Ocean Warming

[Anonymous No.10289944]

Should this ocean warming be of any concern, or is it a big nothingburger like Hurricane Michael last October?

[Anonymous No.10289945]

>>10289944
>a big nothingburger

[Anonymous No.10289946]

>a puny 10 year average
Lmao probably yet another way to tax more

[Anonymous No.10289987]

>>10289946
>muh tax dollers

[Anonymous No.10289991]

>>10289946
>dumb ass commie
If you poo in the street, you either stop doing it or start paying for the shit you've done

[Anonymous No.10290088]

Imagine thinking 80 years is a reliable amount to make predictions with.

[Anonymous No.10290091]

>>10290088
your 80 years will be just as brain dead as the years before and after, so you might be onto something

[Anonymous No.10290094]

>>10289944
It's believed with good reason that the great dying (the largest mass extinction) was largely caused by warmer oceans.

[Anonymous No.10290152]

>>10289944
The worrying part is that water in Arctic regions is warming up faster then the rest. As a result ocean circulation is slowing down. This means less oxygen in deep water. There are already some "death zones". If they grow larger and larger the result may be >>10290094

Oceans start stinking from and only poisonous algae and bacteria can survive there.
This means no more fish and no beach vacation.

[Anonymous No.10290154]

>>10289944
it's just further proof that climatology isn't a science.

Yes the world is warming up, but there is nothing scientific about how we think the process is happening. When all your models are always wrong all the time, you're doing alchemy, not science.

[Anonymous No.10290167]

>>10290154
>m-muh models
>lets just forget all the dead coral
>and the Lyme riddled ticks
>and all the millions of other indicators of global warming
>b-but humans aren't doing it, this is normal
but it's not, it really isn't

[Anonymous No.10290172]

>>10290154
T.oilpolshill

[Anonymous No.10290175]

>>10290167
No wonder people like you, you can't even read. I know it's man made, it doesn't mean we understand the underlying process.

Ask any pleb what happens when you push something they will say it moves. Ask a physicist and he can show you an actual equation (for example F = ma). Climate change is at the pleb level.

[Anonymous No.10290176]

>>10290154

[Anonymous No.10290179]

>>10290176
the name of the thread is literally data not matching models.

[Anonymous No.10290184]

>>10290176
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-oceans/oceans-warming-faster-than-expected-set-heat-record-in-2018-scientists-idUSKCN1P42HQ

[Anonymous No.10290202]

>>10290094
>It's believed
Not science

[Anonymous No.10290205]

>>10290152
Your understanding of oceans is........appalling.

[Anonymous No.10290214]

>>10290154
>there is nothing scientific about how we think
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

[Anonymous No.10290227]

>>10290214
humanity.

[Anonymous No.10290233]

>>10290227
"humanity" is a lot bigger concept than you seem to understand, Anon

[Anonymous No.10290250]

>>10290205
Dead zones are already a thing.

>>10290202
Science is at most about speaking true, it isn't about stating nonsense "objective fact" because the core of science is falsifiability (everything is at least potentially untrue). Nobody can know for certain what caused the great dying, but it is a (very well) "justified true belief" that warming oceans were the major contributor to the amount of extinctions. It may be incorrect, but the mechanisms that could cause serious widespread death of life are compelling and seem to be well enough understood, and it's even to some degree reflected in the genomes of extent life (like mollusks having adaptations to long term low oxygen environments).

[Anonymous No.10290259]

So during the last ice age when the ice was melting, AL Grug and his followers were screaming - OMG it's the end of the world, stop lighting fires, we must sacrifice ourselves to the great volcano god.
It's all the same shit today and there is really nothing new under the sun.

[Anonymous No.10290261]

>>10290259
>there is really nothing new under the sun
Actually there is, Solomon. Look at your cellphone.

[Anonymous No.10290265]

>>10290261
lmao

[Anonymous No.10290296]

>>10290250
>Dead zones are already a thing.
Prove to me these dead zones didn`t exist in the past. And compelling evidence is as good as no evidence. Do you really believe you can compare today's climate with something that maybe happened in the distant past. We are living in one of the most stablest climate times in the history of Earth. Worrying about some 1C or less in temperature change is stupid.

[Anonymous No.10290302]

>>10290296
>most stablest
Come on.

[Anonymous No.10290320]

>>10290302
For humans, yes.

[Anonymous No.10290398]

>>10290250
When did the last ice-age end? We’re still in it. Geographers define an ice age as a period of the Earth’s history when there are polar ice caps. Our climate is in an ‘interglacial’ period, which doesn’t mean we are between ice ages, but means we are in a period of time when the ice retreats to the poles because of warmer temperatures. The period started 10,000 years ago, in what we think is the fourth Ice age. When the ice age will end is anyone’s guess, estimates range between 12,000 to 50,000 years. Causes of the natural fluctuations in global temperature are not well understood, theories range from the locations the continents happen to be in, atmospheric components, the position of the Earth’s rotation, and even the position of the Sun’s rotation in the galaxy!

[Anonymous No.10290410]

>>10290261
Yes, worship your phone.
Elon is ready for your money.
Mars is your future, it`s climate is so much nicer.

[Anonymous No.10290419]

>>10290265
HA HA HA HA, Al Gore lives in a mansion with all night lighting, owns beachside property and flys the world in carbon spewing jets. HA HA HA HA, SUCKERS.

[Anonymous No.10290429]

>>10290419
Maybe he buys carbon credits, if you buy enough carbon credits it's like he never did anything. Money fixes everything man, get rich or die trying. That's what 50 cent always said.

Who know who's rich and has definitely has never bought a carbon credit? Trump.

[Anonymous No.10290499]

>>10290296
Science tells us there have always been low oxygen death zones. Science also tells us surface water got more oxygen then deep water. That's why circulation is important. Also cold water can store oxygen longer and better then warm water.
Scientists worry because death zones are growing and already have an impact on fishing.

Today our climate is extremely unstable, there have been been only a few times in Earth history with similar drastic changes, all triggered mass extinction events.
Causing a extinction and kill your own species really means winning the Darwin Award.

[Anonymous No.10290509]

>>10290499
The alberta tar sands are bad but they're the most regulated oil extraction site in the world. They say per capita Canada is bad but that's a load of shit, no-one (in the first world) is doing better for the environment.

[Anonymous No.10290539]

>>10290154
>Yes the world is warming up, but there is nothing scientific about how we think the process is happening.
Why are you lying?

>When all your models are always wrong all the time, you're doing alchemy, not science.
Which models have you looked at?

[Anonymous No.10290547]

>>10290175
>Ask any pleb what happens when you push something they will say it moves. Ask a physicist and he can show you an actual equation (for example F = ma).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Forcing_due_to_atmospheric_gas

Why are you lying about science on the science board?

[Anonymous No.10290609]

>>10290539
>>10290547
why are the oceans warming faster than what this model predicts then?

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6423/128.full

[Anonymous No.10290635]

>>10290609
>why are the oceans warming faster than what this model predicts then?
>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6423/128.full
>Recent estimates of observed warming resemble those seen in models, indicating that models reliably project changes in OHC.
Are you having trouble reading your own source buddy?

[Anonymous No.10291614]

>>10289991
>paying for the shit you've done
pay who? the earth? ya, "the earth" will use the money you give to it to clean the street... or maybe you mean pay some other guy so he can poo in the street as well

you lack an understanding of fundamental physics.

[Anonymous No.10291626]

>>10290509
I believe Canada produces around 4% of global output (and increasing), while having 1% of the global population.

[Anonymous No.10291685]

>>10290509
should also include imported oil / local consumption, which bumps it up to roughly 5%. Canada punches well over its weight on the emissions, with plans of increasing further. so happy for the carbon tax. clear conscience.

[Anonymous No.10291728]

>>10289944

>Source: Beijing

[Anonymous No.10292035]

>>10291614
you lack an understanding of fundamental economics.

[Anonymous No.10292053]

>>10289944
That's gonna be a vertical line in literally 10 years. We have 10 good years of life left on Earth. Live it up fuckos.
BRING ON THE ROARING 20S! Our last roaring 20s ever!

[Anonymous No.10292057]

>>10292035
carbon taxes don’t work, bullets and chemical weapons do.

[Anonymous No.10292069]

>>10292057
All the fires, floods, droughts, hurricanes, sea rising, rebuilding infrastructure, moving cities inland etc. cost money.
Carbon tax makes the fuckers that caused it, pay for the consequences.
>waaaah why can't the government pay the tab when I poo in the street
If you want the gov to subsidize your shitty carbon habits, you're a communist.

[Anonymous No.10292074]

>>10292069
Carbon taxes don’t do anything you fucking retard they just displace the cost to consumers, cause corps to terrorize legislatures, move to other locales and literally to farm more profits to afford their emissions and to propagandize by cooking books and paying for regulator seats. You literally need to kill people with State sponsored violence and remove huge portions of the human population without any second thoughts as to the ethics of what you’re doing. We can’t support even 25% of the global population, much less 3-4 billion additional people

[Anonymous No.10292081]

>>10292074
>displace the cost to consumers
consumers actively select non-polluting companies then
>cause corps to terrorize legislatures
so business as usual then
>You literally need to kill people
another fucking cartoon nazi, do you fap to pics of Kaczynski?

The big picture is that someone is going to pay the ires, floods, droughts, hurricanes, sea rising etc. damage. I repeat, someone is going to pay. No way to avoid it.
Carbon tax makes the ones causing the problem to pay. Doing nothing makes everyone pay. Like a typical commie likes it.

[Anonymous No.10292112]

>>10292081
no demand doesn’t work how you think it does, humans are social animals who are vulnerable to strategic half-truths and misinformation and who actually use a very retarded calculus for selecting which resources to invest in especially in low scarcity conditions and with the amplification effects of advertising and social media. The state of behavioral economics is extremely poor right now and requires some weeding and pruning for beh eco, metabolic eco and neuroscience before we can accurately use the word demand to actual indicate something substative rather than speculative and post hoc.
>business as usual
it varies over time, the less inclined they feel to protect themselves the more likely cosnumers and legislatures are to select practices that actually benefit them, learning to quell the wrath of mammon while you subvert it is precisely what will be necessary to escape the treadmill of self injury that Capital has looped retarded barely risen apes into.

No, I don’t think you understand mate; the public as is has been sold to you as an intrinsically valuable entity which has by necessity of its existence the right to not only exist (unprecedented in the history of life on earth) but to continue to proliferate, the very notion that we must accomodate what is and what will necessarily follow coerces lawmakers and extant populations to readjust their image of acceptable losses or pertinent social ills (like overproliferation of harmful phenotypes and useless/role-less humans).

Carbon taxes make consumers pay, this is a very basic Liberal economic notion which in certain contexts, like indiscriminate, abstractly justified, high cost penalties to “productive sectors”, always trickles down to the public, not in the form of eugenic modulation of necessary resources for problem populations but in society-wide outrage and increase in cost of luxury and living especially things like gas and high glycemic index foods

[Anonymous No.10292120]

>>10292112
>The big picture is that someone is going to pay

all your yada yada won't change this

[Anonymous No.10292127]

>>10292120
that’s not very interesting though, everything in an economics oriented culture tends to have a price tag with a recpient of payment and debtor/consumer/taxpayer but that’s not what is being delineated, its the actual physical and social effects of cost or demand or whatever abstraction and whether they at all modulate or dampen the intensity of the undesirable behaviors. I don’t believe that they can, because of the protocols used by MNC’s to circumvent State censure which have worked flawlessly in more essential industries like pharma, agrotech, energy and telecomm for a century now. Only niche luxury goods industries like tobacco or pornography can be seriously bullied with financial penalties.

[Anonymous No.10292136]

>>10292127
>not very interesting
May you live in interesting times

[Anonymous No.10292144]

>>10292074
>industries have choice to raise prices to pay tax or improve efficiency to avoid tax
>in a market economy no one will innovate to make a profit

[Anonymous No.10292146]

>>10292112
>Carbon taxes make consumers pay
And in a proper fee and dividend system, the average consumer gets that money back.

[Anonymous No.10292159]

>>10292144
Innovation doesn’t just happen from investment and selection pressure and innovations relative benefit to the society are often minimal when accounting for resource investment and the balancing act of perceived and actual reduction of harmful emissions, efficiency etc. You need to read the thread I’ve already explained why you cannot let “consumers” (by this you mean captive populations of customers/target demos for advertising) and corps decide these things because they will never select for what’s necessary when it is necessary with a holistic view of its effects downstream from the shift in preferences. People are fucking stupid and will go to whole foods or buy “green products” rather than attack the root of their environmental problems, and every industry on earth uses the same beh psyche heuristics to game this hole in human logic.

[Anonymous No.10292168]

>>10292146
that’s extremely circular logic
>proper
most economic fixes/theories depend on this unwarranted assumption, nonlinear systems with asymmetric information do not tend towards equillibriums and fair outcomes for consumer-producers or competitors. there is no reason to think either regulators/tax authorities/legislators or consumers/producers will see parity in the distribution of costs. that’s not even my biggest qualm either, its the lack of incentive to seriously adjust behavior and the lack of congruence between innovation and consumer choice AND the necessary outcomes/underlying problems that motivate the new choice, and the lack of correlation between investment and significant (not just profitable or socially proliferated) changes in “innovation”. Much innovation is half a scame and the other half, a half measure.

[Anonymous No.10292169]

>>10292168
The fact that you think it's circular logic and provides no incentives kind of just reveals that you need to study economics more before trying to talk about it.

[Anonymous No.10292191]

>>10290175
If you know anything about chemistry you know that temperature increases increase the rate of reactions.

As with any benchtop (falsifiable) experiment, if your temperature is going up in your reaction vessel your reactions are accelerating.

All reactions on Earth, are accelerating. Infinitesimally, but significantly. The measurements are simply reflecting some deficiency in the model which mean some quantity of reactants are not acurrately defined or that some are unknown. We know there are many candidates for what these unknown quantities are, so that's not a problem.

The problem is your planet is heating at an exponential rate. That means, the projections for your critical thresholds are all to come much sooner than expected. Like a ship that has a navigational error of a tiny degree, over a long distance, finds itself very far away from its expected destination.

This basically means the situation is worse than we think.

[Anonymous No.10292271]

>>10290202
maybe you should ask WHY it's believed?

[Anonymous No.10292398]

>>10289944
>units of energy
What the fuck

[Anonymous No.10292649]

>>10292398
Joule

in US, pharaohnoses or what ever

[Anonymous No.10292655]

>>10292398
It's a way to have a nice zero point by looking at the average kinetic energy of the particles rather than the temperature (although they're the same thing).

[Anonymous No.10293494]

>>10291626
>>10291685
actually canada is 0.5% of world population and responsible for 4% of global production.

[Anonymous No.10293499]

>>10292069
thanks for admitting that carbon taxes aren't really about reducing emissions or preventing climate change.

[Anonymous No.10293539]

>>10293499
Where did he admit that?

http://news.mit.edu/2018/carbon-taxes-could-make-significant-dent-climate-change-0406

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/business/does-a-carbon-tax-work-ask-british-columbia.html

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/04/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-soar-in-latest-figures

[Anonymous No.10293662]

>>10293539
your own link shows that british columbias emissions have increased since 2010

thanks for proving my point

[Anonymous No.10293681]

>>10293662
>British Columbia’s economy did not collapse. In fact, the provincial economy grew faster than its neighbors’ even as its greenhouse gas emissions declined.
>The tax, which rose from 10 Canadian dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in 2008 to 30 dollars by 2012, the equivalent of about $22.20 in current United States dollars, reduced emissions by 5 to 15 percent with “negligible effects on aggregate economic performance,” according to a study last year by economists at Duke University and the University of Ottawa.

[Anonymous No.10293711]

>>10293681
none of that matters.
emissions are increasing

why are you people so insistent on lying either by omission or (in this case) by burying pertinent data under piles of irrelevant nonsense?

[Anonymous No.10293716]

>>10293681
i do love too cherrypick economies the size of british columbia with no major manufacturing base or high population density and ignore that total emissions from all first world nations continue to climb.

[Anonymous No.10293724]

>>10293716
He will not even post the relevant data.

[Anonymous No.10293751]

>>10293711
>none of that matters.
>emissions are increasing
You claimed that carbon taxes don't reduce emissions. This is clearly false and now you are attempting to move the goalposts by saying that emissions must be decreasing at all points in time regardless of whether the tax rate is frozen.

>why are you people so insistent on lying either by omission or (in this case) by burying pertinent data under piles of irrelevant nonsense?
The only one lying by omission here is you. How is the trend since 2010 relevant? What is the trend since the introduction of the carbon tax?

>>10293716
>i do love too cherrypick economies the size of british columbia
How is it cherrypicking when the first source I provided shows that carbon taxes work in general and it was not my only example?

>ignore that total emissions from all first world nations continue to climb.
Do all first world nations have a carbon tax system? You're being dishonest.

>>10293724
This shows the carbon tax reduced emissions, thanks for admitting that.

[Anonymous No.10293756]

>>10293711
>>10293716
>"british colombia's emissions have increased"
>"no, it decreased"
>"uh, doesn't matter, everyone else who didn't do the thing i'm arguing against increased so there"
What is your point exactly?

>>10293724
The real relevant data is the per capita emissions, not total.

[Anonymous No.10293762]

>>10289944
>Should this ocean warming be of any concern, or is it a big nothingburger like Hurricane Michael last October?
The causes of it if it's the fault of human civilization are things that we should be fixing anyway so how is it a bad thing to stop polluting the planet and working steadily towards moving off of fossil fuel?

[Anonymous No.10293767]

>>10293751
Thanks for admitting that you can't even read a fucking graph. Literal retards can read graphs, but not you. You're either a liar, or retarded.

>>10293756
>The real relevant data is the per capita emissions, not total.
Said no climate scientist ever.
Jesus you people are all fucking mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.10293781]

>>10293767
Per capita and overall emissions are both down. GDP did not take a hit outside of the recession that everyone had. What part of this is unclear?

[Anonymous No.10293787]

>>10293762
>how is it a bad thing to stop polluting the planet and working steadily towards moving off of fossil fuel?

[Anonymous No.10293794]

>>10293787

Great cartoon absolutely btfos deniers

[Anonymous No.10293800]

>>10293756

The bias of the science is conservative, it always has been.

None of these reports are going to tell it like it really is, which is, you're fucked m8, its worse than you think; society is hell-bent on its own destruction

[Anonymous No.10293809]

>>10293781
>Acting as if the recession didn't cause the decrease from 08-09.
>Acting as if there is no upward trend in emissions since then

My lying eyes!!! lol

[Anonymous No.10293815]

>>10293809
That damn lying data!

[Anonymous No.10293830]

>>10293815
We've already been through this. That graph you just posted is per capita. Which I've already stated is meaningless compared to total emissions, as any climate scientist would agree with me.

This post is yet another attempt by the lying consumerist team's to bury relevant data under mountains of irrelevant nonsense.

Here are the relevant graphs again for anyone who's interested
>>10293756
>>10293724

[Anonymous No.10293832]

The millennials have nothing to lose from a carbon tax

http://news.mit.edu/2018/carbon-taxes-could-make-significant-dent-climate-change-0406

[Anonymous No.10293837]

>>10293815
https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/

CO2 levels continue to rise
Emissions continue to rise

Politicians are all talk about cutting emissions.

[Anonymous No.10293849]

>>10293800
This is pretty much it, the only valid argument against a carbon fee and dividend system is that it doesn't go far enough fast enough. It's really what we needed 20 years ago, but it's hard enough for people to realize we have a problem now.

>>10293830
>per capita is meaningless despite the obvious implications of it
>overall emissions being down is also meaningless for some reason
>"consumerists"
Huh?

>>10293837
>area with carbon tax reduced emissions
>area that didn't increased emissions
I'm not sure what side you're trying to take here.

[Tuba Jam No.10293851]

>>10289944
how about you make your own conclusions and stop begging for pre-made beliefs. https://www.ipcc.ch/ on the pro-climate change side
and on the other side, the works of the five listed here: https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/

[Anonymous No.10293856]

>>10293849
Youre that same mentally ill ambulance chaser that thinks infinite economic growth on a finite planet is possible.

>>10293849
>I'm not sure what side you're trying to take here.
That's a shot across the bow.
>>10293837
You either toe the line (lie), or you're done.

[Anonymous No.10293859]

>>10293851
>pro-climate change side
Are these the "climate change is actually a good thing because I can buy cheap property that will be expensive waterfront soon" people?

[Anonymous No.10293865]

>>10293849
>per capita is meaningless despite the obvious implications of it
Yes, per capita is in fact meaningless when you're fixated with infinite economic/population growth

Total emissions are drive climate change, not per capita. The fact that you are trying so desperately to assert this obvious nonsense pretty much proves you have alterior motives.

[Anonymous No.10293869]

>>10293832
The only people with something to lose can afford to lose it. The people who wouldn't get more out than they put in are going to be rich enough that the fee is nothing to them.

>>10293856
Are you feeling okay?

>>10293865
Again, overall is also down.

[Anonymous No.10293870]

>>10289944
that chart is fake

[Anonymous No.10293879]

>>10293865
I admit it, I have an ulterior motive. I'm also against ocean acidification.

[Anonymous No.10293885]

>>10293869
>Again, overall is also down.
Why do you insist on continuing to lie like this?
Again, the graphs IN THIS THREAD clearly show increasing emissions since 2010, and the recession is obviously what slowed it down from 08-09.

>>10293756
>>10293724

Do you actually think people believe your lies? What is your agenda here? Seriously, this is ridiculous... Your obfuscation and deception may work in some asshat divorce court but its absolutely asinine from a scientific perspective.

[Anonymous No.10293899]

>>10293885
>62 is larger than 64
It's a line graph. It's not difficult to read: overall is still down. In any case, it's still not a real argument against it. You could say that's an argument that the tax isn't enough, but it's obviously effective, unless you think Canadians are just living in permanent recession mode now, despite their GDP not indicating that.

What is your agenda? I can't comprehend who actually benefits in a significant way from trying to pretend there's a real case against a fee and dividend system. It's a plan that almost definitely benefits you in multiple ways, unless you live in a mansion, and then you can afford to either pay up or become more efficient.

[Anonymous No.10293929]

>>10293899
>I must never admit defeat
>I must never show weakness
>I must never submit
>I think I can I think I can I think I can

Take a hike, loser

[Anonymous No.10293930]

>>10293929
Can you make an actual argument, please? I would gladly admit defeat if you, you know, do something to "defeat" me.

[Anonymous No.10293940]

>>10293930
You've claimed multiple times in this thread that a graph with positive slope shows a decrease over time.
You're mentally ill. There's no point in conversing with you further other than to tell you to seek help.

[Anonymous No.10293946]

>>10293940
And you've had it explained to you multiple times why that's not the case and why it doesn't matter. Can you at least explain what your agenda is, since you were so happy to tell me what mine was?

[Anonymous No.10293951]

>>10293946
>Sees graph with positive slope showing increase
>That's not the case
>It shows a decrease
>It doesn't support my agenda

Seriously man. Get help

[Anonymous No.10293971]

my question is when should i build my boat

[Anonymous No.10293974]

>>10293951
Fine, I'll give you that there's a positive slope in the whole four usable data points, but it's nonsense to say "it didn't decrease, it just went down temporarily and might go back up eventually if we give it time!". It also doesn't change that the per capita emissions have a downward slope by the same standard, which just makes it a race between that and population growth.

Again, what is your agenda? You keep saying I have one, but where would you benefit from trying to discredit a plan that makes you money and reduces CO2 emissions?

[Anonymous No.10293993]

>>10293974
Against my better judgement, I'll respond honestly to you.
>it's nonsense to say "it didn't decrease, it just went down temporarily and might go back up eventually if we give it time!".
Then its just as nonsense to say that "it will reverse trend and start decreasing any day now, swear it!"
>It also doesn't change that the per capita emissions have a downward slope by the same standard, which just makes it a race between that and population growth.
I'll give you that
>a plan that makes you money and reduces CO2 emissions
sounds like a win-win-win too-good-to-be-true dubious claim.
>What is your agenda?
Your carbon tax agenda is obfuscation and stalling for the fact that infinite economic/population growth is not possible and even attempting such a thing will have serious environmental/societal consequences.
Someone posted this recently on a board I follow, and there is simply no arguing against it
(part 1/2, continued)

[Anonymous No.10293997]

>>10293974
>>10293993
>Pollution reduction by adjunct processes can't work, but that strategy is politically desirable as it allows for institutional aggrandizement; pollution reduction by rationing of resources or structural pruning can work, but that strategy is detrimental to the self-interest of our institutions. We have the worst idea of polluter pays principle that excuses, justifies, and promotes more environmental degradation, always increasing social costs, and the emergence of new forms and orders of pollution. This principle stands for our failure to create a coherent theory (or model) of pollution in which our waste is the main control of pollution. Without such a model, polluter pays principle is actually a compounding series of positive feedback loops masquerading as a negative feedback mechanism.

>A particular physical deleterious effect is defined, measured, and priced by an industry that exacts a social cost and works against environment as source and sink with real world processes. Thus, this industry is a new order of pollution that doesn't appear to be counted as such. This industry has its own internal dynamic of growth as it can redefine a pollution or discover new pollution by simply changing its model, of course, with a greater social cost by its fermentation. Similarly, reduction of a pollution by adjunct real world processes is another order of pollution atop the physical harm. IPCC and EPA are examples of recently emerged pollutions: costs applied to particular harms (real or potential).

[Anonymous No.10294002]

>>10293974
>>10293997
(part 2b)
>The distinction between waste and pollution has become irrelevant because society now produces such prodigious amounts of waste that more waste must be created to deal with waste. Society, as a result, is becoming the ultimate sink of itself, especially, as it tries to discover and reduce pollution. Our fixing the sink (symbolically) with the fiction of green entropy is ridiculous.

>The carbon cycle remediation industry does not demand less environmental degradation with consequent deleterious effects for society. The carbon cycle remediation industry by its vast scope and scale to retool society and reform the structure and function of the oceans and atmosphere necessarily demands a radical discount of the value of the environment, an environment already so loaded that civilization is quite likely not viable at its current rate of dissipation. Polluter pays without less total degradation is a disaster.

[Anonymous No.10294053]

>>10293993
>sounds like a win-win-win too-good-to-be-true dubious claim.
It's the honest truth though. Most people will get more money out than they put in, since the people at the top put in disproportionately more.

>>10293997
>>10294002
Has someone invented a translator from pseudo-intellectual to English yet? I got lost trying to follow its winding path up the author's ass. There's definitely no arguing against it, since not even the guy who wrote it can actually communicate what it means.

[Anonymous No.10294070]

>>10294053
Maybe you ought to try reading it again. (I've got a physics background, and honestly it took me a few tries, as well.) It's plain English. The fact that you aren't willing to try and understand it doesn't reflect badly on the author, it reflects badly on you.

[Anonymous No.10294080]

>>10294070
>>10294053
>>10294002
Not all carbon credits/tax systems allow polluters to pay their way out of it, or gain extra credits/allowance from other places.

There are plenty of strategies aimed at reducing waste as well.

[Anonymous No.10294132]

>>10294070
How's this:
>Reducing emissions through "adjunct processes" doesn't work but looks good politically; reducing emissions by mandating less usage works, but is obviously not good for any nation that wishes to thrive. "Polluter pays principle" excuses, justifies, and promotes more environmental degradation, always increasing social costs, and the emergence of new forms and orders of pollution. It stands for our failure to create a coherent theory (or model) of pollution in which our waste is the main control of pollution. Without such a model, polluter pays principle is actually a compounding series of positive feedback loops masquerading as a negative feedback mechanism.

>Pollution is defined, measured, and priced by a new industry that simply adds a new layer of waste and pollution. This industry has its own internal dynamic of growth as it can redefine pollution or discover new pollution by simply changing its model. Similarly, reduction of a pollution by "adjunct real world processes" adds its own pollution atop the physical harm. IPCC and EPA are examples: costs applied to particular harms (real or potential).

>The distinction between waste and pollution has become irrelevant because society now produces such prodigious amounts of waste that more waste must be created to deal with waste. Society, as a result, is becoming the ultimate sink of itself, especially, as it tries to discover and reduce pollution. Our symbolic fixing of the sink with the fiction of "green entropy" is ridiculous.

>The carbon cycle remediation industry does not demand less environmental degradation. It, by its vast scope and scale to retool society and reform the structure and function of the oceans and atmosphere, demands a radical discount of the value of the environment already so loaded that civilization is quite likely not viable. Polluter pays without less total degradation is a disaster.

Fits in one post, but reveals the missing point and lack of understanding.

[Anonymous No.10294188]

>>10293767
>Thanks for admitting that you can't even read a fucking graph. Literal retards can read graphs, but not you. You're either a liar, or retard
You have no response, so you resort to vague, childish attacks.

[Anonymous No.10294207]

>>10293870
Are you implying that your pic is global SST? It's not, it's SST in the Nino 3.4 region.

[Anonymous No.10294245]

>>10289944
extremely.
coral reefs make 80% of the oxygen

Coral is very sensitive to changes in temperature. An increase of 2 ° C in water temperature, due to global warming caused by the greenhouse effect or other circumstance, would cause the death of 35% of the coral on our planet.

[Anonymous No.10294310]

>>10293869
>The only people with something to lose can afford to lose it.

Read the article.

Any millennial that believes their environment or climate is something they can afford to lose, I have to laugh at

There is literally no downside for taxing the shit out of carbon

[Anonymous No.10294369]

>>10293849
>it doesn't go far enough fast enough. It's really what we needed 20 years ago, but it's hard enough for people to realize we have a problem now.


Everyone has to take a stand.

Professionally. Personally. Its up to you. Do you think anything is going to happen without telling people their days of relying on cheap fossil fuels IS OVER?

Sure, politically difficult sell. But you can't just wait for politics to do something. This is the best chance millennials will get at a viable future. You guys have to realize that enemies of your future look like your elders and authority figures. Maybe you're part of the problem, too. It doesn't matter - Its ALL your problem.


>Putting a price on carbon, in the form of a fee or tax on the use of fossil fuels, coupled with returning the generated revenue to the public in one form or another, can be an effective way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases. That’s one of the conclusions of an extensive analysis of several versions of such proposals, carried out by researchers at MIT and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

>What’s more, depending on the exact mechanism chosen, such a tax can also be fair and not hurt low-income households, the researchers report.

[Anonymous No.10294389]

>2015 per capita carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion (metric tons)

United States 15.53
India 1.58
Russia 10.19
Japan 8.99

>starting with a $50 per ton carbon tax and increasing it by 5 percent per year would lead to a 63 percent reduction in total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Reilly says. “So that’s in line with what people are talking about, which is needing a 50 percent reduction by 2050, globally,” he says, “and getting to net zero beyond that.”

THEREFORE

United States $776.50
India $79
Russia $509.50
Japan $449.50

This is an average price per capita, not the price YOU would necessarily pay. Whats the objection now?

>The average American consumes approximately 500 gallons (1892 L) of motor gasoline per year, whereas the average Canadian consumes approximately 310 gallons (1173 L)

Think about it- do YOU burn 500 gallons in a personal vehicle per year?

If not, why are you allowing cheapskates to ruin your climate so they can drive their SUV around, getting fatter every day?

Seriously you have to be an idiot to believe Carbon Tax would wreck people's lives. Those people DO NOT have lives, believe me. They're parasites. Carbon tax is the cure.

[Anonymous No.10294820]

>>10294132
Why don't you just say what you mean without the bullshit green text disguise so we can at least have a conversation about it? I know what you mean but I'm not replying to a green text which is actually your own words.

[Anonymous No.10294825]

>>10290635
no he's just scared

[Anonymous No.10294830]

>>10294389
It would be useful to see a breakdown of how much is used to heat homes and how much is transportation (personal as well as industrial). The point that's been made over and over and over again in this thread is that what is really not sustainable is the growth. And then theres the additional point in green text above about how polluter pays is in fact a positive feedback disguised as a negative one.

[Anonymous No.10294831]

>>10289944
It causes coral bleaching, and coral is a huge carbon sink and oxygen producer.

[Anonymous No.10295066]

>>10293851
how about you state some facts and stfu about "beliefs"

[Anonymous No.10295380]

>>10289944
warming water expands and is causing a sea level rise

[Anonymous No.10295446]

>>10295380
https://youtu.be/vqmCu854rHc?t=2m13s

[Anonymous No.10295466]

>>10290152
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA

[Anonymous No.10295524]

>>10294830
Behold.

>The point that's been made over and over and over again in this thread is that what is really not sustainable is the growth.
Repeating a point is not the same thing as proving it. The only reason you are against a carbon tax is because you can't accept the idea of a solution that does not follow your luddite ideology.

>And then theres the additional point in green text above about how polluter pays is in fact a positive feedback disguised as a negative one.
How is it a positive feedback? Your greentext provides no argument, just a needlessly verbose political manifesto. When you would like to discuss reality, respond to the analysis and real world examples provided here >>10293539

[Anonymous No.10295527]

>>10289944
yeah before its too late

[Anonymous No.10295786]

>>10289944
>Water temperature increases, thus oxygen solubility decreases
>CO2 dissolves in water, increases acidity
>Marine life suffers

It's a huge fucking deal. Unless you are some kind of mutt that would rather watch the world burn than to accept that [insert ideological opponents] might have a valid point.

[Anonymous No.10295810]

>>10289944
>"units of energy"
Joules? Calories?

[Anonymous No.10295831]

>>10295810
Yes.

[Anonymous No.10296020]

>>10295524
The only reason you're in favour of a carbon tax is because you believe that infinite economic/population growth is possible and desirable due to futuristic technological improvements you know nothing about, and are not remotely involved in.

I suspect you are connected to either the banking or construction industries (most likely heavily invested in those, or receiving funding from them), totally scientifically illiterate (that explains why you think endless economic growth is possible), and complete ignorant of the ongoing and exponentially increasing destruction of the biosphere due to things other than global warming.

I shouldn't even bother responding to a sleazy ambulance chasing shill who wastes something like 5 posts trying to convince people that a graph with positive slope isn't increasing because it doesn't support your agenda... you're mentally ill. You'll believe whatever bullshit you have to to justify your bloated lifestyle. When it comes right down to it you're just as bad as the f-350 driving sledneck coal mining hick.

[Anonymous No.10296038]

>>10295524
Actually the only reason you're in favour of a carbon tax is because you have enough money that it won't affect your lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.10296773]

>>10296020
>The only reason you're in favour of a carbon tax is because you believe that infinite economic/population growth is possible
I have no opinion on this.

>I suspect you are connected to either the banking or construction industries (most likely heavily invested in those, or receiving funding from them), totally scientifically illiterate (that explains why you think endless economic growth is possible), and complete ignorant of the ongoing and exponentially increasing destruction of the biosphere due to things other than global warming.
You're completely wrong. But please keep making more idiotic predictions, they're good for a laugh.

>I shouldn't even bother responding to a sleazy ambulance chasing shill who wastes something like 5 posts trying to convince people that a graph with positive slope isn't increasing because it doesn't support your agenda.
Whether in some arbitrary time frame is irrelevant. The point is that the carbon tax reduced emissions. This is proven both theoretically and empirically. You ignored this and tried to move the goalposts to "a carbon tax must mean emissions are decreasing at all times regardless of whether the tax rate is frozen." Then you even tried to say that carbon taxes don't work because global emissions are increasing! Bottom line is, you accuse others of being shills but you're the only one behaving like one, with patently dishonest tactics. That's what happens when you slavishly follow an ideology and not scientific facts.

[Anonymous No.10296834]

>>10293787
>deny cheap electricity to 3rd world countries, condemning them to live like animals in 21st century
Yeah, I'm sure carbon tax can't harm anyone, anywhere.

[Anonymous No.10296855]

>>10289944
>implying graphs can't be manipulated to fit narrative
Raw data or gtfo

[Anonymous No.10296974]

>>10296773
You're that same delusional asshat who believes you can fight climate change while increasing production, as long as you implement a carbon tax, aren't you.

Look... I'd be more supportive of a carbon tax if the government wasn't literally spending the money on refineries and pipelines (which result in increasing production), as well as increasing the number of of low carbon footprint people it imports from tropical countries to live high footprint western lifestyles. The hypocrisy of it all suggests they aren't really serious about climate change and the tax is just another money grab.

[Anonymous No.10297012]

>>10296773
>The point is that the carbon tax reduced emissions.
This statement is a lie. We've been over this ad infinitum in this thread, so its extremely frustrating that you would continue to lie like that. You should have written:
The point is that the carbon tax reduced PER CAPITA emissions.
Are you not allowed to say PER CAPITA? If so, why not?

[Anonymous No.10297083]

>>10296834
>implying the poorest of the 3rd world don't benefit the most since this module requires other countries to provide the high tech and infrastructure
>implying a temporary loss of carbon-producing electricity doesn't offset living underwater or dying of famine/drought

[Anonymous No.10297472]

>>10296974
>You're that same delusional asshat who believes you can fight climate change while increasing production, as long as you implement a carbon tax, aren't you.
Sure you can, since production does not necessarily mean greenhouse gas emissions.

>Look... I'd be more supportive of a carbon tax if the government wasn't literally spending the money on refineries and pipelines (which result in increasing production)
Which government?

>The hypocrisy of it all suggests they aren't really serious about climate change and the tax is just another money grab.
All you have is moral outrage and no analysis to tell you what is actually happening.

>>10297012
>The point is that the carbon tax reduced PER CAPITA emissions.
The carbon tax also reduced total emissions as shown here:

https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/environment/publications/british-columbia%E2%80%99s-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-review-latest-%E2%80%9Cgrand-experiment%E2%80%9D

You also ignored the general model I posted and the Australian example which showed a large, consistent decrease in emissions until the tax was repealed by the new government, at which point emissions started to increase.

[Anonymous No.10299241]

>>10297472
>Sure you can, since production does not necessarily mean greenhouse gas emissions.
How so? This doesn't make sense.
>Which government
The neoliberal fascist ones
>The carbon tax also reduced total emissions as shown here
So the graphs previously posted in this thread by you are inaccurate then?
>>10293756

You aren't making sense.

[Anonymous No.10299302]

There's no way we're going to stop climate change, it's not possible, the population will inevitably reach 11, 12, 13 billion, by then it would already be too late. Nothing will change, extinction is the route with the highest probability. Face it, the economy is unsustainable, you're not going to change it, even politicians aren't going to change it. I might as well invest in clothing now for the desert I'll inevitably be walking in 30 years from now.

[Anonymous No.10299345]

>>10297472
>Sure you can, since production does not necessarily mean greenhouse gas emissions.
Reintroducing previously buried and inaccessible carbon to the atmosphere/biosphere does in fact lead to emissions sooner or later. You're literally moving carbon upwards, freeing it from the ground, where it can once again become part of the system - it's that simple. That you would rationalize otherwise and try so desperately to convince others is truly frightening.

We've had this discussion before. You had no response then and have none now. And now here you are again continuing to relentlessly pedal the same tired lie as if our previous discussion never even happened. Bernie Madoff? Is that you?

Clearly no one is ever going to have an honest discussion with someone who has a agenda and comes from a long line of extremely successful prolific liars and deceivers. Congrats on being able to convince yourself and get to sleep at night, but you won't convince anyone with integrity. Its just a matter of time before it catches up with you.

[Anonymous No.10299370]

>>10299345
The reason why people deny is because climate change tells them that something is fundamentally wrong with the human lifestyle, their lifestyle. Some other people deny because they're greedy and are willing to sacrifice the natural world to live a lavished life. However, if you think that you are going to change something which other people have based what they do 8 hours of their day on(driving, using electricity) you're sorely mistaken, we will always have deniers simply because it's more convenient, you're not changing anything by telling them this.

[Anonymous No.10299420]

>>10299370
The person I'm responding to isn't a" climate denier", and neither am I. Although maybe he's an altogether different (and probably more dangerous) type of denier.

[Anonymous No.10299435]

>>10299420
still applies

[Anonymous No.10299457]

>>10299435
agreed. not sure why I do it... seems pointless for sure

[Anonymous No.10299566]

>>10299241
>How so? This doesn't make sense.
Production requires energy, not emissions.

>The neoliberal fascist ones
You're being obtuse.

>So the graphs previously posted in this thread by you are inaccurate then?
>>10293756 #
Not me, and nothing I said contradicted that graph.

>You aren't making sense.
You're projecting.

[Anonymous No.10299598]

>>10299345
>Reintroducing previously buried and inaccessible carbon to the atmosphere/biosphere does in fact lead to emissions sooner or later.
Production doesn't necessitate using carbon. You're begging the question. Again, the only one making the fallacious arguments you accuse others of making is you. There is no substance in your posts, just puerile insults and conspiracy logic. Either respond to the argument or leave.

[Anonymous No.10300479]

>>10296855
>I can't find Raw data

[Anonymous No.10300593]

>>10290094
>life is finally coming to an end
Thank God

[Anonymous No.10300643]

>>10292081
When capitalist doesn't like enforced action there is something wrong with them.
Also it's maybe because average capitalistic consumer cannot be trusted with species survival.

[Anonymous No.10300657]

>>10290172
Big Oil and Big Energy along with Google literally spearheaded the anthropogenic climate change movement of the late 90s through today, useful retard. The energy and oil oligopolies benefit from anthropogenic climate change laws and taxpayer funded green energy infrastructure research, development, and deployment the most. They employ the "consensus" climate scientists you hear about in the news, which they also own (for example General Electric's heavy control of NBC, and Google's control of, well, Google).

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december4/gcepsr-124.html

>inb4 you move goalposts instead of acknowledge your error and change your mind.

[Anonymous No.10300660]

At least oceanic warming is making global wave power great again.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190114082847.htm

[Anonymous No.10301025]

>>10300657
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10302353]

>>10299566
>Production requires energy, not emissions.
>>10299598
>Production doesn't necessitate using carbon.

I don't understand how mining petrol doesn't cause eventual emissions. Even when stored in tanks or making plastics it eventually breaks down. Can you explain your reasoning here?

[Anonymous No.10302358]

>>10301025
Really awesome how "Shills" is front and center. As if billion dollar corporations and governments don't pay people to influence public opinion on the internet.

A literal shill might actually post that pic.

[Anonymous No.10302677]

>>10302353
>I don't understand how mining petrol doesn't cause eventual emissions.
How does production necessitate mining petrol? Can you explain your reasoning here?

[Anonymous No.10302686]

>>10302358
>corporations have payed people to influence public opinion on the internet
>therefore everyone who disagrees with me is a shill and climatology is a hoax
This retarded conspiracy logic doesn't help you, it just shows everyone you belong in >>>/x/. Here's a hint: Show how anything in climatology is fake, instead of just speculating that it is and pretending speculation is an argument.

[Anonymous No.10302704]

>>10300657
How do oil and coal companies benefit from having to spend huge amounts of money on R&D for a payoff that's most certainly not guaranteed? Do you even realize the absolute billions of subsidies companies get for producing coal/oil every year? tax subsidies for renewables are paltry in comparison.

[Anonymous No.10302710]

>>10294245
Anon, the coral reefs were already massacred back in 2016/2017...

[Anonymous No.10302815]

>>10302677
I didn't mean to offend you. There's no reason to be sarcastic.
I thought fossil fuels were produced by mining petrol. Is this not the case?

[Anonymous No.10302820]

>>10302686
Wha?
I'm just saying your pic is something that an actual shill would post. It implies that shills are mythical like "Reptilians" and "Aliens".

Do you think that shills do not exist in the real world?

Anyway, way to get super triggered over a simple question and statement. I hope you don't freak out and blow up an artery and die because some 14 year old on 4chan said something that you don't like one day.

[Anonymous No.10302824]

>>10302815
I'm not being sarcastic. I'm arguing against the claim "You're that same delusional asshat who believes you can fight climate change while increasing production, as long as you implement a carbon tax, aren't you." I took this to mean production in general, not fossil fuel production.

[Anonymous No.10302826]

>>10302815
"Increasing production" doesn't necessarily imply "mining petrol".

[Anonymous No.10302833]

>>10302824
Ok that makes sense then. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.10302835]

>>10302820
>I'm just saying your pic is something that an actual shill would post. It implies that shills are mythical like "Reptilians" and "Aliens".
No it implies that /x/tards mention shills alot. The pyramids are also real, I'm not saying by putting "pyramid" on the image that pyramids are fake. I'm saying /x/tards talk about pyramids a lot.

But sure, keep arguing that I'm a shill because shills would do things that I do. Really rock hard logic that doesn't make you look more like an /x/tard at all.

>Anyway, way to get super triggered over a simple question and statement.
Says the guy who can't handle being called an /x/tard.

[Anonymous No.10302837]

>>10302835
>I'm saying /x/tards talk about pyramids a lot.
Well you'd know I guess...

[Anonymous No.10302844]

>>10302824
>I took this to mean production in general, not fossil fuel production.
This post yours too though, right?
>>10299598

[Anonymous No.10302860]

>>10302844
Yes.

[Anonymous No.10302863]

>>10302837
Yeah I would know because you're constantly invading this board with your paranoid schizophrenic rants. Now go where you belong >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10302877]

>>10302863
kek