactly what I mean.

>nope
Been a while since I've seen a /pol/tard post the original. I forgot it just shows the US getting fucked.

>meanwhile in reality, new conditions yield new industry and old are just bought up at firesale prices for their assets.
>10 people who got rich in the depression
If we're assuming that the predictions you've posted are accurate then this whole thing is cope. 10 people making money in the depression doesn't mean there wasn't a depression that brought industry to a halt and the global economy didn't even drop by a quarter during the depression.

>>12170493
>>12170504
>>12171061
>you're looking at aggregates that don't exist.
China doesn't exist? That's news to me. How about all of the other countries we do business with? Japan? India? Mexico? All fucked according to your source. Who's left to trade with?

>100 years is more than enough for migration.
Migration is not adaptation, and migration does not solve any issues. The cast majority of species will not be able to migrate for one reason or another.

>it's not a sudden shock like an asteroid.
An asteroid is significantly less destructive than sudden climate change, especially when that change is orders of magnitude faster than in the past. Which part of this is hard for you?

>lots f time to 2100
Oh, no. It's retarded. You have to move them CONSTANTLY AS THEIR PRODUCTION DROPS. THERE'S NOT A DUE-BY DATE.

>so buy futures while they're low.
That doesn't increase solar insolation or make food any less expensive.

>right farming will move north.
Is ignoring the point just the way you cope? SOME EXISTING NORTHERN FARMS WILL BECOME UNPRODUCTIVE AND NEED TO BE MOVED ELSEWHERE. THERE IS NOT MORE NORTH TO MOVE TO.

>again invest in futures while they're low and become hella rich.
Sure, kid. Have fun spending it all on corn and tomatoes

>>12170740
These northern African countries are mainly desert inhabited by nomads. Let's take Mali as an example:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/attachments/summaries/ML-summary.pdf
Low GDP. Export utterly dominated by raw materials that are hardly dependent on weather or climate. Just how can this decline from an already low GDP?
Also check the neighbouring countries, same low GDP.

>>12167392
I expect this kind of retardation from /tv/, but then again, I'm new to /sci/, so it could arguable be just as bad.

>I expect this kind of retardation from /tv/, but then again, I'm new to /sci/, so it could arguable be just as bad.

>>12170155
Nah, they're both shit.

>Nah, they're both shit.

>>12171065
>An asteroid is significantly less destructive than sudden climate change
I need a big Cite on that one.

Breakthrough in nuclear energy
CCS
All road vehicles upgraded to electrical
More efficient renewables and battery technology

>>12174389
Go look up mass extinctions. Only one mass extinction has been caused by an asteroid and it was the most mild.

>>12155238
Stop talking about it and it will go away.

>>12174764
It's going to go away no matter what.

>>12155238
Global warming? That's faggot shit, not real stupid kid.

>>12155238
Big fucking esky full of ice.

>>12174408
>Breakthrough in nuclear energy

It's technical impossible to cover even half of the world wide power consumption with nuclear energy.

>>12175213
Technically? Source? Are you assuming that we don't add nuclear power plants, or with the current number of plants we have now? Or are you asserting that we cannot enrich uranium fast enough, or that we don't have enough?

>>12155238
wait, global warming asked a question?

>>12174698
Still remembering the Permian extinction. This shit was wack.

>>12155238
If we put a giant ice cube into the ocean every couple years it should be enough to counteract the warming effect until we can find a more permanent solution.

>>12175224
>or that we don't have enough?
there's like 10Mtons of "cheap" uranium
global usage is like 100Ktons
nuclear accounts for 4-5 % of global energy production

>still you can't (or "it isn't economical enough") reprocess waste
>still not fast breeding reactors
>plants still can't be throttled afaik

>>12176473
that's happening already
https://youtu.be/vqmCu854rHc?t=2m13s

>>12176473

>>12176909
The cost of uranium is a miniscule part of the cost of nuclear power. There's a virtually unlimited supply of uranium available in seawater, and the technology for extracting it already exists.

>>12176967
>uranium available in seawater
yeah right, bet it's real cheap too

>>12176909
Fair point. Also, see >>12157804. In the future, I will not tolerate such peasantry.

>>12155238
buy oil and coal to prevent others from burning it. when does my check arrive?

carbon tax to harshly punish companies and government from producing high emissions and hoping some scientists figure out something to fix it in a safe way.
more drastic measures could be population control or lowering through force or just go towards a world with less technology. these probably wouldnt happen unless under some shitty one world government as no govt would give up so much power because enemies might not give up theirs and you would be fucked

>>12177073
>punish companies
paying for the mess they make, isn't "punishment", it's just you-broke-it-you-pay-for-it

>>12177073
>punish companies
paying for the mess they make isn't "punishment", it's just you-broke-it-you-pay-for-it

>>12176940
https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145302/another-fire-in-greenland

>>12177091
except what they're gonna break is literally priceless

Embracing the warmth?

If the problem is real (I guess it is) it is job for the international society. Ban plastics? Stop the travel culture? Stop coonsoomerism? Make a shift towards spritual/virtual? Find new sources? How do I tell without all the data and experience?

>>12155238
global nigger genocide

I guess after the first floods a strict measures will be taken.

But hey, that would be much too late.

>>12166736
DO YOU HAVE BRAIN DAMAGE look up fucking fertility rates in the west, you complete fucking imbecile. the problem is AFRICA

>>12176473
>If we put a giant ice cube into the ocean
It is called the North Pole. Freezing vast amounts of water takes a lot of energy that you somehow have to dissipate.

>>12177125
>It occurred near a hut on the Arctic Circle Trail and was likely started accidentally by a hiker, noted University of Miami scientist Jessica McCarty.
How so sure? Elsewhere we hear of people starting fires intentionally.

>>12177056
If you won't tolerate peasantry, you might as well change languages altogether, as English is nothing more than an interweaving (LOL) set of illiteracies

>>12155238
Bigass space mirrors.
Could be done, won't bc climate lobby wants to force you to do things their way (ie via some form of political control).
I recon the whole project would cost less than 200 billion, which is very reasonable considering climate change could cause 8 trillion in problems by 2050.

Even cheaper is iron fertalisation (-2pts for not being a direct solution).

Carbon taxes are a no go imo bc, while i never want to visit india, i dont think subjecting a population to economic strangulation is very fair.

I don't think its that big of an issue, I just think geoengineering is cool, and if jumping on the climate change bandwagon gets us there I'll use it.

>>12177516
wow so hikers have never existed before in history
thanks anon, your nobel is in the mail

>>12177679
>Bigass space mirrors.
Yes, see >>12170636
>Could be done, won't bc climate lobby wants to force you to do things their way (ie via some form of political control).
Satellites have been operating in this Lagrangian point for years but somehow this is baaaad.
>I recon the whole project would cost less than 200 billion, which is very reasonable considering climate change could cause 8 trillion in problems by 2050.
>Even cheaper is iron fertalisation (-2pts for not being a direct solution).
That to is illegal. Even research on water droplets have been made illegal. It seems the only acceptable solution is to go back to the stone age.

>>12177720
You need to work a bit more on the comprehension part.

>>12155241
FIRST POST BEST POST

>>12178759
Indeed. The fact is we could do a lot very quickly if the well wasn't poisoned with politics.

The fact the whole thing turned into 'we need to reinvent our whole way of living within the next 50 years'
Or just hoping for the battery tech to come along is insane. Thats not how tech works, it doesn't magically fullfill your desires bc you want it to.

Climate could be a complete non issue by the end of the decade if anyone actually gave a damn about IT and not the politics.

What research was being made on water droplets? Do you mean aerosol/ cloud seeding solutions?

>>12179076
>What research was being made on water droplets? Do you mean aerosol/ cloud seeding solutions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Particle_Injection_for_Climate_Engineering
It was a lot more contentious then that article indicates.
>Engineers from the University of Cambridge and Marshall Aerospace planned to assess the effect of wind on a tethered ballon at a height of 1 km while at the same time pumping water at a rate of around 100 kg/hour.
Peanuts scale testing but still stopped.

>>12176956
This guy gets it

>>12177666
That should make it all the more embarrassing when you blunder it.

>>12155241
Too late...

>>12155246
This, only this can save us. We need to turn heat into motion otherwise we're dead.

>>12178759
>comprehension part
greenland+wildfire=wtf

>>12177091
>>12177140
And if you're "buying it", then from whom are you buying it from?
And when you do "buy it", aren't you simply giving the person you're buying it from the means to break it even further?

"Solutions" proposed by economists are inherently ridiculous - if any of the dogma whatsoever from that religion is used it will only make the problem significantly worse

>>12155246
Hmmm... Interesting

>>12182590
Are you referring to carbon credits?
There is nothing ridiculous in them, in fact economic solutions like that are the best way to get people to change their ways.
You set up the carbon limit you like which you can slowly decrease over time to achieve the levels that are sustainable again. Then you divide them between nations based on some metrics like population. Then you create an open market for them.
It has many upsides such as
1) A developing nation that is underusing their share can sell the excess and install clean power to develop their economy instead of using dirty power sources.
2) A developed nation that is over using their share can buy more licenses to pollute from said developing nations instead of having to simply close down industry and lose countless jobs.

You won't ever get developing nations to agree without the first and you won't ever get the developed nations to agree without the second, credit system is a win win for both. Without a system where both sides can agree nothing will change and things will get worse for both.

As an additional benefits
3) Industries that pollute more in relation to the value they create will be penalized while industries that create lot of value per unit of CO2 will benefit which drives competition
4) When there is a real cost for pollution there is incentive to innovate solutions that generate less of it.

Air is a resource that is seemingly freely used by industry but the clean up is left to the society. This is the way things like water were before and people pretty quickly realized that if a factory is able to poison the citys fresh water source without any cost they will absolutely do it and it's really retarded to allow them to do so. Putting a price on gasses is not only fair but it's simply sane.
Incentives are insanely important in economics. If polluting the air is free then who ever does it will always have a competitive edge over those who don't which means nothing will ever change.

>>12183248
>bla bla bla
>muh grof

lol

>>12183248
Did you just come up with this or is it pasta?
Because it's basically the same old line

>>12183438
I wrote it just now, also "same old line" isn't an argument. 1+1=2 is old and still true.
Feel free to have an actual argument.

>>12183557
>an actual argument
is in the post you responded to with the same tired old regurgitated establishment bullshit.