/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9381797
your cousin is very wise

>>9381797
How can you yourself believe in climate change if you can't even form a basic cogent argument for it?

>>9381814
Agreed.

>>9381819
Because its a scientific fact?

>>9381819
this, true or not at least be skeptical

>>9381797
Your cousin is not correct about the government hoax. But to claim climate change is entirely man made is completely wrong.

>>9381822
The "facts" don't even show a warming trend the last 10 years let alone humans causing it.

>>9381797
>My cousin is in denial that climate change is caused by people, and that it's a really big fucking problem.
If you know this to be true, why don't you just show him the evidence that convinced you?

Oh wait, you don't have such evidence because you just accepted whatever bill nye and the black science man said without thinking for yourself. How about you neck yourself.

>>9381797
Redpill me on (((global warming))) /sci/

>>9381797
>He's convinced it's some sort of conspiracy by the government so that they can tax us.
He's not wrong
Where do you think the money from a carbon tax will be going?
Hint: certainly not towards efforts to slow climate change

>>9381849
K so carbon tax and buy carbon credits works like this: you buy some carbon credits and that funds some organization somewhere in the world that preserves say a section of Amazonian rainforest. They estimate the price of carbon with some pretty complicated shit so yeah.

>>9381827
The levels of greenhouse gasses produced by human industry surely have nothing to do with the rising temperatures and it's all an evil conspiracy by the illegal immigrant green communists to overthrow america. Yes. We know.

>>9381893
Nice Microsoft Excel 98 graph.

>>9381896
It has to be as simple as possible because climate change deniers are often less intelligent that flat earthers. Too stimulating images might lead them to self harm.

>>9381893
> ±0.5°C
golly it's really cookin'.

>>9381903
golly it's really easy to maintain cities when the fucking entire ocean rises by several meters.

>>9381900
Or you know, the calendar is wrong and that would accomdate for different temperatures floating across historic monthly lows and highs.

That couldn't be though. I mean, it's not like DECember is suppose to be the tenth month or anything.

>>9381905
>when the fucking entire ocean rises by several meters.
Still waiting on that btw...

>>9381819
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>9381836

>>9381920
I read the first two and closed the page. First one had a typo making it sound retarded. Second one had a just didn't even attempt to make sense.

>>9381924
Looking at this graph, I'm convinced. Thanks anon.
>when they say it don't really be like it is but it do

>>9381819
Maybe he can but the cousin is refusing to listen to it

>>9381926
>be grammar nazi
>had a just didn't even attempt to make sense.

>>9381950
If i was a grammar nazi I'd have stopped reading after the first one. It didn't matter to mention it until seeing the next one which had a just didn't even attempt to make sense, which at that point was 2/3 fails and tournament rules says that is a loss.

>>9381913
Yeah, that's the problem with retards like you: They don't know what "prevention" is

>>9381907
Who knows how long the months have been fucked or if they've continued to be fucked. Maybe the transition from February/12 to February/2 even had a February/1 in there at some point.

At any rate its not like the current calendar is accurate. Needing leap years or leap days at all is literally accounting for an oopsie.

The problem with calling climate change a people factor is that people can't then stop it.

Sure you'll have "science-oriented" white liberals hollering about carbon tax, windmills, solar energy and reduced fossil fuel usage - but on the other hand you have the 6 billion non-white foreigners who are the actual culprits of the supposed carbon emissions, not only because of their number but also because their countries are poorshit and they still run garbage diesel trucks from the 50s.

it's paradoxical thinking. No, us white people aren't going to solve "climate change" by thinking really hard about it. It would take wars and famines to eradicate the foreigners who make up 85% of the world population and an even high percentage of the carbon emissions - and the paradox comes from these same people screaming about climate change also being the same people who want to ban guns and open borders and see no reason any person should have to die or any reason for war.

Liberalism is a mental disease, don't fall for it or you'll be a permabrainlet.

>>9381860
There's no incentive to buy carbon credits unless there's a tax on carbon

Carbon credits are immoral as hell if the funds from them leave the country (which most of them do)

>>9381893
According to your graph, there has been no net warming in the last 120 years.

We can't agree on the data, let alone the cause.

>>9381836
>Redpill me on (((global warming))) /sci/
You're asking the wrong board.


>>>>/pol/

https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-5

>>9382018
the first world started it

>>9382018
So your argument is that climate change is real, it's also influenced by humans, but we shouldn't try to fight it because large segments of the world can't or won't fight it. What do you suggest? Do we just prepare for the realistic but enivitable results? That doesn't seem to be the conservative platform, that my seem to think it's just not a real thing.

>>9382018
>it's paradoxical thinking. No, us white people aren't going to solve "climate change" by thinking really hard about it. It would take wars and famines to eradicate the foreigners who make up 85% of the world population and an even high percentage of the carbon emissions - and the paradox comes from these same people screaming about climate change also being the same people who want to ban guns and open borders and see no reason any person should have to die or any reason for war.
>Liberalism is a mental disease, don't fall for it or you'll be a permabrainlet.


You're on the wrong board
>>>>>/pol/

>>9381797
3 pretty simple lemmas:

1. CO2 and many other gases have "greenhouse" properties in that they allow visible light to pass through (hence invisible), but trap and re-emit infrared radiation. This is literally 19th century science, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, verified and quantified experimentally beyond reasonable doubt by Svante Arrhenius.

2. CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising, and this is a result of fossil fuel combustion (pic related). CO2 can be measured experimentally in the lab, and the stable isotopes of CO2 plunges into the negative values. Fossil fuel has distinct negative isotopic signature compared to natural CO2. This is also an undeniable fact from observation.

3. You add 1+2, you would expect the radiative energy budget of the earth to be out of equilibrium. This is exactly what we observe, based on satellites that measures total energy in vs. energy out by CERES satellite at NASA. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php On average, only 71% of energy entering the Earth is leaving. 2nd law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy states that when a system had energy imbalance, T must go up.

In short, CO2 causes greenhouse effect. Humans put CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning. The earth is now in energy imbalance due to additional CO2, and therefore warming. All basic, high school physics that should be easy to understand

>>9382319
But what you keep failing to prove is that there's enough co2 for the greenhouse effect to cause the "temperature increases" that supposedly exist.

Literally every model takes the observed temperatures and uses that to conclude that co2 by mass is causing the temperatures.

I'd like to see a paper that actually predicts the forcing from first principles.

Is the earth warming now? Looks like it.
Is it going to warm more than it should to correct long term patterns? Probably not.

I've made it a point to ask any of the biologists I've worked with about global warming. In my experience the ones over 50 instantly compare it to the global cooling alarmism of the 1970's. Uniformly those under the age of 45 all seem to believe it without question.

I would be interested if anyone else has notice a similar phenomenon, I will also say professor emeriti I have talked to just give no shits and are very fun to talk to too.

>>9382434

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

>Takes IR specs of greenhouse gasses
>Makes model from first principles using said information
>Model says that the current amount of CO2 does have a significant impact on the global temperature change

here you go

and http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf
for good measure

>>9382463
That's exactly what I didn't want.

I want to see the absorption and emission of a system of molecules stated explicitly. I want to see that that emission is reabsorbed and emitted by non greenhouse gases, contributing to an overall increase in kinetic energy of the atmosphere. Because that's what temperature is. From that, I want to see statistics applied to the model to show the .0004% of co2 in the atmosphere produces the temperatures measured over the last 1000 years or so.

I don't want to see an over tuned model that assumes the temperature is based on the emissions. It's circular logic that will always show agw, because it was designed to.

>>9382536
Here is a modern(ish) review of completely theoretical derivation of the radiative budget
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4314548.pdf

Annherius literally did all you asked for in 1896. Here is the orginal paper.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14786449608620846
He numerically integrated the radiative thermonydamic equation over the whole column of atmosphere to predict what equilibrium T of the surface should be given concentration of certain greenhouse gases. If you take any decent atmospheric thermodynamics this is the subject of the 1st chapter

If we just paused our activity for a year, nature would flourish and thrive again, weather would return to "normal."

Prove me wrong!

If the Earth lacked an atmosphere, mean surface temperature would be just below freezing. Simple radiation equilibrium calculation.
If Venus didn't have such a heavy atomosphere (and greenhouse effect) the place would be uncomfortably warm but not like a furnace. Back in the 40s, SF stories imagined Venus as a tropical jungle.

The greenhouse effect is quite real and atmospheric CO2 corresponds well with temperature rise.

How to convince your cousin? Beats me. We just avoid the topic when we get together at Thanksgiving. Some people will still be skeptical when they're treading water above where their home used to be.

>>9382620
Wrong because CO2 has 100 years liffetime time, on average in the atmosphere.

>>9382620
Wrong because the average lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is 100-200 years

Global warming is really caused by methane but no one is going to advocate the extermination of people or livestock to drive down ppm.

>>9382278
>>9382018
Surprise!
China has begun a carbon trading market.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2017/12/19/the-china-carbon-market-just-launched-and-its-the-worlds-largest-heres-how-it-can-succeed/#520d50d17ce6

>>9382642
CH4 atmospheric lifetime is 10 years because Earth's atmosphere is an oxidizing environment (20% oxygen gas). Also CH4 is in ppb range (1800 ppb) while CO2 is in ppm range (400ppm).

In 10 years CH4 oxidizes into CO2, which last 100-200 years on average in the atmosphere. This is why despite being a more potent GHG mole per mole, the majority of the focus is rightfully so on CO2 cutbacks

>>9382642
t. carl sagan
your methane hypothesis was wrong, remember that?

>>9381827
>The "facts" don't even show a warming trend the last 10 years let alone humans causing it.
Where did you hear this tripe from? Let me guess, Fox News, or Breitbart, or some other conservative media outlet that you consume solely because it confirms your biases?
Just so you know, the entire "global warming hiatus," or the "no global warming in 10 years" garbage is such an old, outdated and debunked talking point that for some reason refuses to die, because idiots like yourself keep parroting this vague statement that you overheard somewhere without even bothering to fact check whether it has any evidence backing it up.

No, there is no "hiatus," and no, the Earth has not stopped warming, and yes, we are incredibly certain (>95%+ certainty) that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from our civilization are to blame. These are not hypotheses, these are simple facts that are based on observational data. The trend continues to be a positive one, and global average temperatures are rising, these are simple facts that are easy to confirm by looking at the available data for surface temperature / ocean temperatures and CO2ppm.

>>9381926

>>9381905
couldn't you just build an ocean wall several meters tall? what's the water going to do, go around?

>>9382912
now show the past 1000 years you homo.

>>9381797

Your cousin is right. (((climate change))) is just another plot for transferring wealth (((away))) from the first world.

>>9382926
What, so you can claim "WHOA SEE IT WUZ WARM IN DA PAST TOO THEREFIRE IT DON'T REAL AND HUMANS DINDU NUFFINS!"

>>9381819
>>9381827
>>9381834
>>9381849
>>9381900
>>9381924
>>9382018
>>9382319
and the other that can't be assed to click.
Why? What does it matter?
World get hot an water go up! Fucking move, or drown.
Ice melt and animals die! Fuck them. Do we eat polar bear?
other political faction lies about stuff! Okay, thats cool, when have they ever not.. on both sides.

learn to swim, learn to start fires with sticks, learn to live where live is possible... stop being a cunt.

>>9382946
Early cartography supports the idea that there was a connective ice shelf between antarctica and south america, and the ice shelf widened still before the industrial age even happened.

It is 100% myth to attribute warming to manmade alone, resting on a base 99% myth that any extra CO2 wouldn't first settle into soil or be forced out of the atmosphere via rainclouds than have any detrimental effects on air quality or atmospheric ability to retain an unnecessary amount of heat.

It is pride and hubris to think man had done it and man can fix it.

>>9382974
data doesn't support that, natural warming only accounts for up to 10% of the recent warming

daily reminder that these threads are created by some flat earther sperg and it's not worth the time or effort to argue with him.

>>9382980
I feel like you didn't actually read the post.

>>9382984
lol idgaf I just wrote an exam on this bullshit

>>9382987
Map of antarctica 1531, good job being a stupid goy faggot who only regurgitates his programming.

>>9382974
>any extra CO2 wouldn't first settle into soil
Learn about ideal gas law. Gases don't settle like fluid does, and will continue to mix. This is 19th century stuff.

>or be forced out of the atmosphere via rainclouds
CO2 does dissolve into rain droplet and turn into carbonic acid. However the average lifetime of rain droplet is 2 minutes, which is nowhere near enough to dissolve out the 3000 petagram of CO2 that is floating in the atmosphere.

Speaking of CO2 sink though you almost had it right. There is a large body of water where atmospheric CO2 dissolves into, and act as a major sink for atmospheric CO2. It is called the ocean. When CO2 sinks into the ocean, it takes a hydrogen molecule from water to form bicarbonate ions, and as a result reduces the pH of the ocean, hence ocean acidification which is not a good thing at all for life in the ocean.

>>9382995
what does that have to with anything

>>9382999
Oh yes, can't forget the acid oceans.

>>9382987
... exam? so, university tier garbage; with more than likely an also; if not moreso, biased professor that thinks the earth will burst into flames if mankind (but not woman kind.. because, lets face it, they are perfect) were to just fuck off and die?

How about we keep the planet clean because it would be nice to live on a clean planet. Not because of some horror story that may or may not even be true.

>>9383007
dumb frogposter

>>9383013
Because it would cripple our economy if we enacted policy in the first world and third world would just pick up the slack with more pollution to meet demand

>>9383008
my Prof is actually pretty cool, he's the geochem guy
I wish I could work in his lab but my chem skills are pre shit

>>9383022
Most of the third world needs to go anyway.

>>9381797
Climate change is a myth. We're fine. Doomsayers have been predicting the end of the world due to climate change since the 1800s. Back in the 70s scientists were saying that we needed to prepare for DOOM because a new Ice Age was about to start and destroy civilization as we knew it. What happened? Fucking nothing.

>>9383042
See >>9382319

This is a science board. Please back your argument with primary citations, observational data, and evidence

>>9383042
Earth has been cooling for the past 50 million years and yet in the past 100ish years it's been warming
that's some crazy shit

>>9383002
Heres a map from 1855, you can see that antarctica had receded tremendously from south america. This was not even 90 years since the start of the industrial revolution yet it looks virtually identical to modern day antarctica. 30 years before the first car or electric lightbulb, maybe 1000 trains existed; not a significant amount of CO2 emission to influence anything nearly as much as the past 50 years alone: meaning there was an auxillary reason for the ice shelf melting unrelated to man, and ironically the ice shelf has not dramatically changed in nearly 300 years.

>>9383051
Or maybe people in 1855 don't know shit about Antarctica and can't tell the difference between seasonal sea ice and actual continents

>>9383044
>Please back your argument with primary citations, observational data, and evidence
Can I use the same citations, observational data and evidence that conclusively proved we were going to have a new ice age that would blanket the planet in ice back in the 70s

>>9383059
>seasonal sea ice

>>9383051
Do you have autism or something?
>>9383042
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

>>9383051
you know those maps were super duper inaccurate until we had geospatial tech right?

>>9383059
Here's another older map, Mercator's, showing the ice bridge again. He even went as far as making a more detailed map of south america looking for a water path through the continent to get to the other side.

>>9383062
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3899

who's the brainlet now

>>9383044
AHHHHH! CLIMATE CHANGE! WE'RE ALL DOOMED! THE EARTH WILL BE A SNOWBALL WE'LL ALL FREEZE! Oh wait, I mean THE EARTH WILL BE A FIREBALL WE'LL ALL FRY! Gotta be right this time!

>>9383060
see
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

>>9383068
The guy didn't even get Madagascar's and Australia's coast correct buddy. This is one of the dumbest line of reasoning there is.

>>9383072
Whoa, so some magazines and newspaper articles reported something that hardly any actual academics were claiming at the time, really gets my noggin joggin

>>9383065
>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
That some A+ post hoc face saving right there. Do you think we'll have a "The myth of the 2010s global warming consensus" paper in 30 years when the people who pumped up the hysteria fall flat on their face yet again?

>>9383081
Nice strawman bud, maybe if you actually read the paper you would be able to have an actual rebuttal, but all you can do for now is show what a dumb plebeian you are.

>>9383075
Theres a difference between lowballing a shape thousands of miles long and being unable to discern a mile wide path between antarctica and south america.

>>9383083
>>9383075

>>9383082
I mean it's clearly just bullshit trying to save face in order to make their current climate change hysteria look valid. The people would wake up too easily if they didn't try to invalidate the shit they were saying back then. In a few years they'll be saying "W-we didn't all agree that the Earth was warming! That was just a few extremists!" and we'll be back to square one.

>>9383083
People back then didn't know the difference between seasonal sea ice, ice shelves, and continents, nor do they have icebreaker ships. They just drew the edge of the continent whenever they see sea ice and their ship cannot pass through.

This is giving these early explorers the biggest benefit of the doubt. Likelier explanation is that they're not that bright and they all die at 40 of scurvy because they don't understand nutritions

>>9383087
ayy lmao

>>9383089
Again, too much of a brainlet to come up with an actual rebuttal and just resort to ad hom and other fallacious """arguments."""
Go put on your big boy pants, and do some reading. Your entire argument of a "consensus" in global cooling in the 1970s is simply put, a fraudulent and false argument with no basis in reality, yet all you can do is rant and rave and try to change the subject because the truth is you have no actual argument to present.
>The people would wake up too easily if they didn't try to invalidate the shit they were saying back then. In a few years they'll be saying "W-we didn't all agree that the Earth was warming! That was just a few extremists!" and we'll be back to square one.
The only "hysterical" person I see in this thread is the autist that took the time to write out this shite and un-ironically believes in it.

The sad truth is you're just another dunning kruger, low information tard that has deluded themselves into believing they have all the answers, and that everyone else is wrong because you're so super smart and special, better than all the (((sheeple))) that blindly believe in evidence based science. Go you for being such an edgy moron I guess.

>>9381822
So you believe things are true because they're a fact? You should be able to argue for everything you hold true to yourself.

kek

>>9383105
>is simply put, a fraudulent and false argument with no basis in reality
Of course you'll say that because if you admitted that they were dead wrong back then it puts a huge hole in your current hysteria pushing. Fact is The exact same percentage of scientists who are sure gloabal warming is occuring now thought global cooling was occuring a few decades ago. Not surprising in the least that a few of them are desperate to go back and scrub the record clean. Doomsaying doesn't carry as much weight when you can simply point back and say "Bt Dr Rosenberg, you said the Earth would be a snowball by now"

>>9383097
>cold weather is ice
Ye i remember winter 2010 when an ice shelf swallowed most of the united states.

>>9383115
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3899

Its a map of sea ice and snow cover. My point is seasonal sea ice fluctuates, therefore early explorers might not get the edges of Antarctica right. Keep deflecting, play linguistics game, and post more pepes though as if you're so smart

>>9383114
No, I present actual evidence showing that there was no scientific agenda in the 1970s among scientists claiming the earth was cooling. The vast majority of earth science papers on climate change published at this time (which was still a small amount because the field was just emerging then) was focused on a warming planet, not a cooling one. You can post whatever newspaper or magazine articles you want, that does not change this fact. What is published in the scientific literature is what matters, that's how those doing actual scientific research communicate their ideas to their colleagues, and it clearly shows when you look at the evidence that the entire cooling consensus is fraudulent.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

Do some reading, though I know you won't because it won't confirm your incredibly deep biases. Head is stuck way too far up your own ass to see facts and evidence at this point.

>>9383062
>>9383071
kek denier btfo yet again, more news at 11

>>9383132
>No, I present actual evidence
Fabricated evidence that is a very transparent attempt at trying to sweep the climate change mistakes of the past under the rug. Why is it so hard for you to see that if a person is attempting to push a climate change myth in 2008 they might be incentivised to go back and try and rewrite history so the climate change scientists didn't make the same mistake in the past and try to change it to "It was just a few of us! I swear!"

So it was just a minority of scientists pushing global cooling, ok. Then why did EVERY media outlet back then publish stories about cooling only? Isn't it weird that if less than 10% of scientists were pushing global cooling as a theory that they were so well represented in the media? You realize the implications of that right? We can assume that global warming is pushed by less than 10% of climate scientists and the media are picking up on the hysteria to push a narrative. Or are you going to suddenly swing back and claim the media has got it right this time and it's pure coincidence that it matches with your personal opinions.

You are going to be very, very embarrassed in 20 years when you're trying to pretend you didn't buy into the hokem and have to say "I knew it was fake all along, just like global cooling!"

>>9383114
>Of course you'll say that because if you admitted that they were dead wrong back then it puts a huge hole in your current hysteria pushing
I present scientific evidence backing my argument. Your conspiracy has zero evidence to support it, but please continue to embarrass yourself.
>Fact is The exact same percentage of scientists who are sure gloabal warming is occuring now thought global cooling was occuring a few decades ago
False, yet you have no evidence to actually back up this claim. The fact is, as I already stated above, atmospheric sciences was an emerging scientific field at the time, and there was an observed cooling trend from the 1940s to the 1970s, which is why a few of these researchers were studying Earth potentially headed into another cooling phase. However, as I already showed in multiple posts, most research published at the time discussed the implications of a warming atmosphere due to CO2 emissions, not a cooling scenario.
>Not surprising in the least that a few of them are desperate to go back and scrub the record clean.
Pure, conspiracy delusion with zero evidence to back up what you say yet again.
>Doomsaying doesn't carry as much weight when you can simply point back and say "Bt Dr Rosenberg, you said the Earth would be a snowball by now"
Again, this is /pol/think at work, you have no actual argument so you just keep shifting and changing the topic to suit yourself, even though it has nothing to do with what I posted.

pic related is a bit more "balanced" of a news article from nat geo, but again, this is not a scientific paper or published research, but it shows that not all media outlets were jumping on the cooling train even, and that there still was uncertainty about which direction the climate was headed. The true impact of anthropogenic activity on the Earth's climate would be much better understood as more and more data and observations have been made.

>>9383173
>Fabricated evidence that is a very transparent attempt at trying to sweep the climate change mistakes of the past under the rug.
You are so fucking desperate, look at how once again you simply revert to conspiratard mode and refuse to actually address the argument.
> Why is it so hard for you to see that if a person is attempting to push a climate change myth in 2008 they might be incentivised to go back and try and rewrite history so the climate change scientists didn't make the same mistake in the past and try to change it to "It was just a few of us! I swear!"
Again, just 100% tripe, you make no actual argument, you just claim everything is a conspiracy so you don't have to have the scary thought of looking at something that might debunk and disprove your retarded cognitive biases. I appreciate all the effort you're putting into keeping yourself in a delusional state of mind though, it's quite fascinating to watch the process of a brainlet contradicting himself multiple times.

>So it was just a minority of scientists pushing global cooling, ok.
Wow, so you finally admit that the evidence I posted is correct, congratulations.
>Then why did EVERY media outlet back then publish stories about cooling only?
Post evidence that "every media outlet" published cooling stories. Above I posted one such example that is reporting uncertainty to this argument.
It's almost as if the media can take something and run with it, sensationalize the actual science just like what happens today, for example when that NASA EM drive was revealed.

>>9383173
>Or are you going to suddenly swing back and claim the media has got it right this time and it's pure coincidence that it matches with your personal opinions.
Retard, I don't go to the media for my information about climate science, I go to the fucking literature. And I'm damn sure there is a massive amount of misinformation in the media about global warming, including some hysterical misinformation that misinterprets the actual published research. Again, you're just generalizing everything without citing specific examples.

>You are going to be very, very embarrassed in 20 years when you're trying to pretend you didn't buy into the hokem and have to say "I knew it was fake all along, just like global cooling!"
Some serious inferiority complex projection coming here buddy, you need to calm your ass down, stop with the fallacious arguments and step back and read the retarded bullshit you type out. Why are you so emotionally invested in this? Take the time to examine your own arguments, try to be non-biased and examine the actual scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming. It's pretty easy to access the literature itself these days and read scientific papers and understand the arguments they put forth. Re-examine and criticize your own arguments and come out a stronger person, what are you afraid of? That it won't confirm your conspiracy (((logic)))?

I mean fuck, it's amazing that such easy to understand concepts are apparently impossible for you brainlets to understand.

>>9381797

Why do you want carbon taxing so much?

Don't you get that you would also be getting fucked by that and not the rich people you hate so much?

>>9381893
how the fuck was the average global temperature falling from 1880 - 1920 when we were literally sending unfiltered coal smog into the atmosphere?

>>9383278
>unfiltered coal smog into the atmosphere?
That's the reason. Aerosols reflect heat back to space. Volcanoes which emits tons of aerosols are associated with global cooling. The clean air act passed in the 70s and regulation of surface aerosol emission ironically accelerate global warming. However aerosols only stay for a year or so in the atmosphere, therefore continuously dumping aerosol into the atmosphere to combat global warming is not an option.

Unlike greenhouse gases, aerosols are solids so they "settle" to the ground eventually

>>9383297
putting aerosols in the stratosphere to nucleate cloud formation has potential, the residence time is much longer high in the atmosphere

Humans both cool (sulfate aerosols, ozone depletion) and warm (GHGs) the Earth with air pollution but the warming is much greater.

>>9383297
that looks photoshopped

idk why it would be
but those people look like they were added in, they have glowing halos around, shitty crop work

wtf

dust bowl was a lie?

>>9381797


Randall Carlson actually answered this question pretty fucking well and he's a geologist and it pretty much hints at the fact that you are wrong OP.

>>9383322
dust bowl was an ENSO phenomenon ircc
don't quote me on that :S

>>9383361
>Google Randall Carlson
>Sacred Geometry
>close window
You have to go back >>>/x/

>>9383373
He's a nutter, but he still answered the climate change question really well. If you want to keep on with why "ALL THE SCHITISTHS" then keep doing that. I provided the name of someone who scientifically makes an argument why the climate change question is dumb. At least from the perspective that we are the prime movers. He's a geologist who's decided to delve into the whacky. Doesn't remove the fact he's a seasoned geologist who's well established in the community on this topic.

>>9383436
>He's a nutter
Maybe you should stop there, rather than scrounging the bottom of the barrel for anyone who conform to your own personal beliefs, rather than sticking it to facts and observations.

Go take intro to earth science class, look up the evidence and papers yourselves. Hell, read up on Svante Arrhenius' 1896 simple thermodynamic >>9382608 paper. You wouldn't let 19th century scientist outsmart you, wouldn't you??

>>9383072

>>9383471
Lies! Fucking leftist liberal lies! F...f.... Fake news!

>>9383471
Kek the good ol' times of 1912 when nobody can bust your nut for plagiarism

https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341&dq=this+tends+to+make+the+air+a+more+effective+blanket+for+the+earth&source=bl&ots=QvdH-SgFLl&sig=WiPUNOIzM6udOSTBm2VXzRQB9K8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQq8apj_bPAhUa3YMKHfCZDLQQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q&f=false

>>9383471
Nice.

>>9383479
Holy shit, they've been at it for over 100 years.

>>9383552
just how deep does this leftist conspiracy go? fucking KIKES with their libral WARMING SCAM. Jews fucking did this, Hitler was fucking right.

>>9383479

Heh

>>9383560
>Someone posts hard evidence that global warming shilling has been going on for the last century
>"omg you conspiracy theorists!"
Why is the left so invested in the idea that global warming MUST be true? Really makes you think.

>>9382923
Ask N'awlins.

>>9381797
Why do government need a conspiracy to tax you? Isn't taxing one of their duties anyway?

>>9382995
>>9382974
>Early cartographers must be 100% accurate
if there was a connective shelf between South America and Antarctica how did Magellan go through the Magellan Strait in the early 1500s

>>9381819
this
you're no better than him OP as you both possess the same levels of understanding and both of your conclusions are based on nothing

>>9381797
Potholer54
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

>>9382912
Take all the points that are below 0. Add them to all the points that are above 0.

You'll see little or no warming for that very graph. But all you shills do is look at the red line and scream about the upward trend. Sorry to dissapoint you, but that graph doesn't support global warming.

>>9384303
>Take all the points that are below 0. Add them to all the points that are above 0. You'll see little or no warming for that very graph.
What the fuck?
Do you just not understand what a "trend" is, or..?

>But all you shills do is look at the red line and scream about the upward trend
But the upward trend is also in the black line?

>Sorry to dissapoint you, but that graph doesn't support global warming.
HOW?

>>9384313
1940 was arbitrarily chosen as a 0 point for that graph. There are as many years cooler than 1940 as the are warmer. It's not hard to understand.

Humans aren't entirely causing it. However, we are speeding it up.

>>9381797
k there is a small amount of short term orbital forcing in the warming direction but the long term trend without human impact would be a cooling trend

>>9381797
If I could convince him to lobotomize you, i would do that instead. You are beyond stupid. You are at "if more troops to go Guam, Guam will tip over into the sea" levels of stupid.

>>9382434
Alright, I'll make this really fucking simple for you:
>In my country, 2017 is on track to be the hottest summer we've ever recorded
>2016 was also the hottest summer ever recorded
>so was 2015
>and 2014
>and 2013
>and 2012
>and 2011
>and 2010
>and 2009
>and so on and so on
are you detecting a trend yet?

>>9384991
>1940 was arbitrarily chosen as a 0 point for that graph. There are as many years cooler than 1940 as the are warmer. It's not hard to understand.
Jesus, you actually don't know what a trend is.

>>9384159
This route literally cuts through the mainland of south america so I dunno pal, but putting two and two together can't be that hard.

>>9381797
>big fucking problem
Why, does he babysit your kids and you are worried he will try and push the conspiracy on them?

I'm fairly certain that dumping several hundred billion tons of anything into the atmosphere every month is generally a bad idea.

>>9381797
No, because climate change is not caused by people

>>9381819
I want to hear cogent arguments for everything you believe in.

>>9382974
And this was an early map of New Zealand.

Do you see any problems with it?

>>9389518
... do you?

Isn't water vapor a much bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect on Earth than CO2?

>>9389646

I think he's showing that early maps of NZ don't show ridiculous amounts of sea ice or glaciation.

We're looking for the proofs of the other claim

>>9389678
No, what I am showing is that early maps aren't entirely accurate. Land formations were wrongly identified as islands at times, sometimes islands were drawn connected to land.

They couldn't really go everywhere, they couldn't really double check or triple check things on a single voyage.
On the New Zealand map, at least, they also plotted the course they took, so you can see why they made some of the mistakes they did, but also see where they filled in based off assumptions of the land formation.

>>9384303
The y axis is temperature anomaly, so 0 is arbitrary, probably chosen as the average value. By definition all values added together should equal 0, doesn't change the fact that most below zero are in the distant past while most above are in the nearer past, aka warming trend. Are you pretending to be retarded?

>>9384991
>1940 was arbitrarily chosen as a 0 point for that graph.
Well no, it wasn't, it's probably the average temperature anomaly is 0. But this has absolutely no effect on anything, you get the same warming trend no matter what you define 0 as.

>There are as many years cooler than 1940 as the are warmer.
Yes, and most of the warmer years are past 1940 while the cooler years are before it.

Jesus.

>>9389694

ah. Either way I'm with you on the point.

This thread is mostly trolling, I'm out of here.

>>9385134
Humans are entirely causing it. It would actually be worse if natural sinks were not absorbing a lot of our emissions. We would be slowly cooling without human action.

>>9383048
>cooling for the past 50 million years
Yeah it's pretty crazy how those multiple ice-ages never ended and the whole planet is like one big glacier by now

>>9386533
>magellan's expedition carefully picked their way through a maze of narrow straits
>then they altered their journals to make it look like they had rounded the cape of good hope

>>9389738
Retard, we're in an ice age right now, there is ice at the poles.

>>9389738
what?

>>9381797
>My cousin is in denial that climate change is caused by people.
Protip:it's not

>>9381797
there is literally nothing wrong with global warming. It is completely natural for animals like us and the cows affecting the biosphere. it is a cycle.

the only thing that would be fucked if the sea level rising is us and I wouldn't even be still alive when that happens so I dont really give a shit, the rest of the earth would just move on quietly, beginning a new cycle.

Op don't post shit like this, the oil and gas companies have bots that auto reply to this with scientifically inaccurate statements.

Simplest way to persuade him is call him a fucking moron and walk away.

>>9389790
>It is completely natural for animals like us and the cows affecting the biosphere. it is a cycle.
It's like you just say a bunch of words without any care as to what they mean. You are scum.

>>9389795
no argument?

>>9389796
no argument?

>>9389795
It's a bot or shill, more likely a bot

>>9389807
>ad hominem without argument

classic brainlet

Climate change and race threads... another /pol/ raid. They really hate this board. I think it's because they hate reality so much, and thus hate science. It must be hard to live in world you do not understand, but also do not want to understand.

>>9389795
Can I get a graph showing historic trends in cow cycles over the past 300 years.

>>9389826
>cow cycles
You mean the thing you just made up?

>>9389822
climate change and race are scientific, this is /sci/, stands for science. If you don't like science because it hurts your feefee you can go back to >>>/reddit/

>>9389830
hey I don't care if it's fictional I just want a graph where one axis is cows

>>9389832
Posts like this should result in a ban.

>>9389848
I just want you to fuck off with your low effort trolling.

>>9389850
This entire thread is low effort trolling I just want my fair share of (You)s.

>>9389849
>no argument

another brainlet in /sci/

hmm...

>>9381797
Both you and him are correct though
Climate change is a thing, but the current plans to "fix" it are blatant attempts to tax people for existing, through that bullshit ass carbon tax

>>9381797
>He's convinced it's some sort of conspiracy by the government so that they can tax us.
America ladies and gentlemen.

>>9381903
golly it must suck to be so stupid you think a chart displaying global AVERAGE temperature means that it is uniformly 0.5c hotter everywhere

>>9382018
>6 billion non-white foreigners who are the actual culprits of the supposed carbon emissions
You are beyond mentally retarded as you dont seem to understand the concept of carbon footprint. The cliffnotes of which are that no, by far, westerners impact on climate change is the highest.

>>9382454
People over the age of 50 are generally the scum of modern society and are directly responsible for much of the going ons of the shithole we now inhabit.

>>9383589
Why is the american public so invested in the idea that man made climate change is even debatable. Everywhere else in the entire world its scientific fact, the irony being that several major american institutions like the federal gov and the military also consider it to be fact.

>>9389849
they would if you fucking reported them
instead you eat the bait instead

>>9390298
>implying it has to be some shadowy conspiracy
this is giving them the chance to raise taxes and gain power without losing too many votes
any government or politician would be jumping for joy at such an opportunity

>hurr, there's no global farming!!!

>>9390443
Not really. They tend to prefer to give tax cuts to their rich buddies who fund their campaigns.

>>9382974
You're wrong. 17th century maps show that Antarctica didn't exist back then and has to be a later creation.

>>9381920
Skeptical Science is a blog written by an aging hippie liberal who admits he's not a scientist.

>>9390502
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

>>9389728
>>9389731
That's why I said there's been no net warming in the last 120 years.

I.e. it's OK for the earth to warm without panicking that humans are to blame.
>>9390512
You can be wrong and dumb, then it's not as hominem.

>>9390567
>That's why I said there's been no net warming in the last 120 years.
The graph clearly shows net warming over the past 120 years. The temperature from 120 years ago is significantly less than it is now, and the trend over that period is positive. What 0 temperature anomaly is defined as has NOTHING to do with any of this. Again, are you pretending to be retarded?

>I.e. it's OK for the earth to warm without panicking that humans are to blame.
I don't see how this means no net warming, or that humans are not to blame. Are you just writing random sentences and hoping they are connected to each other?

>You can be wrong and dumb, then it's not as hominem.
You didn't show any of those arguments are wrong, just attacked the author. Textbook ad hominem.

>>9390498
Why do you think that these maps must be accurate?

>>9390638
The shapes are very accurate for its time.

>>9382974
Yes clearly all the extra CO2 has been absorbed and humans have nothing to do with it...

>>9381797
climate change is real but not that dangerous
it is just blown out of proportions because:
-jews want undeserved monies
-researchers want grants and try to cover the fact that their field of study is useless

>>9390606
You're confusing me with someone else.
Ad hominem is a false implication. No implication has been made so no ad hominem.

As far as warming goes, the point is that if the net warming is 0, which is what the graph clearly shows, then the fact that it's been warming in the last 60 years isn't alarming.

>>9390733
>You're confusing me with someone else.
Then why are you replying to those posts?

>Ad hominem is a false implication.
No, ad hominem is an attack on a person's character. An attack of a person's character in place of an argument is fallacious. No implication needs to be made.

>As far as warming goes, the point is that if the net warming is 0, which is what the graph clearly shows
The graph clearly shows net warming of more than a degree. Adding all temperature anomalies has nothing to do with calculating the amount of warming. The amount of warming is the change in temperature between the past and the present. Temperature anomaly is not change in temperature.

For example, if I define 0 height anomaly as the average height over your lifetime, then summing height anomaly would result in 0. Does that mean you have not grown taller since you were born?

>>9382319
>On average, only 71% of energy entering the Earth is leaving. 2nd law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy states that when a system had energy imbalance, T must go up.
What are plants and living organisms?
Do you think all the energy in fossil fuels just appeared there magically? No, it's accumulated sunlight.

>>9381905
>several meters
you're a fucking retard

>>9389849
>questioning things makes me feel bad, we should ban it

>>9389761
>>9389748
Man-made climate change apostles will never adress statistics that show it was MUCH hotter millions of years ago, and that life flourished like never before.
There were crocodiles and palm trees in the subarctic, but now we're supposed to panic over 1 degree celsius of increase.

>>9390911
The amount of solar energy being absorbed by photosynthesis is 1-2%, it's irrelevant. The vast vast majority of it goes to heating the planet. Not to mention that we are releasing the energy from fossil fuels much faster than its accumulated.

>>9390498
You are a certified retard.

>>9390932
>Man-made climate change apostles will never adress statistics that show it was MUCH hotter millions of years ago, and that life flourished like never before.
This is great, if you're a dinosaur. Unfortunately, you are (supposedly) a human, which means you are not adapted to living in the climate of millions of years ago, and neither is the ecosystem you rely on.

>>9389748
>>9389761
It boggles my mind that the same people who say that climate change is this doomsday-level event can then post charts like these without batting an eye. Sure, perhaps carbon emissions are contributing to a global rise in temperature, but based off these charts, if we can trust the validity of the data represented on the chart does that not suggest that a certain degree of temperature variation, even that well outside what we've experienced in the past century, is actually well within the norm for the planet?

I mean yea, there's a chance that we're causing it, but you can't deny that governments and certain entities are misrepresenting the issue and twisting it for their own gains when they fail to acknowledge this data while proposing carbon taxes and propping up cherry-picked studies saying that 94% of scientists agree that climate change is man-made.

>>9390932
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s

>>9390975
>It boggles my mind that the same people who say that climate change is this doomsday-level event
Who said it's a doomsday level event? If you can't even describe your opponent's position accurately then you don't deserve to participate in the discussion.

>Sure, perhaps carbon emissions are contributing to a global rise in temperature,
Not perhaps, it's a basic scientific fact, you delusional mong.

>but based off these charts, if we can trust the validity of the data represented on the chart does that not suggest that a certain degree of temperature variation, even that well outside what we've experienced in the past century, is actually well within the norm for the planet?
LOL if you actually compare the rates you'll see that the current rate of warming is far far higher than anything humans have experienced. Interglacial warming is a degree of magnitude slower than current warming. If an argument does not make sense, make sure you've gotten the premises correct!

>>9389746
What? Are you serious?

>>9390983
Hmmm, yes, because throwing insults around makes for a more well-constructed argument. You shouldn't ignore all the people who push global warming while fearmongering, saying that if we don't change now the world will be a wasteland by 2050 and other such rubbish. Oh, wait, now it's 2100 but you get the picture.

I'm not saying we shouldn't take steps to fix what we've done to the environment, or ignore the massive amounts of pollution over China or anything like that. I'm just saying that the issue might be a little overblown, is all, because government has an interest in it. I don't pretend to be a scientist or to even understand all the principles behind global warming, but I can see someone's trying to pull a fast one when meme scientists like Bill Nye and Degrasse Tyson are shilling for global warming on television while actual scientists are telling them their fears are exaggerated or when Obama is citing a study that cherrypicked papers that were peer-reviewed by a selection of peers that agreed with the global warming theory and excluded a number of papers that were not reviewed or ran counter to the narrative to arrive at their 94% consensus.

>>9381797
>denial
You're such an honest and fair person. You're just so neutral and objective. You're a real asset to scientific community, you fucking lemming.

>>9391013
> I dun't no nuttin'

only thing you got right

>>9391013
What does muh politicians and muh Bill Nye have to do with the topic of discussion? I could pull out any number of idiot deniers saying stupid shit, but that wouldn't show AGW is real. That's what this thread is about. And it's better to be correct for the wrong reasons than be wrong for the wrong reasons.

>when Obama is citing a study that cherrypicked papers that were peer-reviewed by a selection of peers that agreed with the global warming theory and excluded a number of papers that were not reviewed or ran counter to the narrative to arrive at their 94% consensus.
Which study did this? And if you don't realize the vast majority of climatologists agree with AGW then you are, again, delusional.

>>9391023
greenland =/= global

>>9390971
Niggers have no problem living in Sweden and whites in Rhodesia. If you think humans are unable to adapt to a couple celsius degrees more you are just stupid.

>>9391023
That graph is fake, the last data point in that data set is from 1855, not 2000. So it doesn't show global warming at all. So much for "honest, fair, neutral, objective." You're a real asset to fossil fuel shills, lemming.

>>9391032
climate =/= weather

not understanding this in 2017 is pants-on-head retarded

>>9391030
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Here is the study that made the claim, IIRC.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001/meta

This is a paper that refutes it.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/meta

Of course, the authors of the original study posted another paper refuting the refutation and reinforcing their claims

>>9391032
And once again you don't understand the difference between local and global temperature. A few degrees of global temperature increase means massive sea level rise and massive changes in agriculture all over the world.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

>>9381920
>"Climate's changed before" is a myth
>source column of the table contains nothing but Twitter icons

>>9382319
>it's another liberal-arts-major-doesn't-know-what-the-first-and-second-laws-of-thermodynamics-are-but-Bill-Nye-taught-xir-what-to-say-to-sound-scientific episode

>>9390755
Wrong. It's not fallacious to attack character, without an implication it would be a non sequitor.

Your analogy is a false equivocation. Of course the change in height over time will increase, the point is that the increase says nothing about whether my height is average or midget or lanklet. That's why agw fails because the warming trend doesn't say anything.

>>9391105
>the point is that the increase says nothing about whether my height is average or midget or lanklet
Because we are comparing you to yourself, If you would like to point out another earth we can use as control in this case be my guest.

>>9391058
>source column
Why are you just making shit up?

>>9391105
>It's not fallacious to attack character,
I didn't say it was, I said in place of an argument it's fallacious. Don't try to misrepresent other people's arguments, it won't work.

>Of course the change in height over time will increase,
So you admit all those posts you spent claiming that there is no net warming were wrong? Thanks.

>That's why agw fails because the warming trend doesn't say anything.
The effects of warming have been discussed in this thread, why don't you read it?

Your feeble attempt to move the goalposts fails in every way.

>>9391058
Is this your first time using a computer Cletus?

>>9391133
W-what? You mean there's no source at all?
Hmm...

>>9391151
Maybe you should actually click on the argument you stupid fuck...

>>9390932
You're ignoring rates. Rates fucking matter. Consider the difference between taking the stairs and jumping off of the roof. These are literally million-year timescales. Saying "oh but Earth were hotter 10 million years ago, so everything is A-okay" is like saying "the ground underneath cities gradually shifts up and down, so Earthquakes which only move the ground up or down by 6 inches are completely safe"

>>9391161
>>9391049
>>9391046
So the worst case scenario is:
- coastal cities slowly become flooded over decades, people gradually relocate to meet the moving coastline
- parts of Africa become unhospitable
- agricultural opportunities improve in northern cold countries
- global temperatures reach a point that has been reached many times already in life's history

It's not like we will "destroy the planet" or cause a fucking human extinction event.

>>9391352
>flooded over decades
Hurricanes wont wait that long.

>>9391352
No one said it will destroy the planet, why do you keep repeating this straw man? Is it because it's all you have?

The argument is that it will be very costly to humans and that mitigation will cost less.

>>9391359
My family owns several real estates in a city far away from a coastline, so - if anything - I will profit from this

>>9391352
The issue comes when the ice pack in greenland finishes melting and releases a massive wall of death in the form of a huge methane bubble. Then there is the whole thing with how seas are losing a majority of their fishes and crustaceans are all dying from ocean acidification.

So loss of ocean as a food/medicine source and part of many important nutrient cycles on top of massive walls of death in Europe and a couple other places.

>>9391363
>Fuck literally the entire coast of every continent and then some, I stand to personally profit from this.
You are a good person.

>>9391366
>The issue comes when the ice pack in greenland finishes melting and releases a massive wall of death in the form of a huge methane bubble

Not going to happen.

>seas are losing a majority of their fishes and crustaceans are all dying from ocean acidification.

Not happening either.

>>9391374
Alright, you have magically stopped both ocean acidification and the release of trapped methane into the atmosphere with the beauty and elegance of your post. The very stars have shifted to make the universe conform to these words and as such I must bow to thee.

>>9391139
You said ad hominem was an attack on character, which is wrong. If I call you a dumbass, that's not a fallacy.

When I say warming, I'm talking about the overall energy in the atmosphere in the last 120 years. The net energy change, and therefore temperature, is 0. The fact that it's warming says nothing about how warm it is now, or how warm is too warm.

>>9391377

There's no trapped methane.

Ocean acidification is a meme. Water doesn't suck carbon dioxide into it, it's too dense for a gas to enter it like that.

>>9391386
tfw ocean senpai doesnt succ you

>>9391388
Water doesn't dissolve CO2 bro.

>>9391386
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions

Dear god you know nothing of chemistry and you are trying to lecture on how ocean acidification doesn't exist. It's a simple thermodynamic equilibrium that you study in the 1st semester of PChem. Gases dissolve readily into water, if they didn't there would be no oxygen in water and all the fishes would be fucking dead.

>>9391383
>You said ad hominem was an attack on character, which is wrong.
Wrong.

>If I call you a dumbass, that's not a fallacy.
Are you illiterate? I didn't say it was. I said that if you called me a dumbass in place of an argument then it's a fallacy.

>When I say warming, I'm talking about the overall energy in the atmosphere in the last 120 years. The net energy change, and therefore temperature, is 0.
Again, this is wrong. Temperature is a measure of average kinetic energy and has been increasing over the last 120 years. Dumb fuck.

>The fact that it's warming says nothing about how warm it is now, or how warm is too warm.
The fact that you're a faggot says nothing about you being a dumb fuck, and yet you are both.

>>9391395
Literally have to use vacuums to degas solutions for chemical reactions so they don't cause issues in reactions.

>>9391395
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions

Fluff, no actual proof.

>Gases dissolve readily into water, if they didn't there would be no oxygen in water and all the fishes would be fucking dead.

Show me CO2 dissolving with water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_global_warming#Ice_loss_and_sea_level_rise
>the Antarctic Ice Sheet could melt completely over the following millennia, contributing 58 m to global sea-level rise, and 30 m within the first 1000 years.
>Greenland may become warm enough by 2100 to begin an almost complete melt over more than 1,000 years

http://euanmearns.com/the-half-life-of-co2-in-earths-atmosphere-part-1/
>The half life of ~27 years is equivalent to a residence time for CO2 of 39 years

https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/the-end-of-fossil-fuels
>our known oil deposits will last until 2052
>the coal deposits we know about will run out in 2088

So let's do some simple math.
- Wide-scale use of fossil fuels will end in 100 years due to reserve exhaustion.
- The half-life of CO2 in atmoshpere is ~29 years, the residence time is then ~40 years. Thus, CO2 from fossil emissions should disappear within 150 years.
- It would take over a 1000 years to melt the Antarctic ant Arctic polar caps

Hmm... Makes me think.

>>9391410
Get BTFO B R A I N L E T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KbEV85rJhs

>>9391419

>being this retarded

>>9391410
carbonate ions
methyl calthrates are methane dissolved in ice
anyway I'm pretty sure most of the CO2 in water comes from dissolution of carbonate minerals

>>9391422
Wow, what a rebuttal

>>9391410
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5963/322
Literally oodles of primary sources in that wikipedia article you could have searched through but instead you decided you wanted to remain without information.

You either studied mathematics or psychology either way you are out of your depth here. You have no understanding for the mechanisms for the physical world if you think gases can't dissolve in water cause it's too "dense".

>>9391424
It's an equilibrium with atmosphere. If CO2 levels are too high in the water the atmospheric levels increase and vice versa.

>>9391420

He's just changing the temperature of the water which will affect a Ph test. Plus, no one's blowing CO2 into the oceans like that.

>>9391429

Oodles of fluff.

I started studying quantum chemistry when I was 7 years old so I know my stuff.

>>9391433
You are either thick or a troll of the highest order.
>>9391436
Oh yeah you are a troll.

Nice job stringing me along.

>>9391432

Is CO2 heavier or lighter than water?

>>9391444
Could you weigh in on my post >>9391419 ?

>>9391433
The temperature change would not have such a large effect on acidity. For example going from room temperature to body temperature would lower pH by about 0.02, not 2.

>>9391446
Heavier but this is influenced by a lot of things. Water has really strong intramolecular bonds which is why it tends to stay as a liquid at room temperature.

The amount dissolved at STP is 90 cm3 of CO2 per 100 mL of water. Since it has many reactions the total representative population of CO2 based ions might be greater.

>>9391419
If you look at the paper being cited in the first link you posted, it directly refutes the claim that current fossil fuel reserves are not enough.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/8/e1500589

This is because you ignored feedbacks. Warming doesn't end when CO2 is absorbed, otherwise glacial cooling would be rapid.

>>9391444

Does the temperature of water affect a ph test? If yes, then the experiment is useless.

>>9391458
The effect of temperature will not be visible in a strip test for pH. There is no way heating water will lower the pH by 2. Go try it yourself if you don't believe me.

>>9391447
Okie might be saying things already addressed.

>>9391419
I'm more worried about the short term effects on life. Most animals and plants that are in trouble based on global warming are not gonna last until we manage to stop using fossil fuels. More so there is the damage that is being done in terms of radioactivity, and secondary pollutants being released into the atmosphere by burning coal or oil. I mean it's a pretty cool idea if it is true but just waiting for all our current fuel sources run out s a scary way to do it. Plus there are huge areas that are not explored or determined to have or not have coal/oil so those projections may be way off.

Another issue is the possibility of the release of other things like methane and how the way we are treating the planet is hurting it's carbon fixation ability.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/tropical-forests-carbon-rise-oxygen-study-climate-change-emissions-a7974941.html

It's a nice idea but it's way to passive to work effectively and opens us as a species up to more risk than I personally think we should.

>>9391448

Higher temperatures make the water register acidic on a ph scale, not only that but all sorts of shit in your mouth will be blown into the water as well. It's a highly inaccurate test.

>>9391454
How does water dissolve CO2?

>>9381797
wow a 2 celcius degree rise in average temperatures, big deal. winters are still gonna be cold for all you people worrying

>>9391468
>Higher temperatures make the water register acidic on a ph scale
Not on a strip test, which is what he used. The effect is too small. You lose.

>>9391457
>you ignored feedbacks
>Warming doesn't end when CO2 is absorbed
How do you explain then that during the medieval warm period, which was warmer than nowadays, a feedback wasn't launched to melt the entire Greenland ice?

>>9391468
First watch this:
http://www.middleschoolchemistry.com/lessonplans/chapter5/lesson8
Then read this if you can handle it:
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2117/1265

>>9391470
Think of the planet like a human, a 2 degree Celsius rise in average body temperature is very dangerous for a human in the long term.

>>9391472

And what about all the other shit in his mouth polluting the water?

>>9391475
You do realise that carbonated drinks go flat right? Because the CO2 is lighter than the water it rises out.

>>9391473
>How do you explain then that during the medieval warm period, which was warmer than nowadays, a feedback wasn't launched to melt the entire Greenland ice?
That warming is minuscule compared to today both in magnitude and speed. No, it wasn't warmer than now, and it wasn't even globally warm.

>>9391466
>Most animals and plants that are in trouble based on global warming are not gonna last until we manage to stop using fossil fuels
Even if they don't, will it affect humanity in any noticeable way?

>secondary pollutants being released into the atmosphere by burning coal or oil.
Yes, it's a valid concern, but not related to global warming.

>Another issue is the possibility of the release of other things like methane
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane
>Methane has a large effect but for a relatively brief period, having an estimated lifetime of 8.9 years in the atmosphere

>>9391480
CO2 is heavier than water.

Also your argument is structured as follows,
water can't become a solid
if you leave an ice cube in the sun it turns into a liquid, therefore water can't be solid.

If the CO2 is coming out of solution it had to have gotten in there in the first place.

Wait you are that troll again aren't you. You are good.

>>9391480
>And what about all the other shit in his mouth polluting the water?
Like what? Your breath is composed entirely of inert gases and CO2.

>>9391477
>Think of the planet like a human

Science bitch!

>>9391486
>CO2 is heavier than water.

You trolling? Gases are lighter than liquids. When you pop open a sody pop the gas wants to rush out doesn't it?

>>9391487

Saliva, bits of food, semen.

>>9391484
Yes, we are reliant on places like rain forests and coral reefs for novel chemical compounds and as stores of biodiversity to maintain healthy ecosystems planet wide. If a biosphere collapses humanity is really fucked. Plus there is the whole thing with how we get a lot of food from the sea and how that's all dying, I mean just talk to a marine biologist. Between the endless tears they'll tell you how their favorite marine life is all dying out.

Yeah but it is related to the usage of fossil fuels which is what you were discussing. Why use them if they fuck with the environment AND poison everything around them?

That point with the methane is nice but the worry is that it will trigger a domino effect and a lot more than will be gotten rid of in 8.9 years will enter the atmosphere and bump global temperatures up effectively killing a majority of temperature adapted life.

>>9391482
Reconstruced Greenland temperature history shows much warmer periods in the recent past where no icecap-melting feedback was set into motion.

Maybe the answer is this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Negative

>>9391490
H2O 18 AMU
CO2 44 AMU

>>9381822
The problem is that climate change isn't obvious. It's something better "taught" by propaganda and pressure from authority figures. Either that or very good education in science for te general population.

>>9391492
>Reconstruced Greenland temperature history shows much warmer periods in the recent past where no icecap-melting
False, your graph does not show current temperatures, it stops at 1855.

>>9391490
>When you pop open a sody pop the gas wants to rush out doesn't it?
That doesn't actually have to do with how heavy a thing is. Water boils but water is exactly as heavy as water.

>>9391490
>Saliva, bits of food, semen.
None of those are in your breath. You lose.

>>9391477
Temperatures on the planet regularly fluctuate by several tens of degrees unlike a human body

>>9391496
It stops at 1950. This doesn't invalidate my point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period#/media/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg

>>9391493

Observation trumps numbers.

>>9391505
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period#/media/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
This says years before present (1950) but doesn't end at 0, which would be 1950. It stops at 1855. You can't even read a simple graph, dunce.

>>9391497

Why do carbonated drinks go flat once opened? Where'd all the CO2 go?

>>9391501
Blowing through a straw will send a lot more than just CO2.

>>9391491
>we are reliant on places like rain forests and coral reefs for novel chemical compounds and as stores of biodiversity to maintain healthy ecosystems planet wide.
It's pure speculation and platitudes.
Biodversity is all nice and it stops marine biologists from crying, but there's no reason to suspect that this 2-3 degree celsius increase in global average temperature will destabilise ecosystems to the point where humans suffer.

>Yeah but it is related to the usage of fossil fuels which is what you were discussing
No, I'm discussing anthropogenic global warming.

>it will trigger a domino effect and a lot more than will be gotten rid of in 8.9 years will enter the atmosphere and bump global temperatures up effectively killing a majority of temperature adapted life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
During this extremely warm period, average global temperatures were estimated EIGHT degrees higher than nowadays - for 20.000 years. Life didn't go extinct.

With all due respect, but despite good intentions, you seem to not really know much about the subject.

>>9391509
Even if you add this 1 degree to account for increase 1855 - 2017, my point still stands.

>>9391511
Yeah it will send a lot of inert gases that don't make water more acidic.

>>9391511
Where does all the water in my pot go when I boil it?

>>9391516
That would be global temperature, not greenland temperature, your point still fails.

>>9391517

Ever heard of the breathalyzer test?

>>9391518
As we know, heat rises. As the heat gets hotter it starts to take the water with it, as the water enters the air it equilibrates with it, separating itself into lighter and lighter parts in the air.

>>9391529
>As we know
Apparently either you don't know or are terrible at explaining evaporation.

>>9391535

You're going to have to give me science smack down then and show me where I'm wrong.

>>9391539
Evaporation happens when high energy particles in a liquid escape and there is a net loss of them through the boundary layer between the liquid and the environment.

>>9381893
>no warming from 1940 till 1980
>when CO2 emissions increase really fast
if you brainlets knew what correlation is you'd understand that there's little correlation between CO2 emissions and observed temperatures

>but muh greenhouse gas
the way we're guessing how much effect CO2 has isn't reliable, its effect is overestimated. Besides the current trend started in the early 1800s, back when CO2 emissions were fucking nothing compared to now.

>>9381905
>hurr we're all gonna drown even though it's not even yet as hot as it was 1000 years ago

>>9385842
you're missing the point brainlet, his point was that it's warming (as part of a natural cycle after emerging from an ice age) but that extra CO2 isn't the cause

>>9391572
>hurr durr I don't know how to research before writing shit that has been debunked for years
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-basic.htm

>>9391567

So heat rises taking the surface water with it (due to it being under less pressure).

>>9391503
Temperatures vary wildly on the human body. With hair temperatures reaching below freezing and on hot days the soles of ones feet grow exceptionally hot. It's a metaphor on how a small change can be a big issue.

>>9391512
Pure speculation? On what the novel compounds? Cause that's how we found a shit load of drugs including the on of the first real chemotherapy drugs, taxol. And 2-3 degrees is more than enough, ecosystems are very delicate things and marine ones doubly so. We are already losing massive amounts of fish and crustacean sources that after being over fished are losing habitat due to changing climate effects. More than one fish population that was once a lucrative source of food and income has collapsed due to these effects.

Well as I said I'm a bit out of the loop, still my point stands that stopping the use of fossil fuels is a very very very good idea.

I didn't say the end of all life, please don't put words in my mouth. I said it would kill a majority of temperature adapted life, which if you look at the era cited there were. Massive marine die offs occurred as a result of this. More so the release of carbon into the atmosphere was at a rate of 0.2 gigatons vs. humans 10 gigatons per year, also we would all be dead if we went back in time to that period as humans can't survive in that sort of an atmosphere.

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying.

>>9391587
>More than one fish population that was once a lucrative source of food and income has collapsed due to these effects.

Or the fish got smart and moved elsewhere so as not to be caught.

>>9391595
Considering fish populations like that are extensively tracked and migration patterns recorded and updated. No.

I know this personally from a friend whose dad managed the fishing requirements and inventories for the pacific seaboard. It's a pretty gnarly problem right now. Kinda getting better though. fingers crossed.

>>9391599
>Considering fish populations like that are extensively tracked and migration patterns recorded and updated. No.

They'd have to chip all of the fish to do that.

>>9391582
>heat rises
No it doesn't.

>>9381797
Let's say climate change is actually caused by people, (a stance taken by most world leaders anyways), what are we doing/what can we do?
1. World leaders seem keen on some form of global carbon tax. The problem is that there's nothing we really have right now that can compete with the relative safety, widespread-use, and cost of fossil fuels. So pre-emptively taxing a major source of our energy to reduce consumption will only give more tax dollars to our governments and hurt existing industries.
2. The Paris Accords which everyone claimed would save the world was a non-binding agreement which means that people can do whatever the fuck they want. Western countries committed to aggressive goals but the biggest polluters as whole did not. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448318/paris-agreement-china-india-set-easy-emissions-goals And since it's non-binding, even if things currently look good, there's really no consequences for them if they don't meet the goals.
3. Perhaps most importantly, as much as everyone thinks we're the cause of global warming, none of us are willing to stop. Obama went to Africa in his private jet and told Africans that they can't have AC since the world would boil over. Al Gore claimed the polar bears would go extinct while flying around in his private jet. The point being that even if we agree that climate change is a problem, the vast majority of people are okay with it right up until they have to change their lifestyles.
So the only real solution is that we need to invest in alternative energy solutions that are feasible and cheap, but we should be doing this anyways since fossil fuel reserves are finite and nobody wants to end up in a mad max movies competing for the last gas reserves and alternative energies could lead to cool things like efficient space travel.
Point being, you shouldn't worry too much about what your friend's climate change denial since the only real solution to climate change is innovation and not taxes.

>>9391352
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

tropical: 0 - 23.5°
subtropical: 23.5° - 40°

We're all going to die unless we do what we are told, don't you get it already?

>>9391587
I'm aware of the fish problem, but it's because of rampant overfishing, not because of climate change.

Can you link any sources explaining how the predicted levels of climate change would cause humans harm by upsetting ecosystems?

>>9391155
>click
>same website
You can't just put "Source: myself" ya dingus.

>>9391905
>The problem is that there's nothing we really have right now that can compete with the relative safety, widespread-use, and cost of fossil fuels.
False, fossil fuels are the LEAST safe form of energy even if you ignore the effects of global warming. It's more lethal per TWh than other sources by several orders of magnitude.

>So pre-emptively taxing a major source of our energy to reduce consumption will only give more tax dollars to our governments and hurt existing industries.
Economists have estimated an optimal carbon tax path which maximizes the amount saved by mitigating AGW minus the cost to the economy from the tax. If you don't consider the economic benefits then talking about the costs is pointless.

>2. The Paris Accords which everyone claimed would save the world
Strawman.

>3. Perhaps most importantly, as much as everyone thinks we're the cause of global warming, none of us are willing to stop.
I don't see how two people advocating for global action flying on private jets shows that we are not willing to take global action to mitigate climate change. This is nothing but sophistry.

>Obama went to Africa in his private jet and told Africans that they can't have AC since the world would boil over.
This is false, he said that the world would boil over if sustainable energy sources were not developed.

>Al Gore claimed the polar bears would go extinct while flying around in his private jet.
No he didn't. He said polar bears would be harmed by warming.

Why do you need to lie if you actually believe your position?

If a carbon tax saved the economy more than it costs, would you support it? Or do you not actually care about the economy?

>>9392272
>False, fossil fuels are the LEAST safe form of energy even if you ignore the effects of global warming. It's more lethal per TWh than other sources by several orders of magnitude.
Sure, fossil fuels maybe unsafe in some respects, but I was talking about in combination of all three. Nuclear has unsafe, radioactive waste products while the rest have nowhere near the required energy output, cost, or efficiency combined to compete against fossil fuels.
>>So pre-emptively taxing a major source of our energy to reduce consumption will only give more tax dollars to our governments and hurt existing industries.
If you want to go the carbon tax route, then I want to see every country committed to this. Every single treaty/agreement in the past has let China/India get a pass since they are too valuable industrial powerhouses for western countries to just cold-turkey carbon emissions for them. Are we going to? No, because we value our lifestyles too much.
>Strawman.
Fair enough, but it's not too far from the truth. Literally every news network was saying trump ended the world when he didn't join it.
>I don't see how two people advocating for global action flying on private jets shows that we are not willing to take global action to mitigate climate change. This is nothing but sophistry.
If you're going to talk the talk, you better walk the walk. Obama classified climate change as a national security threat. Shouldn't he be the first person to at least do whatever he can to stop it? That means no flying private jets. Will he? No, since we value our lifestyles too much.
>This is false, he said that the world would boil over if sustainable energy sources were not developed.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-planet-will-boil-over-if-young-africans-are-allowed-cars-air-conditioning-big
>No he didn't. He said polar bears would be harmed by warming.
Okay, but polar bears populations are on the rise and his claim that they are drowning was debunked.
Cont.

>>9392327
>Why do you need to lie if you actually believe your position?
Ad hominem.
>If a carbon tax saved the economy more than it costs, would you support it? Or do you not actually care about the economy?
The last question presumes my answer. As for the first question,
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2017/6/1/15724162/trump-paris-climate-agreement-explained-briefly
We were set to pay 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to poorer countries. That included China and India. It is insane to claim this will help our economy. Why do they need our money?

And you never addressed my point about lifestyles, which I expected. If climate change is really such a devastating issue then why hasn't there been a huge movement to cut back on all our luxuries. Here's something simple: https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html%3famp why don't you stop eating meat? stopping driving is unreasonable but if there's anything you can do from your couch to help, it's this. Most people probably won't and it's completely natural. Throughout human history, our approach to solving problems has been innovation so we should be pouring our money into renewable energies research rather than asking people to cut back. Expecting people to adapt to a poorer standard of living is insane. Especially when this poorer standard of living is not equally enforced.

>>9392327
>but I was talking about in combination of all three.
The lethality is scaled per TWh, so that is irrelevant. Any combination of any other power sources would be at least 20 times less lethal than fossil fuels. Nuclear is actually the safest source:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61253-7/fulltext

>while the rest have nowhere near the required energy output, cost, or efficiency combined to compete against fossil fuels.
The effects of fossil fuels on the environment far outweigh the costs of other sources.

>If you want to go the carbon tax route, then I want to see every country committed to this. Every single treaty/agreement in the past has let China/India get a pass since they are too valuable industrial powerhouses for western countries to just cold-turkey carbon emissions for them.
China and India don't have nearly the emissions per capita as the US.

>Are we going to? No, because we value our lifestyles too much.
If we value our lifestyle, we should certainly have carbon taxes as climate change will affect our lifestyles far more than cheaper energy. You argument is essentially circular and a self-fulfilling prophecy. People won't support carbon taxes as long as people like you keep misrepresenting the facts.

>Literally every news network was saying trump ended the world when he didn't join it.
No they weren't, why do you have to exaggerate everything? Leaving the Paris Accord is bad because it makes us untrustworthy in the context of future agreements and gives others an excuse not to participate.

>>9392366
>The lethality is scaled per TWh, so that is irrelevant. Any combination of any other power sources would be at least 20 times less lethal than fossil fuels.
>The effects of fossil fuels on the environment far outweigh the costs of other sources.
Let's suppose this is true. What do you want to do about fossil fuels? It's certainly not going to disappear overnight. The most reasonable solution is to phase out fossil fuels gradually. I never said we shouldn't do anything. I'm saying that taxes and austerity is the incorrect solution.
>China and India don't have nearly the emissions per capita as the US.
In my first response, I said as a whole. We may have a larger per capita pollution but if they're polluting more in aggregate and they're population is increasing more quickly than our's they are the bigger problem.
>If we value our lifestyle, we should certainly have carbon taxes as climate change will affect our lifestyles far more than cheaper energy. You argument is essentially circular and a self-fulfilling prophecy. People won't support carbon taxes as long as people like you keep misrepresenting the facts.
Okay, then stop eating meat. You're not going to convince anyone that giving more of their money away and giving up things they once took for granted in their lives just because it is better for the environment is good, regardless of what anyone says. Why in the world do you think china and india and other developing countries deserve 100 billion dollars of our money while we are forced to have higher taxes and cut our coal plants while they dont have to do anything.
>why do you have to exaggerate everything?
Once again, it wasn't too much of an overstatement. They were claiming that somehow us leaving the agreement spelt disaster for the environment. And if global warming is such a crisis, why should what the US does matter? Other countries should recognize it's a problem and impose austerity on themselves like we were doing in the past.

>>9392424
>The most reasonable solution is to phase out fossil fuels gradually.
That's a bit like putting out a housefire gradually.

>>9392327
>www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-planet-will-boil-over-if-young-africans-are-allowed-cars-air-conditioning-big
Thanks for proving my point:
“Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over -- unless we find new ways of producing energy.”

>Okay, but polar bears populations are on the rise
The vast majority of papers say that polar bears are threatened by global warming:
www.skepticalscience.com/how-blogs-distort-sci-info-polar-bears-arctic.html

>his claim that they are drowning was debunked.
Wrong.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226487424_Observations_of_mortality_associated_with_extended_open-water_swimming_by_polar_bears_in_the_Alaskan_Beaufort_Sea

>>9392347
>Ad hominem.
I don't see how asking why you are lying is an ad hominem.

>We were set to pay 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to poorer countries.
Again, you are misrepresenting your source. It says that richer countries will give a total of $100 billion in financing for mitigation and adapation, not just the US.

>It is insane to claim this will help our economy.
Of course mitigation anywhere will help our economy, since the effect of any local CO2 emissions is global.

>And you never addressed my point about lifestyles, which I expected.
You never addressed the fact that global warming will harm our lifestyle.

>If climate change is really such a devastating issue then why hasn't there been a huge movement to cut back on all our luxuries.
Again, this is just another ridiculous straw man. There is no need to cut back on all our luxuries, just increase the cost of fossil fuels up to the point that net benefit is maximized.

>why don't you stop eating meat?
Methane is not a bigger factor than CO2. See pic.

>>9392347
>Throughout human history, our approach to solving problems has been innovation so we should be pouring our money into renewable energies research rather than asking people to cut back. Expecting people to adapt to a poorer standard of living is insane.
This is exactly my point. If expecting people to adapt to a poorer standard of living is insane, then you must accept carbon taxes! You don't seem to understand the irony here. Burning fossil fuels will reduce our standard of living far more than an optimal carbon tax would.

>>9392424
> What do you want to do about fossil fuels? It's certainly not going to disappear overnight. The most reasonable solution is to phase out fossil fuels gradually. I never said we shouldn't do anything. I'm saying that taxes and austerity is the incorrect solution.
A carbon tax would not make fossil fuels disappear, it would just make them more expensive, reducing demand. I still have yet to hear why taxes are the incorrect solution. Phasing out fossil fuels either means making them more expensive, or limiting supply. Either way, you have taxes or austerity.

>We may have a larger per capita pollution but if they're polluting more in aggregate and they're population is increasing more quickly than our's they are the bigger problem.
I don't see what this is supposed to argue for. Whether you want to call them the bigger problem or not, the fact is everyone should be mitigating climate change. But we don't need to wait for others to benefit and arguing against mitigation certainly won't make other participate.

>Okay, then stop eating meat.
This really encapsulates all of the flaws in your argument.
You confuse individual action with mass action, you don't understand the difference between mitigation and abstention, and you exaggerate. As I already said, methane is not a bigger factor than CO2. But I'd be fine with instituting an optimal tax on methane emitting products as well. It just wouldn't have as much an effect as the one on CO2.

>You're not going to convince anyone that giving more of their money away and giving up things they once took for granted in their lives just because it is better for the environment is good, regardless of what anyone says.
I don't have to, economists have already proven that. When you want to argue about reality rather than opinions, tell me.

>Why in the world do you think china and india and other developing countries deserve 100 billion dollars of our money
They aren't getting $100 billion of your money.

>>9392424
>They were claiming that somehow us leaving the agreement spelt disaster for the environment.
It does spell disaster if it tanks the entire global mitigation effort.

>And if global warming is such a crisis, why should what the US does matter? Other countries should recognize it's a problem and impose austerity on themselves like we were doing in the past.
If what the US does doesn't matter, why should any other country not think differently? I don't see what you're trying to argue for here, it seems like just a knee jerk response.

>>9392427
So you want to stop driving all cars?

>>939242
Addressing your points one by one:
1. Your original claim was that he never said they should cut back on AC. I never said he didn't say we shouldn't use renewable energy.
2-3. Yet their populations are on the rise. Also, al gore is an indefensible alarmist. You're not going to win defending him. http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/
4. I wasn't lying. You are acting like I'm actively trying to destroy the world since I made the grevious error of not wanting more taxes and austerity.
5. Why in the world should the first world pay into polluter's pockets. And even if it isn't a 100 billion solely from the us, the us would have been a significant fraction. Also, http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/04/12/un-paris-accord-is-a-dead-deal-walking-as-100-billion-climate-fund-disappears/
6. I'm not going to qualify why spending ~0.5% of our gdp a year to countries with no obligations to honor our agreements with them is bad for our economy.
7. Certainly it will. It has in the past. Why do you think trump won so much of the midwest vote? It's because due to climate regulations, our manufacturing basically closed off, which slowed oir gdp growth.
8-9. Obama literally said that Africans couldn't have air conditioning. Also, if climate change is worth 100 billion dollars a year from us, then it is certainly worth giving up a completely unnecessary luxury.

>>9392433
How in the world is taxes not a form of austerity? Additionally, we were expected to turn off our coal plants as well. Accepting your point, if fossil fuel burning is so dangerous, why should rich countries be the only people with actual economic, hell any, obligations to help. If we're going to do this, as I said earlier, I want every single country to simultaneously make cuts equally. If we can't then it isn't such a big problem in the first place.

>>9392462
>So you want to stop driving all cars?
No. Are you incapable of arguing without strawmen?

>Also, http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/04/12/un-paris-accord-is-a-dead-deal-walking-as-100-billion-climate-fund-disappears/
Don't cite climatedepot, if you want people to take you seriously.

>Why do you think trump won so much of the midwest vote? It's because due to climate regulations,
Bullshit.

>if fossil fuel burning is so dangerous, why should rich countries be the only people with actual economic, hell any, obligations to help.
The people who made the mess have the most obligation to fix it.

>I want every single country to simultaneously make cuts equally.
That's stupid.
Hell, many countries emit less in total (per capita) than the amount USA needs to reduce its emissions by.

See my other post:
>>9392462

>>9392453
1. That's my point. If something so clearly a superior alternative, then there's no need for us to pay more taxes for it. It's merits will show itself.

2-3. You seem to be glossing over a major point. Every agreement in the last has not been a global mitigation effort. It has been first world countries paying third world countries. Remember, these developing countries have no obligation to honor their side of the deal. Why should we be paying billions speculatively.
4. As I said earlier, if you think carbon taxes are a major solution to climate change and that involves us paying billions, it should certainly be worth you and our entire country and maybe the world, giving up eating meat. When I say you, I mean everyone, especially people who want to pay carbon taxes.
5. Yet, trump got elected into office, with a major point being bringing back industry to the US. Clearly, you failed, regardless of how scientific you think austerity is.
6. Are you retarded? Of course they aren't getting my money, they're getting our money, which, once again, they don't deserve.

>>9392458
1. See above, it's not a global mitigation effort, in it's purest form, it's us wasting money.
2. Exactly. Why is a global crisis mitigation contingent on us giving away our money? Every country should be pursuing policies which allow them to do whatever they want, and if the country feels global warming is the end of the world and fossil fuels are so bad, then their success will speak for itself. Until then, I'm staunchly against us throwing away our money.

>>9392462
>1. Your original claim was that he never said they should cut back on AC.
Yes and he objectively didn't say that.

>2-3. Yet their populations are on the rise.
Population is not a problem if carbon is taxed optimally.

>Also, al gore is an indefensible alarmist.
I don't HAVE to defend Al Gore, I was just pointing out that you were misrepresenting something. Defending Al Gore has nothing to do with defending my position, but attacking him does nothing to support yours.

>4. I wasn't lying. You are acting like I'm actively trying to destroy the world since I made the grevious error of not wanting more taxes and austerity.
Well either you were lying or you just repeated a lie someone else told you without doing any basic fact checking. Which one is it?

>5. Why in the world should the first world pay into polluter's pockets.
Maybe because the first world has been polluting for a century before developing countries? Maybe because it's the only way mitigation is going to happen in those countries? I don't know.

>6. I'm not going to qualify why spending ~0.5% of our gdp a year to countries with no obligations to honor our agreements with them is bad for our economy.
And again, you fail since you only pay attention to the costs while completely ignore the benefits of mitigating global warming.

>7. Certainly it will. It has in the past. Why do you think trump won so much of the midwest vote? It's because due to climate regulations, our manufacturing basically closed off, which slowed oir gdp growth.
Ah yes, surely it was all those unnamed climate regulations, and not the fact that the US economy has been transitioning away from manufacturing for decades.

>8-9. Obama literally said that Africans couldn't have air conditioning.
You just can't stop lying, can you? It's not even important to your argument, but you just have to lie.

>>9392462
>How in the world is taxes not a form of austerity?
Where did I say this?

>Additionally, we were expected to turn off our coal plants as well.
Who is we and who expected it?

>Accepting your point, if fossil fuel burning is so dangerous, why should rich countries be the only people with actual economic, hell any, obligations to help.
When did I say they should? Your arguments are getting more and more off base.

>>9392472
1. You said gradually phasing out fossil fuels is like putting out a housefire gradually => climate change is like a housefire. How do you solve a housefire? => dumping a ton of water, or sudden action. One reasonable implication is a full reduction of carbon emissions. Please think about what you write.
2. I linked climate depot because they linked a lot of external sources. Please read my sources before discarding them. I'm arguing with you under good faith.
3. It was one of his campaign promises. And why did the us suddenly stop manufacturing? Hint: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/05/22/us-manufacturers-offshore-pollution-developing-countries/
4. Yeah, you're not addressing the fact that developing countries have no obligation to fulfill their end.
5. Fairness is not stupid. I'm sorry you think so.

>>9392480
1. You literally quoted him saying if they had ac now, we would boil over.
2. Taxing carbon optimally is highly subjective.
3. Fair enough.
4. Eh, my knowledge may have been incomplete. I accept that.
5. Yeah, that's not enough of a reason to convince me to give 100s of billions of dollars to a *non-obligatory* agreement.
6. Yeah, sue me for thinking about how ramping up spending to a *non-obligatory* agreement will help anything.
7. See my above link.
8. Already addressed this.

>>9392486
1. Lol, you literally said we have taxes or austerity. Please keep up.
2. We as in US and other first world countries. Have you read the agreement?
3. But that's the current state of affairs. I'm saying every carbon tax agreement in the paat has done this. I've also said if our carbon tax is done globally with no exceptions to developing countries like the paris accord, I would consider it.

>>9392475
>1. That's my point. If something so clearly a superior alternative, then there's no need for us to pay more taxes for it.
There is a need, since the market price of fossil fuels does not reflect all the economic cost of fossil fuels.

>2-3. You seem to be glossing over a major point. Every agreement in the last has not been a global mitigation effort.
I am arguing for global mitigation, not past agreements. Try again.

>4. As I said earlier, if you think carbon taxes are a major solution to climate change and that involves us paying billions, it should certainly be worth you and our entire country and maybe the world, giving up eating meat.
You failed to respond to the other problems with this argument. Let me repeat them again:

1. Mitigation does not mean abstention
2. Methane is not as harmful as CO2

Therefore your contention that giving up meat must be worth as much as an optimal carbon tax is simply wrong. What would be as worthy would be an optimal tax on methane producing industries, which would not mean abstaining from meat.

>5. Yet, trump got elected into office, with a major point being bringing back industry to the US. Clearly, you failed, regardless of how scientific you think austerity is.
Ah I see, so if a politician says something, and people believe him, that means that not only is the claim true, it doesn't matter what science or economics says. Jesus Christ...

>6. Are you retarded? Of course they aren't getting my money, they're getting our money, which, once again, they don't deserve.
They aren't getting $100 billion of your money, stop lying.

>1. See above, it's not a global mitigation effort, in it's purest form, it's us wasting money.
It's a first step in the global mitigation effort, which Trump is attempting to sabotage.

>2. Exactly. Why is a global crisis mitigation contingent on us giving away our money?
I didn't say it was. Are you incapable of keeping two different arguments in your head at the same time

>>9392501
>1. You literally quoted him saying if they had ac now, we would boil over.
Stop lying.

>2. Taxing carbon optimally is highly subjective.
No, it's a matter of economics.

>5. Yeah, that's not enough of a reason to convince me to give 100s of billions of dollars to a *non-obligatory* agreement.
I don't really care whether it convinces you.

>1. Lol, you literally said we have taxes or austerity.
Inclusive or.

>2. We as in US and other first world countries. Have you read the agreement?
Where does the Paris Accord say first world countries have to turn off their coal plants?

>3. But that's the current state of affairs. I'm saying every carbon tax agreement in the paat has done this.
Which carbon tax agreements have there been in the past?

>I've also said if our carbon tax is done globally with no exceptions to developing countries like the paris accord, I would consider it.
Good, so you agree with me.

>>9392511
1. So, fund innovation instead of heaping on even more taxes.
2. Yet later, you say it was the first step in global mitigation. Keep your arguments consistent. Also, if you agree with this, then what the OP's friend said was correct. If past climate agreements weren't good at preventing climate change, what were they? They were just austerity/taxes.
3. And as I have repeatedly said, animals are a non-negligible contribution to our co2 output. And you're saying our carbon emissions are equivalent to a housefire. So anything helps.
4. The original point was about convincing people that carbon taxes were good. Regardless of what the economics said, you failed at that.
5. I'm not going to respond to you if you won't even read my sources and just claim I'm lying.
6. Yeah, i refuse to believe a non-obligatory agreement involving us spending ludicrous amounts of momey was a good first step.
7. You said earlier if we didn't do anything, it would set a bad example for other countries.

>>9392521
1. Hmm...
2. Deciding how people should be taxed cannot be a 100% objective.
3. Okay, then I don't care that you think we should throw away 100s of billions of dollars.
4. So both? Either ways, even extreme taxes resulting in lost jobs is a form of austerity that's really unnecessary considering other countries aren't required to follow rules.
5. That's one of the key points. There's no rule saying you need to shut down coal plants but there's diplomatic pressure to. So if we're not going to do that, why should we even join the agreement?
6. Sorry, by carbon tax, I meant every climate agreement in the past has unfairly targeted first world countries.
7. Yes, it's a great idea to tax an energy resource that we absolutely need so governments can line their pockets with our tax money that can be used as they see fit. I see absolutely no problem with this.

Clearly there's no point in continuing this since you seem hellbent on throwing away your money.

>>9392735
>1. So, fund innovation instead of heaping on even more taxes.
Doesn't respond to the point.

>2. Yet later, you say it was the first step in global mitigation. Keep your arguments consistent.
It was a first step, doesn't mean it's what I'm arguing for. Stop trying to misrepresent the argument.

>Also, if you agree with this, then what the OP's friend said was correct.
Doesn't follow.

>If past climate agreements weren't good at preventing climate change, what were they? They were just austerity/taxes.
Taxes can help prevent climate change.

>3. And as I have repeatedly said, animals are a non-negligible contribution to our co2 output.
This doesn't respond to what I said. Try again.

> And you're saying our carbon emissions are equivalent to a housefire. So anything helps.
Not me. And just because something would help mitigate cliamte change doesn't mean it should be done, because it might not be cost effective. An optimal carbon tax would be cost effective. Again, this idea that everyone needs to stop eating meat is a pathetic straw man.

>4. The original point was about convincing people that carbon taxes were good.
No, the original point was that carbon taxes are good according to economics. Your claim that this doesn't convince people because they voted for Trump is a non-sequitur.

>5. I'm not going to respond to you if you won't even read my sources and just claim I'm lying.
I read the quote, it doesn't say that if Africans had AC now we would boil over, it says that if Africans obtain a higher lifestyle without new forms of energy, we will boil over. Your original claim was that Obama said Africans can't have AC.

>6. Yeah, i refuse to believe a non-obligatory agreement involving us spending ludicrous amounts of momey was a good first step.
I didn't say it was a good first step, I said it was a first step. Your demands that I defend the Paris Accord are irrelevant.

Look at your original post >>9391905 and tell me which claims stand.

>>9392735
>7. You said earlier if we didn't do anything, it would set a bad example for other countries.
Yes, and?

>2. Deciding how people should be taxed cannot be a 100% objective.
Nothing can be 100% objective, non-sequitur.

>3. Okay, then I don't care that you think we should throw away 100s of billions of dollars.
Then why do you keep bringing it up? You claimed that everyone said the Paris Accords would save the world, but this is a straw man.

>4. Either ways, even extreme taxes resulting in lost jobs is a form of austerity that's really unnecessary considering other countries aren't required to follow rules.
It's really unnecessary to suffer the full effects of global warming just because you don't like the Paris Accord.

>5. That's one of the key points.
Oh really? Can you show me which part of the agreement says anything about coal? Or are you just making shit up again?

>6. Sorry, by carbon tax, I meant every climate agreement in the past has unfairly targeted first world countries.
What would be unfair would be to ignore that the first world countries spent decades using large amounts of fossil fuels which caused global warming. You don't care about fairness, you just want to find excuses to not mitigate global warming because it conflicts with your political ideology.

>7. Yes, it's a great idea to tax an energy resource that we absolutely need so governments can line their pockets with our tax money that can be used as they see fit.
You already agreed that taxing carbon optimally is a net benefit, yes.

>>9392820
1. If the market price of fossil fuels of doesn't represent their economic cost, then make the alternatives so much better that it overcomes the cost of replacing infrastructure. If fossil fuels are so terrible, it shouldn't be a problem. The reason we can't is because, except perhaps nuclear, we can't really replace fossil fuels.
2.
>It's a first step in the global mitigation effort, which Trump is attempting to sabotage.
So if it wasn't a good first step what was it? A bad first step?
3.
>I am arguing for global mitigation, not past agreements.
If you agree that past agreements weren't good then, why did we even enter them? What we gain from them?
4. Paying money to unaccountable ngo's will never result in anything good.
5. You want an optimal carbon tax, but this literally impossible. What would make it optimal? Who would decides it's optimal? It'll certainly be divisive regardless of the economics behind it. And you originally said:
>>You're not going to convince anyone that giving more of their money away and giving up things they once took for granted in their lives just because it is better for the environment is good, regardless of what anyone says.
>I don't have to, economists have already proven that. When you want to argue about reality rather than opinions, tell me.
Clearly it didn't speak for itself.
6. So in other words, if Africans obtain AC now, since we don't have new forms of energy in use now, the world will boil over. Thanks for agreeing with me.
7.
>I didn't say it was a good first step, I said it was a first step.
Once again, you like taking bad first steps.

>>9392851
1. Why should we be putting ourselves into austere measures just to set examples for others. It's retarded.
2. Fair enough, but an optimal carbon tax is completely unobtainable. And getting this wrong will fuck over the global economy.
Cont.

>>9392851
3. Because the paris accords are a classic example of what is essentially a wealth-redistribution scheme; if there's no accountability to achieve goals, then we're essentially pouring our money into an ngo which means OP's friend wasn't too far off from the mark.
4. Then come up with a better deal than literally taxing away 100s of billions of dollars. No reasonable person is okay with throwing away money when something better could be had. Trump himself says that he would open to renegotiation for the paris accord, but members weren't willing.
5. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jun/05/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-paris-accord-china-and-coal-pla/ ironically, if you scroll down in the article, they say
> Wirth said that regarding coal-fired power plants, the Paris agreement creates diplomatic pressure for countries to move away from coal, but doesn’t mandate it.
6. Right, because of the industrial revolution, which no one alive today had any control over, we should just throw our money away. That sounds completely sane and not batshit crazy.
7. Sure, whatever optimally means. You already agreed that nothing can be 100% objective with respect to how we can be taxed and because you feel guilty I don't want to throw away our tax money.

>>9392896
>1. If the market price of fossil fuels of doesn't represent their economic cost, then make the alternatives so much better that it overcomes the cost of replacing infrastructure.
Again, this doesn't respond to the point. An optimal carbon tax would have much more benefit than it would cost. Funding alternatives doesn't change that.

>The reason we can't is because, except perhaps nuclear, we can't really replace fossil fuels.
We could replace them with nuclear and renewables right now, it would just be expensive.

>If you agree that past agreements weren't good then, why did we even enter them?
They were OK, they weren't as good as they could have been.

>4. Paying money to unaccountable ngo's will never result in anything good.
Paying money to NGOs can result in a good thing.

>5. You want an optimal carbon tax, but this literally impossible.
It's literally possible, unless you are being a sophist and saying that the optimal carbon tax has to be calculated perfectly and not estimated.

>It'll certainly be divisive regardless of the economics behind it.
If being divisive was a reason to not do something, nothing would ever get done.

>6. So in other words, if Africans obtain AC now, since we don't have new forms of energy in use now, the world will boil over.
We do have new forms of energy in use now and Africans are not magically going to become developed overnight. This has little to do with what Obama meant, which you misrepresented.

>Once again, you like taking bad first steps.
I didn't say that I liked it. You keep misrepresenting the argument because you have no valid argument.

>1. Why should we be putting ourselves into austere measures just to set examples for others. It's retarded.
It's not just to set an example for others. Try again.

>2. Fair enough, but an optimal carbon tax is completely unobtainable.
Wrong.

>>9392955
I'm not even going to bother responding point by point anymore. Your entire argument boils down to a magical, optimal carbon tax that you claim is obtainable through economics, which involves us paying huge amounts of money ngos. As of now, and with all past deals, the goals set by countries are self-reported and use an honor-based system which means there is no accountability for the money we spend; there is no indication that any future deals will be different. Additionally, you want to place a heavy tax on our single most widely used energy source on the planet and think that this is better than just phasing out the use of fossil fuels by making alternative energy sources more abundantly available and cost-effective which will naturally lead to the replacement of fossil fuels without wasting billions of dollars along the way. If you can't see why your views are shit, then there really is no saving you.

>>9392912
>3. Because the paris accords are a classic example of what is essentially a wealth-redistribution scheme; if there's no accountability to achieve goals, then we're essentially pouring our money into an ngo which means OP's friend wasn't too far off from the mark.
The Paris Accord is irrelevant to the merits of a carbon tax. There is no conspiracy.

>4. Then come up with a better deal than literally taxing away 100s of billions of dollars.
No. A carbon tax is fine.

>No reasonable person is okay with throwing away money when something better could be had.
You have not presented a better alternative. Funding renewable energy does not subsume the benefits of a carbon tax.

>Wirth said that regarding coal-fired power plants, the Paris agreement creates diplomatic pressure for countries to move away from coal, but doesn’t mandate it.
And in the very next paragraph:
"Either China or the United States can build as many power plants as they want as long as they are offset in other sectors," he said. "It was framed that way so as to give governments maximum flexibility to meet the goals they set for themselves."
Which disproves your claim that removing coal plants was a key point of the Paris Accords. Fact is, they never even mentioned coal. Nice try though.

>6. Right, because of the industrial revolution, which no one alive today had any control over, we should just throw our money away.
I'm confused, I thought you were talking about fairness. If you want to argue that being unfair is correct, then don't demand fairness for developed countries. We don't have any control over the industrial revolution, we do have control over who pays for the costs of mitigating climate change.

>You already agreed that nothing can be 100% objective with respect to how we can be taxed
Nothing can be 100% objective. You can't demand 100% objectivity.

>>9392973
> Your entire argument boils down to a magical, optimal carbon tax
It's just economics, not magic. I understand you are frustrated because you have no argument for why a carbon tax should not be implemented, but insults and exaggeration are not a substitute.

>which involves us paying huge amounts of money ngos
I'm really getting tired of you lying. How does a carbon tax imply money going to NGOs? Hint: it doesn't. There is nothing the revenue needs to be spent on, the mitigation comes solely from making fossil fuels more expensive.

>Additionally, you want to place a heavy tax on our single most widely used energy source on the planet and think that this is better than just phasing out the use of fossil fuels by making alternative energy sources more abundantly available and cost-effective
You are trying to make it seem as if there is a choice between one or the other, but there is nothing that would preclude us from doing both, and we would benefit from doing both. So yes, an optimal carbon tax would be better than no optimal carbon tax, regardless of spending on alternative energy. I have repeated this several times, and you have failed again and again to respond to it. If you are just going to scream "TAXES BAD" over and over again, I suggest you go sit in the corner until your tantrum is over.

>>9392990
Yeah, because economics will guarantee an optimal tax which is why tax plans before have always worked before. And instead of being condescending, you could do some research http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/carbon-tax-primer/
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/why-carbon-tax-bad-country-10034.html
Of course the money doesn't have to go to ngos, it can also go to our governments. And how naive are you to think that governments won't use the money we give them. If they were truly taxing carbon, that money would be used solely for research, which we know it won't be. And the most recent example was the paris accord, where the money would go to an ngo. Nitpicking semantics of my arguments won't help your delusions. Making something expensive just to avoid it's use is counterproductive. It doesn't make sense since our alternatives are under-developed. And once again, your magical optimal carbon tax is unobtainable. From what you said before, it will involve the us paying much more than other countries and somehow that's fair because we polluted more in the past so we should pay more now, even though developing countries now are the biggest polluters. And yes, I will scream carbon taxes are bad until my throat goes hoarse since right now since I still want plentiful and cheap energy until we develop something better instead of pre-emptive taxation.

>>9393038
>Yeah, because economics will guarantee an optimal tax which is why tax plans before have always worked before.
Non sequitur.

>http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/carbon-tax-primer/
>Carbon taxes are taxes on 85 percent of the energy we use.
Non sequitur.

>A carbon tax that is perfectly offset by other tax cuts is neither a practical nor a political reality.
Non sequitur.

>Politicians like to reward special interest groups with new tax revenues.
Non sequitur.

>It is impossible to create an optimal carbon tax.
We've already been over this.

> A carbon tax is a regressive tax, but increased wealth transfers will likely make it increasingly progressive.
Non sequitur.

>A carbon tax set at a wrong level will cause great economic harm.
This talks about non-optimal carbon tax plans, non-sequitur

>Realistically, a carbon tax would lead to lower energy use and lower economic output because low-carbon replacement technologies simply do not exist.
Non-sequitur.

OK I think we get the idea.

>https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/why-carbon-tax-bad-country-10034.html
This is mainly about revenue neutrality, which is again, a non-sequitur. It completely ignores the benefits of mitigating global warming. If you are going to make me read articles, at least make sure they are relevant to what you are arguing against.

>Of course the money doesn't have to go to ngos, it can also go to our governments. And how naive are you to think that governments won't use the money we give them.
Again, an optimal carbon tax would be beneficial regardless of where the money goes. So this line of argument is completely moot.

>Making something expensive just to avoid it's use is counterproductive.
It's very productive in this case, since using those fossil fuels would be counterproductive.

>>9393038
>It doesn't make sense since our alternatives are under-developed.
Again, there is no choice between developing alternatives or instituting a carbon tax. Both can and should be done. If you are not going to respond to the argument you are replying to, don't bother posting.

>And once again, your magical optimal carbon tax is unobtainable.
It is obtainable, economists have estimated the optimal tax path. Ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.

>From what you said before, it will involve the us paying much more than other countries
Stop lying. It only harms your position.

>>9393063
>everything that goes against my beliefs is a non-sequitur
>you're lying by disagreeing with me
Good to know

>>9393073
You lost, get over it.

>>9393078
Clearly not because 50% of your last argument was claiming everything in my source was a non-sequitur while you simultaneously believe carbon taxes are infallible. I just gave up trying to reason with you.

>>9393084
Almost everything in your source was a non-sequitur, not my fault you chose an article that is largely irrelevant. How revenue is spent, whether the taxes are offset by cuts, etc. has nothing to do with what we're discussing, and you know this. And I did not claim they are infallible.