/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14794144
The climate is always changing, because the changes are cyclical. We're at the end of interglacial right now but will be in a glacial period eventually.

Also why does the news shill it with buzzwords in random 30sec clips? Like saying look at this chart of the richest GREEN billionaires, they are working to REUDCE EMISSIONS AND WASTE, and boost us towards the ENERGETIC TRANSITION etc etc, this kind of thing

Also alot of youngs that share posts, initiatives, protests and Twitter screens etc on Instagram that shill for it alot but the ones I talked to had shallow knowledge of what they were saying

>>14794155
Because the people who rule you know that crises are good for consolidating power and money. If they can make you scared of weather they don't even need disease or war to hold your leash.

>>14794148
Ok but then the story about pollution making the world warmer and the generic "negative consequences "?

Bc to me it looks like that mass media started shilling this thing so more people at least have it in their mind that it exists, and a small portion cares and does retarded stories and protests etc

I don't know if it's even real or not I just started looking into it but its apparent how much TV shilling has an effect on what people think/talk about

>>14794144
>The climate is always changing, because the changes are cyclical. We're at the end of interglacial right now but will be in a glacial period eventually.
First post nails it.
Thread/

>>14794163
Ok but then what about the aforementioned climate change narrative about pollution etc

>>14794160
Yeah that's fake. There are some serious problems in the environment (like how we're flushing drug metabolites into the water that we can't filter out, or the severe consequences of lithium mining and plastic waste) but greens want power not solutions.

It's best to ignore them or call them idiots.

>>14794169
Can you give me a primer on the thing you mentioned?

>>14794202
Also how did that narrative come about if it's fake? And why is it supported

>>14794148
>eventually
25k years, without GW.
As things are going now, next glaciation could be pushed off by 100k years
https://youtu.be/ztninkgZ0ws?t=9m40s

>>14794148
If it's cyclical, it's getting cooler, right?

>>14794167
>Ok but then what about the aforementioned climate change narrative about pollution etc
Doesn't exist. Pollution of plastics, chemicals, etc. is bad for our health, sure, and should be voluntarily reduced.

CO2 is not "pollution". It is necessary for plant life, without which most life would disappear.

Reducing CO2 levels will lead to global famine. Look at the people behind the CO2 propaganda, they all want to reduce the world's populations. WEF, Bill Gates, George Soros, China/Blackrock/Vanguard.

They are going to get major pushback.

>>14794240
>CO2 is not "pollution". It is necessary for plant life, without which most life would disappear.
Plants need light, water and fertilizer you retard. Did you ever buy CO2 for your plants at home?

>>14794258
>Plants need light, water and fertilizer you retard. Did you ever buy CO2 for your plants at home?
^this HAS to be bait! LMAO! Nobody can be that dumb about photosynthesis.

>>14794258
>I don't buy oxygen, therefore I don't need it!

The shills are out in force tonight.

Climate change was made up by China to destroy US economy.

>>14794333
>Climate change was made up by China to destroy US economy.
It certainly has been taken over by China to do just that.
China pollutes more than the rest of the world combined, yet wants only the USA and western EU countries to cripple their countries by giving up oil/gas/coal.

>>14794236
Soon it will yes. We're headed for a glacial period soon on a geological time scale. Of course soon is a very relative term when we're talking about cycles of 100k years.

>>14794258
In a greenhouse setting, yes you do (or should in some cases). CO2 is pumped in to encourage growth and stave off deprivation caused by growing plants in such an enclosed environment.

>>14794330
You should see the other thread. The Blackrock/Vanguard brigade is coming on as strong as it possibly can.

>>14794144
Doesn't matter if CC is real or not. Its largely a smokescreen to mask the fact that there are innumerable other environmental problems that are absolutely certain and have tangible and measurable impacts. CC is controversial and its exact impacts are uncertain, but most importantly the time line of those impacts are vague and well into the future past the average human life span. So for Governments and corporations it makes sense to focus attention on it while ignoring all the other catastrophes continuing to unfold around the world. Not that this is a deliberate conspiracy, but rather its just people with a vested interest in retaining power and wealth acting rationally in their own self interests.

>>14795333
What are the other env problems you said?

>>14795333
meds

>>14795333
>So for Governments and corporations
AKA= the criminal organizations.
What do criminals always want? More money and power.

>>14794456
So why is it warming?

>>14797143
look at it on a smaller scale that is easier for you to grasp, such as a 24 hr period. warms up in the morning to afternoon, then it cools again. Same over thousands of years.
Earth is much colder than normal still right now, as we are between extreme cold spells (aka Ice Ages) and will return to another Ice Age soon and wipe out most of humanity.

CO2 helps prevent that from happening.

The ruling elite WANT another ice age to kill off humanity to 500 Million people or less.

Actual Earth scientist here.
Is the Earth getting warmer?
Yes.
Is it human's fault?
Yes.

Here's the whole story as simple as I can make it.
1. Electron energy levels. Electrons require a specific amount of energy to promote to a higher energy level according to their base level. When a photon comes in to a molecule carrying that specific energy level it absorbs that energy then reemits it immediately in a random direction.
2. Blackbodies radiate energy in a specific energy curve. We know exactly what that curve is according to their temperature. Stars are nearly perfect blackbody radiators. We know exactly what the radiation curve is of the sun.
3. The atmosphere of the planet absorbs some of the incoming radiation, mostly the high end ultraviolet radiation from the sun. This is mostly done by ozone in the high atmosphere. Most of the rest of the energy from the sun simply passes through the atmosphere.
4. The Earth absorbs most of the rest of the sunlight, about 30% bounces off reflective surfaces (such as ice) and goes back into space without heating up the Earth.
5. The Earth has it's own blackbody radiation curve, most of this blackbody radiation is in the infrared.
6. This infrared radiation emitted from the Earth is emitted back out into space. Some of it however is absorbed by the atmosphere which, while it let visible light from the sun through, absorbs that infrared light from the Earth's blackbody radiation curve.

>>14797290
7. The two main absorbers of radiation from Earth's blackbody radiation curve are Water and Carbon Dioxide. There are others such as methane and Nitrous Oxide but Carbon Dioxide is the main one after water.
8. Water only stays in the atmosphere for about 10 days. No matter how much water you put in the atmosphere in 10 days it just rains out and goes back to our rivers and oceans again. It does not create climate change. It only amplifies climate if something else raises the temperature first.
9. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries. Raising CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the temperature of the planet 100% guaranteed. A process called 'Radiative Forcing'. This has been known since at least 1900.
10. Plants prefer the isotope of Carbon 12 over the isotope of Carbon 13 because it requires less energy to absorb and use. This is a process called Isotopic Fractionation. We can therefore identify the source of Carbon in the atmosphere by testing the levels of Carbon 13 to Carbon 12
11. Modern sources of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere are coming from the burning of fossil fuels, something we know for certain because of the isotopic ratio of Carbon 13 to Carbon 12 in the atmosphere over the last several decades. It is not coming from volcanoes, it is not coming from the oceans, it is not coming from space. It is coming from the burning of fossil fuels.
12. We have witnessed an increase of temperature of about 1.5 degrees over the last century due to the addition of CO2 in the atmosphere from the industrial revolution. A 1.5 degree increase is already noticable in the environment. Plants and animals are migrating toward the poles or higher in altitude, glaciers are melting, ice caps are receding. A 1.5 degree increase is a problem, another 1.5 degree increase is a catastrophe.

>>14797294
>9. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries. Raising CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the temperature of the planet 100% guaranteed. A process called 'Radiative Forcing'. This has been known since at least 1900.
False. CO2 lags behind temperature increases. An "earth scientist" would know that.

>>14797143
It used to be much hotter, and it will be much colder soon. Temperatures rise until they crash then they rise again. It's all a cycle.

>>14797704
>It's all a cycle.
Show us the cycle whose path we're on.

>>14794144
The only thing warming is Greta's tight little moist pussy OP

yes

>>14794155
PR & marketing is tone-deaf and cringe

>>14797704
>It used to be much hotter, and it will be much colder soon.
When?

>Temperatures rise until they crash then they rise again.
Temperature is not magic. It goes up and down for a reason. We know the reason why it's currently going up, regardless of whether you like the answer.

>>14797703
>False.
Wrong. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>CO2 lags behind temperature increases.
Only when warming is initiated by some other factor than CO2. In this case, warming was initiated by CO2 and lags CO2.

>>14797279
>look at it on a smaller scale that is easier for you to grasp
I'm not asking about smaller scales, I'm asking about warming on the scale of decades. You didn't answer my question. It's OK if you don't know the answer, climatologists do.

>Earth is much colder than normal still right now
What do you mean by "normal?" Normal for humans is the pre-industrial temperature range. We evolved in that range and lived in it for millions of years. Any other "normal" is irrelevant to us. So I bet you don't actually care about what's normal.

>as we are between extreme cold spells (aka Ice Ages)
No, we're in an ice age right now and always have been. Ice age just means there's ice at the poles. You are probably referring to an interglacial period, but that won't occur for tens of thousands of years.

>CO2 helps prevent that from happening.
If you actually wanted to prevent an interglacial you would be saving all our CO2 emissions for then instead of wasting them all now. Your argument makes no sense.

>>14797279
>The ruling elite WANT another ice age to kill off humanity to 500 Million people or less.
who's that elite that put up this stone 50 years ago and still is in charge?

>left wingers claim the Elites are causing climate change because they are greedy and evil
>right wingers claim that its the elite thats pushing climate change prevention propaganda to kill off people and make more money

So both sides agree that its the rich thats causing all the problems

>>14794203
The narrative/propaganda surrounding climate change is based on real facts, but twisted and exaggerated to fit their political goals. Fact-based propaganda is the best type because if you disagree with their policy, they'll call you anti-science, a denier of reality, uneducated, an oil shill, etc.
So in order to avoid bring labelled a heretic, you need to be better researched and more rhetorically gifted than them. Regular people don't want to expend their energy on this, so they either capitulate or reject it for stupid reasons like calling it a conspiracy. A climate activist doesn't need to be an expert they can just keep repeating "the world is going to end in 30 years ban cars and meat we need 100% solar power by 2050". And they have the mainstream giving them political cover. But a naysayer does, he is not only up against these laymen, but the whole network of activists and fact-checkers to say, "acksually here's why what you just said is 99% correct but still false" with much more resources than any layman.

>>14794155
>Like saying look at this chart of the richest GREEN billionaires
Yeah, it's funny how almost all the Companies/Organizations that get Subsidies for ""Green"" Energy ""Research"" are owned by OPEC $Billionaires.

>>14797294
>CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries
How do you know that
>We have witnessed an increase of temperature of about 1.5 degrees over the last century due to the addition of CO2 in the atmosphere
How do you know that

>>14798846
>>14798864
Nobody is going to read your walls of text.

>>14798357
She's cute.

>>14798596
>Temperature is not magic.
It basically is.
>It goes up and down for a reason.
"Because reasons"
>We know the reason why it's currently going up, regardless of whether you like the answer.
There are reasonable speculations that quickly become mired in disinformation and misleading assertions, from flawed experiments and incomplete/misinterpreted research data, to weaponized propaganda promoted by conspiring organizations for various personal interests that don't necessarily always overlap with "Saving the Planet".

>>14798624
>No, we're in an ice age right now and always have been. Ice age just means there's ice at the poles.
I find it hard to believe you, or whoever told you that information, are not being a disingenuous "expert". I don't particularly see how they can make such accurate and absolute claims about what the planet looked like thousands to hundreds-of-millions years ago.
They don't even ""know"" who/when/how/why some Rocks in the UK(Stonehenge), or some Rocks in Egypt(The Pyramids) were put in place.
But yeah, I'm sure they could give you a completed Map of what the Earth looked like on any random day from the past, along with near-exact data regarding atmospheric composition, and weather conditions.

>>14798610
>https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/
I would be sceptical of some of those Authors.
>Kramer, RJ
>He, H
>Soden, BJ
>Oreopoulos, L
>Myhre, G
>Forster, PM
>Smith, CJ
Looking up a few of them, wiki references lead to dead/misleading links, and other things that come off as "sketchy", for instance:
>Wilson, Matthew (13 March 2015). "The tea room that planted 3M trees around the world to cosmic rays". Financial Times. Retrieved 12 June 2015.
In case you're not familiar with "3M", especially given their recent appearance in the News...:
>(Aug 26, 2022) 3M Co. lost its fight to block jury trials in more than 230,000 lawsuits accusing it of harming US soldiers. The company’s shares fell the most in more than three years after the ruling.
>US Bankruptcy Judge Jeffrey J. Graham refused to temporarily halt the lawsuits accusing 3M and its bankrupt subsidiary, Aearo Technologies, of selling faulty combat earplugs that damaged the hearing of veterans who used them.
>Graham’s decision upends 3M’s decision to resolve the lawsuits by putting Aearo in bankruptcy, where controversial rules sometimes allow parent companies to benefit by halting jury trials and settling their lawsuits in one place.
>https://finance.yahoo.com/news/3m-t-bankruptcy-halt-lawsuits-190012322.html
This could be a pretty big deal. In the past(and currently), there is very little opportunity for people to take proper action and receive adequate compensation under the willful abuse, or unacceptable negligence which leads to the violation of an individual's rights and well-being.
This could be setting the precedent which won't allow BigPharma to go to court, and "Settle" one big Class Action Lawsuit that has insultingly low financial compensation, and that's before the fact that most of the Damages are awarded to Organizations that are just unofficial entities to BigPharma.
>Dr. Oreopoulos holds a B. Sc. in Physics from Aristotle's University of Thessaloniki, Greece
(((Thessaloniki))) picrel

>>14798958

>>14798709
>So both sides agree that its the rich thats causing all the problems
The problem is that the """Green Party""" is unironically a terrorist organization that gains support by their claims to save the planet by stealing/oppressing/discriminating against Whites(predominantly White Males).

>>14798926
>Nobody is going to read your walls of text.
Here's your (You), don't reply to my posts in the future if your posts have an IQ lower than 1/2 the Numbers on a standard clock.

>>14799044
Still not reading it

>>14798942
>It basically is.
It isn't. Temperature changes for specific reasons.

>"Because reasons"
Who are you quoting?

>There are reasonable speculations that quickly become mired in disinformation and misleading assertions, from flawed experiments and incomplete/misinterpreted research data
Like what?

>>14798942
>I find it hard to believe you, or whoever told you that information, are not being a disingenuous "expert".
You can look it up instead of making a fool of yourself.

>I don't particularly see how they can make such accurate and absolute claims about what the planet looked like thousands to hundreds-of-millions years ago.
Of course you don't see, because you haven't even looked. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology.. Your ignorance is not my problem.

>They don't even ""know"" who/when/how/why some Rocks in the UK(Stonehenge), or some Rocks in Egypt(The Pyramids) were put in place.
What does this have to do with climatology? Complete non sequitur.

>But yeah, I'm sure they could give you a completed Map of what the Earth looked like on any random day from the past, along with near-exact data regarding atmospheric composition, and weather conditions.
Who claimed this? You're hallucinating, schizo.

>>14798958
>I would be sceptical of some of those Authors.
Attacking the source is not an argument. Try again.

>In case you're not familiar with "3M", especially given their recent appearance in the News.
3M is an abbreviation of 3 million. You're a literal schizo. You're clanging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanging

>>14799339
>3M is an abbreviation of 3 million
Holy shit I only now saw that. Schizo BTFO roflmao

>>14797703
You didn't even bother looking up 'radiative forcing'. and just made a post about something you heard about but obviously don't understand.

Here is an opportunity to learn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

We know the rate of the breakdown of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Therefore we know how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere. Here's an easy video to help you understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R4YavfQ7jk

The fact that we have already seen 1.5 degrees of warming barely deserves an answer. Here's a tiny portion of evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB_sVUXg4Lc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvFkLWHRUwo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uulHgbQpDLk

>>14799681
The only experiments showing CO2 as a major greenhouse gas weren't reflective of Earth's energy system. It's not a closed system like a glass gas tube, and the majority of Earth's heating is not from radiation but from electrical connection between our magnetic field and the discharge of the solar wind.

>>14799736
>the majority of Earth's heating is not from radiation but from electrical connection between our magnetic field and the discharge of the solar wind
That's a new one, nice. Even dumber than flat earth and electric universe

>>14797703
>CO2 lags
depends.
https://youtu.be/WLjkLPnIPPw?t=5m

>>14799747
Do you think being bombarded by energetic plasma imparts 0 energy to the earth? You're mentally retarded.

>>14799779
>strawman
Not going to engage with you, faggot.

>>14799796
What is the solar wind? How energetic is constant plasma bombardment and electrical interconnection from space? How energetic is sunlight in comparison?

Unlike sunlight, we don't radiate the current input back out via albedo.

>>14797294
>Water only stays in the atmosphere for about 10 days.
Earth atmosphere is older than 10 days. Still it's raining. How comes?

>>14800432
Because "climate scientists" lack the basic foundations of earth science and don't know how the water cycle works.

>>14800432
Water is constantly evaporating and condensing, moron.

>>14798624
Minor point, but you are using "interglacial" instead of "glaciation." We are currently in an interglacial between two glaciations. If humans go extinct, we will eventually fall into another glaciation.

>>14799736
>the majority of Earth's heating is not from radiation but from electrical connection between our magnetic field and the discharge of the solar wind
This is the quality of argument "skeptics" use to dispute the actual evidence showing the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sunlight doesn't warm the Earth, it's the . . . electrical resistance of our atmosphere interacting with solar wind? OK.4DV22

>>14800535
Strawman. No reason to reply.

>>14800420
Albedo is a property, not a process. The Earth doesn't "radiate via albedo." It reflects some sunlight rather than absorbing it, and the fraction reflected is the albedo. The vast majority of energy the Earth receives is from sunlight. That's why sunlight is warm. We can measure the power density of sunlight exactly at the Earth's orbit, and it's 1373 W/m^2. Some of this light is reflected, some is scattered into space, and the rest is absorbed, which heats the surface of the Earth. Because the Earth is warm, it also radiates light as a blackbody, as do all warm bodies.

By comparison, the energy flux of solar wind is negligible. The density of solar wind is extremely low, at most a few particles per cc. They call it the vacuum of space, after all. Total solar wind energy flux is about 10^-3 W/m^2, about six orders of magnitude smaller than thermal radiation.

So much for "if the sea levels are rising, something something beach front property"

>>14804245
Don't worry, they'll sell their homes to the merfolk.

>>14804245
>So much for "if the sea levels are rising, something something beach front property"
Not an argument. Florida has coastal erosion because of soil conditions, it has nothing to do with """"""""climate"""""""" """""""""change""""""""

>>14805229
>coastal erosion causes sea level rise

>>14797290

Sealevels dot org

Switch to 800,000 years.

You're objectively wrong.

>>14805229
>""""""""climate"""""""" """""""""change""""""""
You're right, we shouldn't use the Bush junta's newspeak. Either global warming or (I think RMS says this) global heating.

>>14797279
>look at it on a smaller scale that is easier for you to grasp, such as a 24 hr period. warms up in the morning to afternoon, then it cools again. Same over thousands of years.
>Earth is much colder than normal still right now, as we are between extreme cold spells (aka Ice Ages) and will return to another Ice Age soon and wipe out most of humanity.
>CO2 helps prevent that from happening.
>The ruling elite WANT another ice age to kill off humanity to 500 Million people or less.
This makes sense.

>>14805446
>earth cold, sealevels low
>earth warm, sealevels high
Is that the point you're trying to make? That the current heating Leads to rising sealevels?

>>14805462
Everything you quoted is incorrect. See >>14798624

>>14805501
>spam

>>14805540
Not an argument. Try again.

>>14805462
>>CO2 helps prevent that from happening.
>>The ruling elite WANT another ice age to kill off humanity to 500 Million people or less.
>This makes sense.

Yes it does. "Part of the Plan".

>>14805416
Coastal erosion causes loss of houses, therefore insurers don't want to be involved. Alleged sea level rise from melting sea ice doesn't exist

>>14805461
Good. At least this way when the globe fails to warm you can be lynched by the children whose lives you ruined.

>>14805831
>Alleged sea level rise from melting sea ice doesn't exist
Wow, you're dumb. Sea level rise is caused by melting land ice and increased density of warm water, not sea ice. Also, sea level rise is measurable, 8 inches in Florida since 1950, and increases the rate of coastal erosion.

>>14805835
>At least this way when the globe fails to warm
Any day now....

>>14805939
Continents float on a sea of magma. Make more magma. Problem solved.

>>14805945
>Continents float on a sea of magma
They sit on the mantle, which is solid rock, not magma. You're even dumber then I thought.

>>14805963
>You're even dumber then I thought.
"then" I love irony. KEK!

>>14794144
Seems like a load of rubbish. The climate has always been changing - with or without human activity, implying that this is just another cycle. Furthermore, I find it ironic how they tried to estimate the impact of global warming at sea, only to get lost in the ice. Ironic.

>>14805987
>Seems like a load of rubbish.
Climate Change is just a ponzi scam by the rich 1% on dumb people, who have made it into a pseudo-religion.

>>14805987
>planet should be in a cooling cycle
>temperatures are rising
>>more greenhouse gas emissions = warming planet
>humans are the leading cause behind the increase in greenhouse gas emissions
>therefore, it's not a natural cycle
There, an easy way to understand things for your dumbass brain that seems too addled by strawmen like "B-b-b-but climates change naturally!!!!" No shit they change naturally, the problem is that human activity is responsible for it.

>>14806209
>human activity is responsible for it.
not that anon, but see this is where you are wrong. your ego wants you to think that, but it simply is not true.

>>14806214
Proof?

>>14806224
Prove AWG exists. Nobody has yet, while thousands of scientists say it doesn't exist.

Huge multinational symposiums and countless papers released just this last month showing how it is all a scam.

>>14806229
I could just as well point to the IPCC's reports on climate change. Please show me even 10 of these "countless papers" and multinational symposiums. I await to see some statement signed by 300 randos with maybe 10 having actual backgrounds in science fields relevant to the climate.

>>14806298
>the IPCC's reports
KEK! not a legitimate source of information on the topic. Pathetic Climate Cultist.

>>14806229
It's already earlier up in the thread. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it has to be, and we can measure its effects directly. We know humans emit a lot of CO2. We know most of the CO2 added to the atmosphere in the past century comes from humans by measuring its isotopic abundance. We know the Earth is warming in spite of decreasing solar irradiance. And we know this warming is accelerating.

What more proof could you need? What else would even qualify as better proof? The fact that people in this thread are still denying warming is even *happening* shows how up their own asses they are. They literally won't accept any evidence of any kind. Show them a thermometer and they will tell you it's fake, planted by the deep state, whatever. They already know they're right and nobody will prove them wrong.

>>14806427
>We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it has to be
>You must believe the scam because you must!

More CO2 = more plants that capture and use CO2 = more food for more people and animals = More better for life.

Reducing CO2 is about creating famines that kill off billions of people. Fast and cheap, and get to scam money from it.

>>14806229
>Prove AWG exists.
OK. Here you go

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>Nobody has yet
Wrong.

>while thousands of scientists say it doesn't exist.
Any climatologists?

>Huge multinational symposiums and countless papers released just this last month showing how it is all a scam.
Where? You didn't provide any proof. Why did you lie?

>>14806339
>not a legitimate source of information on the topic.
Because?

>>14806433
>More CO2 = more plants that capture and use CO2 = more food for more people and animals = More better for life.
That implies CO2 is the limiting factor of growth for agriculture. It often isn't, especially when you have more heatwaves and droughts due to increased greenhouse gases. And nothing you said even contradicts AGW. Moron.

Can't wait until all the deniers and their corporate masters are hanging from trees

>>14806433
That has nothing to do with the question of whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is. You are just saying that maybe there will be some other effect that will cancel out the greenhouse effect.

There is no reason to expect an increase in CO2 to increase biomass by that much. But even if it did, plants do not permanently take CO2 out of the air. They store it while they are alive, and then when they die, it is released again. An increase in biomass will only take a fixed initial amount of CO2 out of the air, and it will only stay out as long as that higher biomass remains. So the best-case scenario is that we could offset a few years of emissions by greatly increasing the world's biomass.

Of course, the opposite is happening. We are actually cutting down rainforests and destroying habitats at lightning speed. That does increase the amount of CO2 in the air, though not by as much as our carbon emissions.

>>14806440
He has everything backwards. He thinks the IPCC is a progressive organization. He thinks there is way more money for scientists researching green energy than for fossil fuels. He thinks the term "climate change" was invented by liberals to cover up the "fact" that the Earth wasn't getting warmer. Literally all completely backwards.

>>14806433
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
#43

C3 & C4
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

>>14805941
fraudulent data. Use the unaltered NOAA data for true curves.

>>14806495
That second link actually shares a lot of really interesting arguments.

>>14806516
"Unaltered" in what way? The stuff Lamar Smith was talking about? Wow, this unaltered data sure does paint a totally different picture, doesn't it?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine

>>14794144
It`s real but like it`s corrupted
>Is it possible to "do something"? Who does it and what?
Nobody is doing shit, the head of those organizations are lawyers or politicians, the pandemic saved our ass. Maybe the small temp raise improved the ability to survive in those markets who f knows.

Improve african, central american and indian (they are on it but they have a lot of ppl) sterilization programs. Don´t stress yourself and try to eat fish once a week and raise a small tree lol
God, even dog sterilization can help believe it or not

Like some anons pointed out those chemicals are awful, shit is bigger than we think and on top of that we had some extra volcano eruptions that helped with methane

>>14806527
>"Unaltered" in what way? The stuff Lamar Smith was talking about? Wow, this unaltered data sure does paint a totally different picture, doesn't it?
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine
DEBOONKED haha DEBOONKED

>>14798634
>Asking smart questions on the comprimised pol/sci/

>>14806536
Great comeback. You've convinced me.

>>14806563
Why would I bother responding with effort to some gay appeal to authority? I've seen the real data. We both know you're lying.

>>14806535
The only way to save human civilization on any meaningful level at this point is to bring population down to perhaps ten million by the end of this century, in a managed fashion.

Hold some kind of random lottery that selects healthy persons between the age of 20 and 50, and get them set up in isolated communes of a few thousand at most in the middle of nowhere Canada or Siberia, where they learn how to live totally off the land with minimal technology. They will be absolutely cut off from the rest of the world. In the meantime, literally everyone else gets sterilized. Probably have to come up with an automated system via a Manhattan Project that does this without consent of the people of the world, because they won't like it. Then, as population begins tapering off, gradually shut down and clean up mines, industries, toxic dumps, nuclear power plants, so that the planet is mostly clean for the last survivors by the time the last outsiders die off with no children to replace them.

The thing is, the end result of this is basically inevitable either way. All of global civilization is going to collapse, and with it the infrastructure and fossil-fuel based industry and agriculture that has allowed humanity to exceed Earth's natural carrying capacity by a thousand times. But whether those remaining ten million have a world that is ever more exhausted of resources, horrible polluted, possible blasted and irradiated from nuclear war where they will struggle and probably die out entirely; or one that is clean and new, where they have a chance to rebuild and have happy, meaningful lives depends on our choice as a species.

But most everyone would rather just fuck out another generation of billions of hungry mouths because muh legacy muh DNA muh life satisfaction and ruin everything. This species will, ultimately, get exactly what it deserves.

>>14794144
Imagine pumping amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere that have laid dormant for millions of years all at once and thinking that won’t change anything lmao

Record breaking temps predicted almost every day this week
All I know is it's fucking hot

>>14806622
You have seen "the real data" where? The chart I showed *is* the real data. The ocean data is even more compelling. This isn't a "gay appeal to authority," unless the "authority" you're talking about is NOAA, the organization YOU SAID you got your data from.

You may believe that there is some hidden data out there waiting to be found, but there is not, and you are lying to say you have seen it. If you actually had anything to show, you would show it, not just post a bunch of innuendo.

>>14806663
Southern CA is like, oh yeah, a week of 100+ temperatures at this time of year. Sure! Happens every time the Santa Ana winds blow in from the desert, and-

...wait, what do you mean it's not a Santa Ana event causing this? Temperatures like this have literally never happened without one. What do you MEAN if a random heat-wave like this coincidentally is followed by a Santa Ana event, we could see temperatures over 120 degrees in the suburban valleys?

>>14806659
Imagine thinking that you're actively making vast parts of the planet uninhabitable leading to mass migration. How could you enjoy driving around for fun or going on a cruise if you knew it was bad? Ignorance is bliss, when will environmentalists learn this?

>>14806702
The problem isn’t the consumer, it’s global trade
Electrical cars are there to distract you and make you feel good and like you’re winning the imaginary battle you’re fighting against other consumers who are just as entrenched in ideology

>>14806721
The main problems to tackle are electricity generation, transportation (including both cars and ships), land use, construciton (including concrete), polymers, and animal farming (especially cattle). Some of these are bigger problems than others, and some are easier to solve. The biggest impact we can have right away is in shifting electricity generation from fossil fuels to renewables. That's not really about global trade at all, it's mostly about domestic production. In the medium term, we will have to reduce dependence on cars (which we should be doing anyway), which could eventually also reduce the amount of paved area, but in the meantime, electric cars will also be useful. And even if people do start using fewer cars, many other transport solutions that currently rely on gasoline can be electrified, like trams with overhead lines replacing buses, electric subways, electric short-haul flights, and electric coach buses. Cargo ships can't realistically be electrified, but their efficiency can be improved somewhat in a number of ways, strangely enough, including wind assistance (basically sails). In the long term, land use can change by increasing densification and removing commuter suburbs and the like, as well as transitioning to housing properly constructed for the smaller families we now have. No reason to have enormous McMansions everywhere with like two people living in them. Beef can also get more expensive, and lower-emissions alternatives to Portland concrete might develop, or more effective ways of recycling existing concrete. Biofuels for airplanes and ships might be developed. Forests can be expanded. Many changes can be made on the scale of centuries.

But we have to start now, and that means doing the most important and easiest thing first, and that's electricity, followed by cars. So it makes sense that that's where the focus is, not global trade. Also, trying to reduce global trade hurts everyone around the world, so there's that.

>>14806721
>The problem isn’t the consumer, it’s global trade
Sure, big corporations have a much bigger impact, but in the long run a change of global trade goes hand in hand with a change of consumer behaviour.
I agree that EVs are not the answer, the true alternative is less individual transportation. Don't let consumers think it's just the big guys up there, and we don't have to do anything. If everyone keeps doing what they're doing, then nothing will change.

>>14806757
I agree with you, but right now, the most important thing most individuals can do is vote. That's certainly not the only thing, but it's the one with the biggest impact.

>>14806742
Nah dude, it won’t work without a revolution in world trade
The 16 largest ship in the world produce the same amount of co2 emission as every single car in the world combined. And there are roughly 5500 container ships on the ocean at all times. We live in a world where it’s cheaper to ship fish caught in Scotland to China for processing and then back to the west than it is to pay the Scottish minimum wage. If you seriously see nothing wrong with this then I can’t help you

>>14806761
That claim has been going around facebook and the like, but it is totally false. The carbon emissions produced by cars, in aggregate, are substantially greater than those of all ships combined, including all cargo ships, and certainly including the sixteen largest ones.

https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/04/CE_Delft_7N59_The_basic_facts_Summary_and_Conclusions.pdf

The outsourcing problem will fix itself if wages in China continue to increase. Protectionist policies are not the answer, especially ones motivated by bad statistics.

>>14806760
Definitely. If my country wasn't run by delusional right-wing populists, that would change much more than everyone going vegan.

>>14806761
Apart from your opening statement being untrue,
>We live in a world where it’s cheaper to ship fish caught in Scotland to China for processing and then back to the west than it is to pay the Scottish minimum wage.
That's why we need carbon fees. It protects local jobs and makes such scenarios almost impossible.

>>14806771
Interesting. Also don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favor of a change in personal transportation. If it was me, I’d make cars illegal in cities except for distinct utility uses like moving or something. There is still the issue with electrical cars having a very bad carbon footprint.
But that also doesn’t change the fact that global trade got really out of hands. If it’s not china, they’ll build the outsourcing industry in Africa or something. And we probably won’t have the time to wait until their wages reach western standards as well, seeing how it took China over 50 years even with shit like a very stable government
>>14806780
Agreed. But good look getting that past lobbyists

>>14806799
The European lobbyists have no interest in China overtaking them. If they get green subsidies from their government while the Chinese have to pay additional fees, that's the best thing they can wish for. Imagine getting almost direct payments from your competitors.

>>14806805
Sure but it’s not like China doesn’t have a lobby in Europe

>>14806799
It's true that electric cars still have a bad carbon footprint, but I think they are at least better than ICE cars, and they will only get better. But yeah, reducing the number of cars is the best solution of all. (And I think we're on the same page that we can do all these things at the same time.)

International markets are ultimately the source of modern wealth. Wealth isn't everything, but it does matter a lot, especially when we are proposing numerous expensive new plans. To some extent, it is inevitable that international shipping will get more expensive, because fuel will get more expensive if we internalize all its costs. But beyond that, I don't think it is wise to take any specific action. It harms the global economy as a whole, and it harms the poorest countries most of all.

>>14806821
Oh I could think of a lot of things that are unnecessarily expensive. Do the USA really need triple the military spending the entire rest of the world has combined? (Unless I’ve fallen victim to a widely spread misconception here again)
Also, it’s very easy for companies to not pay taxes almost anywhere. There was once the idea of a global minimum tax rate but that disappears very quickly lmao

>>14806835
The U.S. does spend a huge amount on the military, because it gives it significant geopolitical advantages. But there is no particular advantage to reducing that spending, at least domestically. The U.S. doesn't spend this money at random, it uses it to project power, which facilitates trade specifically with the U.S. and its allies. It also uses it to promote peace in various parts of the world where war is a realistic threat but the U.S. presence will be respected. A relatively small number of U.S. troops in South Korea make North Korea far less likely to attack, for instance.

Now, you could argue that this sort of spending is a big net negative for the world as a whole, and I would agree. In particular, if every country unilaterally disarmed, we would all be safer and richer. But that's not how games work. The U.S. specifically does not benefit by massively cutting its own military spending. I mean, it does benefit by avoiding war, and it certainly costs less now than at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it wants to maintain its hegemony.

It's debatable whether global hegemony in itself is a threat to be avoided, or even a desirable state (Pax Americana), but in pragmatic terms, you can't convince America to give up its own military and economic advantages for no particular reason.

The Inflation Reduction Act is sort of like the global minimum tax. I don't know if it does anything about the issue of offshoring of IP though.

>>14806844
>The U.S. doesn't spend this money at random
I beg to differ

>>14806683
NOAA's raw data shows a declining trend in average temperatures over time.

>>14806887
No it freaking doesn't. You keep saying that and it isn't true. You can see another analysis of the raw and adjusted data here: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records/.. They reach the same conclusion. If you want to check for yourself, you can get raw ocean temperature data here: https://icoads.noaa.gov/products.html..

So far you have provided zero references, evidence of any kind. You just keep saying "it's fake!" as if the tenth time you say it people will believe you.

>>14794155
They sensationalize the news because they know that makes the most money
Profit Profit Profit
To the shallow knowledge people don’t have the patience or caring to dive that deeply in topics because they simply just don’t care unless it directly impacts them they simply do not care beyond a superficial level

>>14806516
>Use the unaltered NOAA data for true curves.
That makes the warming trend even faster, lmao.

Where do these schizos come from? Some blog?

>>14807038
Climate denialists can be replaced by the most simple of AIs, as their responses neither have to make sense, nor do they need to take context/previous posts into account, as ignoring facts isn't merely allowed, but required.

Fully automated schizophrenia is possible today, we just need the willpower to do it.

Also I'd reccommend putting something in the options field so that the thread can finally die in peace

>>14806821
Running the numbers, switching all ICE cars in the US to electric would reduce our CO2 emissions by ~6%.

>>14807038
https://realclimatescience.com/unhiding-the-decline-for-windows/

>>14794144

>>14794148
thats climate change, we're talking about greenhouse gases warming the stratosphere