How can we stop Global Warming?

[Anonymous No.10783690]

Please /sci/ we need to do something, the intense heat wave is killing me.

Pic related, current France heat map.

[Anonymous No.10783695]

>>10783690
Stop chemtrailing for starters.

[Anonymous No.10783697]

Make some really big deserts. Barren sand bounces heat right back out into space, which is why it gets so damn cold at night there.

[Anonymous No.10783703]

>>10783690
>Global Warming
not science or math

[Anonymous No.10783704]

>>10783690
Carbon tax + nuclear + renewables

/thread

[Anonymous No.10783706]

>>10783690
29C ~ 84F
wtf are you bitching about

[Anonymous No.10783712]

>>10783690
"its just the weather and not climate, learn to get it straight."

As a side note, if all the theories of climate change are right (they aren't, some are but not as many as climate alarmists would want you to believe). The primary sources of the emissions come from China, India, and Mexico. The US can't stop them without declaring war on them...

[Anonymous No.10783717]

>>10783712
The US has been polluting for a much longer time and has done more damage overall.

[Anonymous No.10783720]

>>10783717
Perhaps, but it isn't the problem now. If you want to fix the now then you need to look at what is the current source of the problem.

The US has reduced carbon emissions faster than any other country in the entire world and this has only accelerated recently.

The current sources of the emissions is not the US and thus can't be solved by any US activity, aside from imposing the will of the US on said other countries... a thing that can't be done through peaceful means.

[Anonymous No.10783731]

>>10783720
>current source of the problem.

[Anonymous No.10783735]

>>10783712
Warmer weather is part of the global trend, colder weather is not. One is getting more common while the other is not.

>they aren't, some are but not as many as climate alarmists would want you to believe
Like what?

>The primary sources of the emissions come from China, India, and Mexico.
LOL why are you lying?

China 28%
USA 15%
India 6%
Russia 5%
...
7 countries down
...
Mexico 1%

>The US can't stop them without declaring war on them...
Yet the only ones not on board with global climate treaties are Trump, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Not to mention that China and India have lower per capita emissions meaning countries like the US have a lot more unnecessary emissions to cut. Not to mention that countries like the US were emmitting large amounts of GHGs many decades before China and India. But yeah, only pay attention to China, India and Mexico (???), they're the real problem. Pathetic shill.

[Anonymous No.10783736]

>>10783731
>And making money in the process
>And while bitching whenever the U.S tries to incentivize companies to move some of that production back in the US
That CO2 output is to be rightfully attributed in full to the chinks. kys

[Anonymous No.10783740]

>>10783731
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/8jv686/article25674340.ece/alternates/FREE_660/TH06CO2col

The emissions of the US is already going down faster than any other country. India and China's emissions are growing fast. Especially India's.

[Anonymous No.10783743]

>>10783735
Well yeah no shit those same treaties are fucking paying the chinks and poos while allowing them to do as they please for a decade (at which point they'll be powerful enough to tell everyone else to fuck off if someone ask them to lower their CO2 output), WHY would they be against it?

[Anonymous No.10783744]

>>10783690
>another global warming hoax thread
OMG It's warm at summer. Let's call it "Global Warming"!

[Anonymous No.10783751]

>>10783740
Right, and that CO2 is going in the atmosphere regardless of how many fuk wypipo climate policies the west needs to abide to.

[Anonymous No.10783753]

Also, there is a lot more factors to climate than carbon emissions. Recent studies are saying that this temperature increase could just be because of the Sun spiking in released energy. Also, the northern ice cap is shrinking but the southern ice cap is growing. Antarctica is getting ice faster than the North Pole is losing it. Not to mention the Great Lakes are actually getting more water rather than the less that climate alarmists were saying that they would. And finally, the Earth's temperature hasn't risen by any statistical amount for about 15 years now. This heat wave is just that, a heat wave. It'll be gone as fast as it came just like they always do.

[Anonymous No.10783754]

>>10783690
Chemtrails have triggered methane release. We've had it, very soon.

[Anonymous No.10783762]

>>10783744
>it's warm at summer
>not "summer is getting warmer"
Why do deniers constantly resort to lying?

[Anonymous No.10783766]

>>10783743
>Well yeah no shit those same treaties are fucking paying the chinks and poos while allowing them to do as they please for a decade
Source?

Also I find it odd that you blow off the US's decades of unmatched emissions but the (false) idea that China and India are given a break for once decade is UNFAIR WAAAAH. Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.10783789]

>>10783736
bomb US, problem solved

[Anonymous No.10783801]

>>10783753
>Also, there is a lot more factors to climate than carbon emissions. Recent studies are saying that this temperature increase could just be because of the Sun spiking in released energy.
Solar activity has been decreasing for decades and is near a grand minimum, yet the warming continues. Please post these "studies" so I can have a good laugh.

>Also, the northern ice cap is shrinking but the southern ice cap is growing.
Wrong. Pic related.

>Not to mention the Great Lakes are actually getting more water rather than the less that climate alarmists were saying that they would.
What is the long term trend?

[Anonymous No.10783807]

>>10783690
It can't be stopped, enjoy death you frog. Buy land away from the coast in Greenland and Iceland if you can afford it.

[Anonymous No.10783809]

>>10783753
>And finally, the Earth's temperature hasn't risen by any statistical amount for about 15 years now.
Ah the piece de resistance of denier stupidity, perfectly encapsulating both your gullible repetition of stale memes and your inability to check data and think for yourself. You just make it too easy.

[Anonymous No.10783814]

>>10783809
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/8jv686/article25674340.ece/alternates/FREE_660/TH06CO2col

I mean, it really hasn't.

[Anonymous No.10783840]

>>10783814
Even when you cherrypick a data set that has had a known cooling bias in it uncorrected for two years it still shows that you lied! Hilarious!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates

[Anonymous No.10783844]

>>10783840
says the one cherry picking data sets from a source specifically dedicated to exaggerating said data. Also, what is with that line you made there? it doesn't follow the graph.

[Anonymous No.10783850]

>>10783844
>says the one cherry picking data sets from a source specifically dedicated to exaggerating said data.
Which source is that?

>Also, what is with that line you made there?
It says it right there in the legend on the top left, those are trend lines for the past 15 years, which you said show no trend.

[Anonymous No.10783863]

>>10783844
And here's the comparison with the instrumental record to show you only UAH diverges, because it's been shown to be bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10783864]

>>10783850
Skewed trend lines perhaps.

Also, at that point we are dealing with differences of 0.2 degrees, in other words even if I gave you that I would still be right about the worlds Temperature not raising by any significant amount over the last 15 years.

How about you zoom out a little bit and we can see how significant that line actually is.

[Anonymous No.10783866]

>>10783690
Make more ice you fucking idiots. I have an ice maker and my energy bill is probably 3 - 4 times higher than any of my neighbors for running it constantly, but I'm saving the earth and people will thank me in a couple of years. If you want to help, invest in a good ice maker which is gonna cost like $2000 and just make ice and put it outside.

[Anonymous No.10783869]

>>10783866
...Fairly certain that this one is just a troll, no one is that stupid... hopefully.

[Anonymous No.10783876]

>>10783864
>Skewed trend lines perhaps.
How? It's literally just an OLS. Go check it yourself http://woodfortrees.org/plot/

You're heading at straws like a retard.

>Also, at that point we are dealing with differences of 0.2 degrees, in other words even if I gave you that I would still be right about the worlds Temperature not raising by any significant amount over the last 15 years.
You mean 0.3 degrees over the past 15 years. Cab you not read a graph correctly or are you just trying to lie again? This is an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming, the fastest global warming in at least the last 600,000 years. It's highly significant, you fucking LARPing mongoloid. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10783892]

>>10783876
And instantly you get violent.

0.3 degrees over the past 15 years when climate alarmists have been saying that the Temp should be over 2 degrees for that same time frame. I hate to break it to ya, but this is far slower than what they've been saying, so slow that we can easily call it insignificant.

[Anonymous No.10783901]

>>10783892
>And instantly you get violent.
Waaaaaaaaaaaah

>0.3 degrees over the past 15 years when climate alarmists have been saying that the Temp should be over 2 degrees for that same time frame.
HAHAHAHA keep lying and digging yourself into further irrelevancy, you little bitch. You're a joke.

[Anonymous No.10783905]

>>10783892
It's time to go back to your containment board kid >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.10783908]

>>10783901
At the current rate, the global Temperature will be a mere 2 degrees higher in 100 years. In other words, insignificant. By that time we will have many new technologies that can reduce and capture carbon emissions. We already have those today. The constantly advancement of science spurred on by Capitalism is already well on its way to solving this non-problem.

[Anonymous No.10783916]

>>10783908
>the global Temperature will be a mere 2 degrees higher in 100 years. In other words, insignificant.
Extrapolating that trend for 1000 years is 20C. That is an enormous temperature change over a geologically short period of time. This is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed, and the sooner the better, because there's no undoing it for a very long time.

[Anonymous No.10783919]

>>10783908
>a mere 2 degrees
Which would be quite catastrophic. Do you understand how averages work? Do you understand that it's incredibly rapid rate of warming that's the worst part?

>By that time we will have many new technologies that can reduce and capture carbon emissions. We already have those today.
>Just smoke as much as you want, wil eventually event a cure for cancer and we even have treatments today.
What a fucking retard, here's a technology for you: emit less GHGs.

[Anonymous No.10783921]

>>10783690
Why does this image look so horribly familiar?

[Anonymous No.10783928]

>>10783908
>At the current rate, the global Temperature will be a mere 2 degrees higher in 100 years

That's a model of imperfect knowledge. Permafrosts hiding big reservoirs can shorten that down to less than 20 years. 2 C temperature change would kill America's bread basket and practically put all of the U.S. in an indefinite severe drought. Then water wars, then nuclear war.

[Anonymous No.10783935]

>>10783928
That is the exact thing that they've been saying for 50 years. They keep putting deadlines that come and go.
And, once again, I'd like to remind everyone that the US is already reducing carbon emissions faster than any other country on the planet, and said reduction is getting faster. The thing you want is already happening.

[Anonymous No.10783947]

>>10783690
Global revolution. Climate change is literally just capitalist greed

[Anonymous No.10783952]

>>10783935

>boomer faggot

[Anonymous No.10783960]

>>10783935
>for 50 years
when the population was just 3 billion

[Anonymous No.10783965]

>>10783935
>I'd like to remind everyone that the US is already reducing carbon emissions faster than any other country on the planet
Most European countries are already far ahead of America on a per capita basis, so it's not exactly impressive that America is lowering emissions by a couple percent. Most of that decrease for America is from fracking, as I understand it. Eventually an "emissions floor" will be reached with each change, where the numbers don't keep going down until some new changes are made. The only way to reach 90%+ decarbonization needed to be sustainable is a complete overhaul of every emitting sector. Power generation, transportation, and agriculture are the biggest three, so big changes are needed in all three to start making the needed progress. And they aren't happening, probably at least partially because of obstinate denialists blocking any changes based on their misconceptions of the facts.

[Anonymous No.10783969]

>>10783960
And quality of life has only increased with Population.Technological advancement and free trade can solve just about any problem. More people also means that there is more smart people out there as well, more smart people means that problems can be solve faster and easier. Stop being so anti-human.

[Anonymous No.10783977]

>>10783908
bs, now it's +3C by 2050

>At the current rate
topkek, yeah that won't last long
assuming linear growth is quintessential boomer stupidity

[Anonymous No.10783982]

>>10783965
We don't need 90% decarbonization. Even if what the climate alarmists say is true than all we would need is carbon capture technology. Honestly, that can just be achieved by planting a shit ton of trees everywhere. If the world's temperature ever becomes a true problem than it can be nearly completely reversed by planting millions of trees throughout the great planes. Not to mention in 100 years we will have better means of dealing with this problem, a problem that won't actually become one for at least 100 years. Putting the problem off is the solution to said problem. The next generation will be better equipped to deal with it than the current one.

[Anonymous No.10783984]

>>10783916
That's also a completely baseless extrapolation. It's not obviously a problem at all, and it's very hard to address it when there's precisely zero evidence that we can realistically do anything to reverse any damage that might have already been done.

>>10783919
Which would be quite catastrophic. Do you understand that it's incredibly rapid rate of warming that's the worst part?
It won't and there's no particular reason to believe the rate is especially concerning.

>>10783928
>That's a model of imperfect knowledge.
Right. That's the point. It might happen in 20 years, it might not happen at all, or the Yellowstone volcano might erupt and kill us all next week. It's a terrible idea to commit to potentially ruinous policy changes based on alarmist predictions from a highly uncertain model. If there's any significant loss of arable land, which is questionable, it will most likely be offset by warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons in northern regions. There's no reason to believe that a 2º C rise would destroy the earth's agricultural capacity. It might re-shuffle the political order a bit, but even that's doubtful. Abundant wheat is not why the US is a super power, and society will not collapse if we have to import more food from Canada and northern Europe.

[Anonymous No.10783986]

>>10783977
Again, this climate alarmist bull has been said again and again and again. Not a single one of your climate models have been right, why should anyone believe something that has been dis-proven every single time its popped up?

[Anonymous No.10783989]

>>10783969
>quality of life has only increased
3 billion, moon landing
7+ billion, nothing for 50 years

[Anonymous No.10783992]

>>10783986
>Not a single one of your climate models have been right
lrn2read

[Anonymous No.10783993]

>>10783986
>not a single one of your climate models have been right
Hyperbole, and models aren't even needed to verify that climate warming is happening. Measurement evidence has already been posted ITT, which I'm sure is doctored or a hoax according to you.

[Anonymous No.10783998]

>>10783969
>quality of life has only increased
3 billion, moon landing
7+ billion, nothing for 50 years

[Anonymous No.10783999]

>>10783989
>nothing for 50 year?

Bullshit, if you have a smart phone than you have access to all of the world knowledge at the tip of your finger. This is something anyone from longer than 100 years ago would have fought and died for. If you have a smart phone than you have a better quality of life than 100% of people from 50 year back to the very beginning of human civilization.

[Anonymous No.10784004]

>>10783993
The Models are needed to verify the intensity of the warming though. And that has been wrong every single time. The problem is significantly smaller than anything any climate model has predicted. As such, there is no reason to put any faith in such predictions, let alone using them to dictate public policy.

[Anonymous No.10784009]

>>10783982
>Even if what the climate alarmists say is true than all we would need is carbon capture technology.
Carbon capture is a meme. How do you extract chemical energy by burning a fuel and then spend energy collecting the CO2 gas and reacting it back into solid form? It doesn't work, or you are defeating the whole purpose of burning the fuel. There's also no solution in sequestering the gas underground. All it takes is one good earthquake and it all escapes to the atmosphere anyway. It's not a long term solution. Much more viable is to remove fossil fuels from the grid, and replace them with renewables/nuclear.
>>10783984
It's not a baseless extrapolation. If you wait longer while a process is happening, the effect is more significant.
>it's very hard to address it when there's precisely zero evidence that we can realistically do anything to reverse any damage that might have already been done
What a joke. "Something something there's no evidence, better do nothing" is a dumb argument when we know the answer: stop emitting carbon and fluorinated gases.

[Anonymous No.10784013]

>>10783998

What a well researched argument.

[Anonymous No.10784014]

>>10784004
>The Models are needed to verify the intensity of the warming though.
Do you know how to take the slope of a set of data points? No computer simulation needed. Computer models are a supplement to the understanding of the evidence already measured, not the central basis for the argument that denialists want them to be.

[Anonymous No.10784015]

>>10783869
You're that stupid, for falling for it - you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.10784018]

>>10784009
Carbon capture isn't a meme, it is very very effective. Oh, and carbon fused to dirt and rock doesn't get released just from an earthquake. Do you not know how chemistry works? Carbon can bond to practically any other atom, bonded atoms won't break apart just from a little jostling from an earthquake.

[Anonymous No.10784019]

>>10783892
>And instantly you get violent.
Oh no! Did he hit you? Over the internet? How?!

[Anonymous No.10784021]

>>10784009
>spend energy collecting the CO2 gas and reacting it back into solid form?
Pretty sure that's called growing plants.

[Anonymous No.10784024]

>>10784019
Obviously I was talking about volatile speech. In other words, excessively abrasive speech. I was simply noting how pointlessly angry the idiot was getting.

[Anonymous No.10784030]

>>10784009
>It's not a baseless extrapolation. If you wait longer while a process is happening, the effect is more significant.
You're assuming that current conditions can be linearly extrapolated out to 1000 years when we have experimental evidence that the trend you're extrapolating from isn't even stable over an average human lifespan.

[Anonymous No.10784032]

>>10784018
>it is very very effective
No, it isn't.
>Carbon can bond to practically any other atom, bonded atoms won't break apart just from a little jostling from an earthquake
The proposals I've seen amount to injecting the CO2 gas into old fossil fuel reservoirs underground. It's not going to magically react unless you make it do so. And unfortunately, CO2 is a very stable molecule that takes a lot of energy to break up.
>>10784021
The energy for that comes from sunlight. Halting deforestation and promoting afforestation is part of the solution, though.

[Anonymous No.10784039]

>>10784030
It's been going up steadily for 150 ish years. My money is on it continuing to go up. If it's going to reach 3-4C in just this century under a no action scenario, it's not unreasonable that it would reach more than that over 9 more centuries of status quo. Something like 10C warming is obviously a problem. That's the difference between the ice caps completely melting, land desertifying from drought, and summer heat waves going from uncomfortably hot to deadly.

[Anonymous No.10784043]

>>10784032
Its called carbon capturing, not carbon dioxide capturing. Either way, C and CO2 break up and bond to dirt, soil, and rock extremely well. It is how atmospheric carbon levels fall in the first place, and also why they aren't rising as fast as climate alarmists say they should be. Which means, capturing carbon emissions absolutely is a viable option.

Furthermore, this is all assuming that carbon emissions are the cause of the higher temperature. Some recent studies are putting this into doubt. Sun cycles may have a much larger effect on the weather than carbon emissions.

[Anonymous No.10784045]

Before humans did fire control, how major was fire season CO2 emissions?

[Anonymous No.10784048]

>>10784045
Not actually that high. The fires would burn dead wood before it had a chance to build up and so major forest fires rarely happened.

[Anonymous No.10784049]

>>10784009
>What a joke. "Something something there's no evidence, better do nothing" is a dumb argument when we know the answer: stop emitting carbon and fluorinated gases.
You must be deliberately dense. The question is not whether we should do something or nothing, it's which option is likely to be the least destructive to society. On one hand, we can stop emitting greenhouse gases at extreme cost to world economies and quality of life, dooming developing countries to prolonged poverty and necessitating a complete restructuring of human society. On the other hand we could not do that and risk a non-zero but decidedly poorly understood possibility of environmental catastrophe in the next 100-500 years. When you consider that there's very little evidence that stopping greenhouse gas emissions right now could actually reverse any damage that may already be done, and that historically humans have been extremely adept at overcoming major challenges when necessary, I don't find the argument for deliberately monkeyfucking society in the short term to be very compelling.

[Anonymous No.10784050]

>>10784019
m-muh snowflake is all dented

[Anonymous No.10784052]

>>10784043
>and also why they aren't rising as fast as climate alarmists say they should be.
It's rising exactly as fast as the measurements show it is.
>Which means, capturing carbon emissions absolutely is a viable option.
That's why it's the leading proposal for reducing emissions from human activity, right? Except it isn't, because it's a stupid fucking meme that is at odds with the 2LoT, and only denialists think it would work. It's speculative, and the systems that have been tried are expensive and don't work very well.

[Anonymous No.10784055]

>>10784049
This, Exactly this.
Even if it is a problem we have to ask if the cost to fix said problem is worth it. The cost, in this case, is the end of all civilization. The cost in 100 years, however, will be basically nothing thanks to new technological developments. We may actually be able to use the carbon and other such materials in the air for more materials. In other words, solving it now would end civilization, solving it later would help the economy. So, let us do it later.

[Anonymous No.10784056]

>>10784013
give a name, boomer
after Harrison Schmitt, who has been there

[Anonymous No.10784058]

>>10784052
You know what else is speculative?
>>10783928
This.

Assuming things will get much worse than the current rate.

[Anonymous No.10784061]

>>10784049
>which option is likely to be the least destructive to society.
It's the one that doesn't permanently fuck the atmosphere and natural ecosystems dependent on certain physical parameters being met. You need arable land with good topsoil to grow food, and one of the most immediate effects of a large amount of warming will be the desertification of hundreds of millions of acres of arable land.
>On one hand, we can stop emitting greenhouse gases at extreme cost to world economies and quality of life, dooming developing countries to prolonged poverty and necessitating a complete restructuring of human society.
Who says changing to renewables and electric transportation will "devastate economies?" Denialists, that's who. It hasn't even been tried yet. And actual economists have studied the economic impacts of the various responses to climate change, and pretty much all of them come out with "doing nothing will costs tens of trillions in losses in the long term."
>On the other hand we could not do that and risk a non-zero but decidedly poorly understood possibility of environmental catastrophe in the next 100-500 years.
It's pretty well understood that changing the global climate dramatically is bad for natural ecosystems. The details are perhaps unknowable until they occur, but that's no excuse.
>When you consider that there's very little evidence that stopping greenhouse gas emissions right now could actually reverse any damage that may already be done
There it is again. "There's no evidence doing something will do anything, so better do nothing and let the problem get worse." And I'm telling you the problem getting worse means big problems with food and water security, which in turn means big problems for civilization.

[Anonymous No.10784064]

>>10784061
Doing what you propose will end civilization, that is the cost of what you are proposing. What about that do you not understand.

[Anonymous No.10784065]

Guys, I think we may have reached the point of no-return.

[Anonymous No.10784066]

>>10784055
The cost of doing nothing is dramatically higher than the costs of taking action immediately. Short-term and long-term losses are effectively minimized by a carbon tax, cap and trade, and incentivizing decarbonization of emissions sectors over the course of a couple decades. "Do nothing" minimizes short-term losses at the expense of letting the long-term losses grow to be enormous.

[Anonymous No.10784068]

>>10784064
You don't know that. It hasn't been tried. What is sure is that billions of acres of lost arable land and reduced water security are much more serious problems than even the worst problems of poverty that you are suggesting will happen from an energy transition, which probably won't.

[Anonymous No.10784069]

>>10784066
The cost of doing nothing for 100 years and then doing something is extremely cheap. Also, how can anything be "dramatically higher" than the end of all civilization? Which is what the cost you want to pay is.

[Anonymous No.10784073]

>>10784068
What "poverty?" Everyone is currently getting richer constantly. Poverty is dying, it is ending, capitalism is what is doing that.

[Anonymous No.10784074]

>>10784069
>The cost of doing nothing for 100 years and then doing something is extremely cheap.
No it fucking isn't. You can't undo the warming for many thousands of years.
>Also, how can anything be "dramatically higher" than the end of all civilization? Which is what the cost you want to pay is.
An energy transition is not "the end of all civilization." Wrecking the environment into a pile of shit so we can keep burning fossil fuels for a few more years is more likely to actually end civilization than adopting some new technology will.

[Anonymous No.10784075]

>>10783740
From that graph, the emissions of the EU has been on a downward trend for longer than the US, and has declined about as much recently as the recent decline from the US. It doesn't look like US emissions are going down the fastest.

[Anonymous No.10784077]

>>10784068
>billions of acres of lost arable land and reduced water security

That, again, is not something we are sure of. Every model that has predicted that has been proven wrong. It is exactly that which we don't know will happen. Also,

>You don't know that. It hasn't been tried.

Yes it has, it was called communism/socialism and it lead to the deaths of 100 millions of people and a rebirth of poverty in the countries that tried it.

[Anonymous No.10784081]

>>10784073
>Doing what you propose [energy transition] will end civilization
I'm not the one that brought it up.

[Anonymous No.10784083]

>>10784077
Leave it to a denialtard to equate the decarbonization transition to 20th century communism.

[Anonymous No.10784084]

>>10784039
No, it has not. The current trend line has only been approximately valid for the last 50-ish years. If you look at a larger timescale, it's clear that large variability is the norm. I'm not saying that there isn't an unusual effect here, but trying to extrapolate out the next 1000 years based on an outlying 50 year slice of the last 800,000 years is completely idiotic.

[Anonymous No.10784085]

>>10784074
>adopting some new technology will.
Are you an idiot? My entire argument is based on adopting new technology.

>No it fucking isn't. You can't undo the warming for many thousands of years.

Also, why do you think we can't do that? Will Capturing carbon that is in the air not stop the warming? How about them Ice sheets which are actually growing in size as of right now?

[Anonymous No.10784087]

>>10784084

[Anonymous No.10784092]

>>10784085
Carbon capture doesn't fucking work. Get it through your thick fucking skull into your empty head. If it did work, it would be one of the leading solutions ready to be dispatched. It isn't, because it's a stupid fucking meme that only idiots think is real.

[Anonymous No.10784095]

>>10784083
So you think everyone is just going to voluntarily give up their modern lifestyles? You think developing countries are going to sacrifice rapid industrialization because of some abstract threat in the distant future? The only way to achieve full-scale decarbonization in a short period of time is by force, and it would almost certainly be more destructive than 20th century communism. And once again, there's no evidence that stopping all greenhouse gas emissions right now, even if it were possible, would undo the damage or reverse the trends if worst-case scenarios are true.

[Anonymous No.10784098]

>>10784092
Carbon capture is already working. Just because you claim it doesn't work doesn't mean your right. Get it through your thick fucking skull into your empty head, Carbon capture is already one of the leading solutions ready to be dispatched. It is exactly that, it isn't a meme.

[Anonymous No.10784101]

>>10784092
It's certainly not impossible. The entire biosphere is a giant carbon sink. There's just no demand for it. Why would any company devote billions of dollars to develop a technology to manage an issue that doesn't yet exist and may never exist? If climate change becomes a major issue and there is money to be made by mitigating it, people will dedicate resources to that and the technology will develop rapidly.

[Anonymous No.10784113]

>>10784084
To clarify, exrapolating linearly is completely idiotic. That's why you need a model. The historical data clearly show huge variability over the time scales in question and the system is dependent on many factors. Before you can say anything about the future, you must at the very least develop a model that can accurately predict past data.

[Anonymous No.10784123]

>>10784098
>Carbon capture is already one of the leading solutions ready to be dispatched
No it isn't. Go ahead and show otherwise, because I know you can't.
>>10784101
It's tremendously expensive to fit fossil fuel plants with equipment to "capture carbon," and it doesn't even work well. The simple fact that no process is 100% efficient suggests that burning a fuel to then try and undo that chemical reaction is a waste of time. Pumping the CO2 underground is not a long-term solution either, because there is the permanent and significant risk that it eventually leaks out anyway. Planting trees is about the only "carbon capture" that actually works.

[Anonymous No.10784127]

>>10784123
The very fact that it is happening at all means that it is the leading solution... mainly because there is no other solution. Boom, just showed that it is.

[Anonymous No.10784129]

>>10784123
Also, it is not " tremendously expensive" to fit energy plants with said carbon capturing solutions. Carbon Capturing is getting cheap really really fast.

[Anonymous No.10784133]

minimalism

[Anonymous No.10784136]

>>10784127
>The very fact that it is happening at all means that it is the leading solution
The leading solution is not emitting the carbon gases in the first place. By extension, that means replacing fossil fuel energy sources with renewables, which are already established to be scalable and dispatchable. All current carbon capture technology is currently at the testing and experimentation stage, and it's already been shown that leakage is a significant risk, and importantly that risk never goes away. There is no dispatchable and scalable carbon capture available at the moment.
>>10784129
It costs 1.5-2x as much to capture the carbon and pump it to an underground reservoir that it may eventually leak out of anyway.

[Anonymous No.10784142]

>>10784136
1.5-2x as much as what? And again, the tech has reduced to 1/10th the cost over the last 2 years. It is getting cheaper daily. Also, renewable energy takes way more space than what is available. To get enough solar panels or windmills to provide for the US would take up nearly the entirety of all farmland available. In other words, no crops and no food, at all. And even then it wouldn't be enough. Unless you want nuclear power, which is a very very good source of energy that gives off 0 carbon emissions and is 4000% safer than solar or wind energy. I'd be fine with that, if battery power for cars was more efficient.

[Anonymous No.10784151]

>>10784142
>1.5-2x as much as what?
As much as the power costs without any carbon capture. It is still not scalable and dispatchable.
>Also, renewable energy takes way more space than what is available. To get enough solar panels or windmills to provide for the US would take up nearly the entirety of all farmland available. In other words, no crops and no food, at all. And even then it wouldn't be enough.
Where are you getting your numbers? Using total TWhs/year for the US, average incoming solar radiation, and typical solar PV efficiencies, the current electricity demand of the US could be met using less than 1% of available land area. Admittedly, that is still a ton of land, but it's not some impossible problem like you're suggesting.
>Unless you want nuclear power, which is a very very good source of energy that gives off 0 carbon emissions
You don't know anything about this, do you? Life-cycle emissions a nuclear power plant are about 20% of conventional fossil fuel, for the fuel mining and processing, transportation, the concrete poured to make the facility, and decommissioning. It's a definite improvement over coal or natural gas, but it's not emissions free, and still much higher than solar or wind. It's about comparable to hydroelectric life cycle emissions.
>and is 4000% safer than solar or wind energy.
Solar and wind are safe enough.

[Anonymous No.10784157]

>>10784151
Solar and wind are not "safe enough"
They are several times more dangerous and lead to several times more deaths than oil.

[Anonymous No.10784162]

>>10784151
Oh, and you are the one that doesn't know about life-cycle emissions. When it comes to producing the steal and concrete needed for windmills they need several times more than nuclear power. And the glass, steal, and gold production needed for solar panels is even worse. The life time emissions for those technologies are actually worse than oil.

[Anonymous No.10784166]

Nice asspulls, global warmists.

[Anonymous No.10784168]

>>10784162
You're wrong. Wind is consistently the lowest emissions of any source per kWh. Nuclear is lower than I remember reading, though. It's comparable to renewables in life cycle emissions. Solar PV is a little higher than wind and nuclear but not very much. There is no fucking way that they are worse than oil. It's a factor of 20x higher for fossil fuels, for obvious reasons. Even taking into account lower capacity factor issues, it still doesn't come close to fossil fuel use.
>>10784157
bullshit

[Anonymous No.10784169]

>>10784166
not an argument

[Anonymous No.10784347]

>>10783762
OMFG. The global temperature increased 1°C in the last 100 years. I can't stand that rapid temperature change. I am burning.

[Anonymous No.10784351]

>>10784168
>maybe if I make up numbers and comparisons people will just believe them

[Anonymous No.10784355]

>>10784347
>not understanding the difference between what I said and what I meant and what I really meant
it's like you deniers are being deliberately obtuse

[Anonymous No.10784360]

Denialists will be in line for their daily ration after the global food markets collapse and they will still be denying there is a problem.

[Anonymous No.10784436]

>>10783969
>Smoke a couple of packs of cigarettes a day and end all government funding of medical research, capitalism will solve cancer.

[Anonymous No.10784439]

>>10783984
>It won't and there's no particular reason to believe the rate is especially concerning.
Ignoring mountains of scientific evidence doesn't make it go away.

[Anonymous No.10784441]

Force America to rely on something more environmentally friendly than oil to back their currency.

[Anonymous No.10784444]

Considering you can buy real estate projects on the florida beaches that have not yet even been built, which will be underwater in the next 20 years, it is gonna take some real consequences until people do something about it.

[Anonymous No.10784446]

>>10783986
>Not a single one of your climate models have been right
Why are you lying again? You're truly pathetic. You know you that you have no idea what you're talking about, yet you continue to pretend as if you do.

>why should anyone believe something that has been dis-proven every single time its popped up?
HAHAHAHAHA WHAT MASSIVE HYPOCRISY

Here are you and your denier buddies being disproven every time you pop up:

>>10783735
>>10783762
>>10783766
>>10783801
>>10783809
>>10783840
>>10783850
>>10783876
>>10783901
>>10783919

[Anonymous No.10784447]

>>10783690
>>10784065
It's funny, in the future people will look back and go, "how the fuck couldn't they tell that Gaia was personally telling them they were going down the wrong path, she drew a damn human skull out of a heatwave in france!".

Panpsychism is a hell of a drug.

[Anonymous No.10784448]

>>10784004
Not a single one of your claims have been right, why should anyone believe something that has been dis-proven every single time its popped up?

[Anonymous No.10784451]

>>10784024
I was simply pointing out how pointlessly dishonest you were being.

[Anonymous No.10784452]

>>10784444
markets == feelz of normies == goddamn stupid
I don't understand why lolberts love them so much.
It's not surprising that the normies cannot properly predict the danger of climate change because
1. it's not trivial
2. it's something new and different
3. all the denialist propaganda is having an effect
4. markets today are super shortsighted and everyone thinks they will make their quick buck before the problem starts getting attention

[Anonymous No.10784461]

>>10784049
>The question is not whether we should do something or nothing, it's which option is likely to be the least destructive to society.
He did not say that was the question, he said that your conclusion that doing nothing is the best answer is based on nothing.

>On one hand, we can stop emitting greenhouse gases at extreme cost to world economies and quality of life, dooming developing countries to prolonged poverty and necessitating a complete restructuring of human society. On the other hand we could not do that and risk a non-zero but decidedly poorly understood possibility of environmental catastrophe in the next 100-500 years.
Ironically you're the only one presenting a false choice. The choice is not between stopping all carbon emissions or doing nothing, the choice is between mitigation and doing nothing. Letting global warming go unmitigated would be far more harmful to the economy than an optimal carbon tax, so the choice is clear.
Just because you don't understand what you haven't given a single iota of thought to, doesn't mean the effects of global warming are not poorly understood by scientists and economists.

>When you consider that there's very little evidence that stopping greenhouse gas emissions right now could actually reverse any damage that may already be done
It's not simply for reversing damage that has been done, it's for preventing further damage in the future.

>and that historically humans have been extremely adept at overcoming major challenges when necessary, I don't find the argument for deliberately monkeyfucking society in the short term to be very compelling.
This is like the story of the man who was stuck on his roof during a flood and refused to get in a boat because he was sure God would save him.

[Anonymous No.10784462]

>>10784064
Wow what an alarmist.

[Anonymous No.10784463]

>>10784077
>Every model that has predicted that has been proven wrong.
Why is every substantive claim you make a lie?

[Anonymous No.10784464]

>>10783690
kill off 90% of niggers and sandniggers

[Anonymous No.10784465]

>>10784461
Well said, but the denialist is now going to either ignore your post, or say something entirely stupid and irrelevant to throw you off.

[Anonymous No.10784479]

>>10784084
>>10784113
>The current trend line has only been approximately valid for the last 50-ish years.
You mean the current trend line has only been the trend for the lady 50 years because warming was accelerating.

>If you look at a larger timescale, it's clear that large variability is the norm.
If you actually do look at it you'll see natural warming rates are much slower than today's.

>I'm not saying that there isn't an unusual effect here, but trying to extrapolate out the next 1000 years based on an outlying 50 year slice of the last 800,000 years is completely idiotic.
Another lie. It's based on our mechanistic understanding of the climate, which includes all the paleoclimate data. It's not based on extrapolating trends.

>Before you can say anything about the future, you must at the very least develop a model that can accurately predict past data.
Have you checked to see whether such models exist? No of course not.

[Anonymous No.10784483]

>>10784049
Restructuring human society, economies, and lowering our standard of living is exactly what we need though. We live in a consumerist hellhole, and our greed is poisoning the world. How about we actually work with the planet to produce a society that doesn't do harm to the ecologies of the world through our own ignorance and apathy and attachment to "comfort". We don'' even have to give up that much, just basically the shit we don't need. Exessive travel and car usage. Slower internet speeds. Less energy consumption. A reduction of our hyperproductivity rat race culture, so we can actually focus on having fulfilling lives instead of filling a timesheet at a job we don't care about and the planet doesn't need.

[Anonymous No.10784486]

>>10784073
Capitalism is built upon infinite growth. Our planet does not have infinite resources. Capitalism is a an old dog who can't learn any new tricks, let it die in its sleep while we rebuild a new world.

[Anonymous No.10784487]

>>10784095
>So you think everyone is just going to voluntarily give up their modern lifestyles?
Oh I forgot that taxes don't exist because every time they have been implemented they failed. You're right.

>You think developing countries are going to sacrifice rapid industrialization because of some abstract threat in the distant future?
There's nothing abstract about it, it's already happening.

>The only way to achieve full-scale decarbonization in a short period of time is by force, and it would almost certainly be more destructive than 20th century communism.
Why are you being such an alarmist? Taxes are implemented all the time.

>And once again, there's no evidence that stopping all greenhouse gas emissions right now, even if it were possible, would undo the damage or reverse the trends if worst-case scenarios are true.
What the fuck are you talking about? This is very well understood. There is a certain amount of warming already in the pipeline, but beyond that is determined purely by future emissions. Also, once we reach a certain level of emissions we will reach equilibrium with the natural carbon cycle flux. If we reduce emissions further then the result will be cooling. Why are you lying?

[Anonymous No.10784491]

>>10784347
Can /pol/tards read basic information from a graph? Stay tuned to find out!

>The global temperature increased 1°C in the last 100 years

No, apparently they cannot.

[Anonymous No.10784499]

>>10784347
>The global temperature increased 1°C in the last 100 years.
Which is incredibly rapid, an order of magnitude faster than the fastest warming in at least the last 600,000 years.

[Anonymous No.10784502]

>>10784486
capitalism is fine. overpopulation is the problem. and sure, capitalism create a society where overpopulation is a possibility, but there are many societies which has a low-stable birthrate where capitalism works fine.

[Anonymous No.10784504]

>>10784486
>everything wrong with the world is called capitalism

[Anonymous No.10784512]

>>10784504
it's like a car with a big engine and no steering wheel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl9Y8ZhJP2s

[Anonymous No.10784515]

Let's say my country switched from traditional capitalist agricultural to entirely self sufficiency, sstenance farming. Let's do some loose number crunching:

There's about 1.4 billion acres of arable, fertile land in the USA. According to what I've found.

There are 128 million households in the USA as of 2018. I'll average that to 4 people.

A family of 4 needs about 2 acres of land to growand raise food to feed themselves yearround.

128 x 2 is 256 million acres of needed land TOTAL for the minimum of self sufficiency farming for an average household of 4 people.

Thats about 1.1 BILLION, FERTILE acres left over for us to do as we please.

It's more than possible, it's the best solution we have. No more bullshit rat race city life, we all get our own homes in the tranquility of nature, and we stop being pussies and live how we evolved to (more or less).

[Anonymous No.10784516]

>>10784512
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

[Anonymous No.10784517]

>>10784502
How is an economic system based on infinite growth on a planet with finite resources "fine"? Capitalism might work better when we are a star faring species, but until then it's fucking broke as all hell.

[Anonymous No.10784519]

>>10783690
>29°C
>hot
lol

[Anonymous No.10784525]

>>10784502
>there are many societies which has a low-stable birthrate where capitalism works fine.
That's called globalism, and it works because you're just using the labor excess somewhere else, or you start importing.
Things like social benefits are also predicated on more people being born and paying into it in order to pay the people accessing those benefits now. Capitalism is literally a giant ponzi scheme. That's how bubbles work, eventually it hits an absolute bottom where everything is overpriced.

[Anonymous No.10784948]

>>10784512
>>10784515
>>10784517
>>10784525
>everything I don't like is capitalism
just filter this schizo and move on

[Anonymous No.10784953]

>>10784948
Lol, you think that's one guy, that's cute. Having trouble refuting those remarks without using the "UR JUST CRAZY" copout?

[Anonymous No.10784984]

>>10784953
Daily reminder that opposing capitalist globalism is literally the fascist party line. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NqG2lAojNQ

[Anonymous No.10785009]

>>10783690

No need to. Humans withstand temperatures from - 20°C (with proper clothing) to +30°C. Anyone who thinks a couple degrees more, on average, has any meaning, is misinformed.

Watch what Freeman Dyson has to say, especially about wrong computer models:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFLjUt2leM

[Anonymous No.10785011]

>>10784984
Opposing capitalism doesn't automatically make you a fascist bro. It just makes you a caring person.

[Anonymous No.10785028]

>>10785009
Your not acounting for decades of personal resistence building and familarity to local temps, as well as ethnic resistences. An equatorial Amazonian would have a pretty shitty time in northern alaska, and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.10785039]

>>10783704
>invent non-water cooled nuclear power
>rebuild Tesla's Wardenclyffe wireless global power transmitter
>place BOTH in a deserted desert
>fill rest of desert with solar panels
>transmit free power to entire globe
>?????????
>DO NOT PROFIT!?!?!

[Anonymous No.10785063]

>>10785009
>No need to. Humans withstand temperatures from - 20°C (with proper clothing) to +30°C.
You can withstand a beating, so don't try to avoid one.

>Anyone who thinks a couple degrees more, on average, has any meaning, is misinformed.
Projection.

>Watch what Freeman Dyson has to say, especially about wrong computer models
He has no idea what he's talking about.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm