global warming is bullshit

[Anonymous No.11296114]

There was already a period in the history of the Earth when the CO2 content was almost 20 times higher than the present one. It was a Cambrian. And in Devon, the CO2 content was 12 times higher. As we know, the planet didn't boil then, and life didn't die. Exactly the opposite, it was a time when it bloomed.
The biosphere was tremendous. The biomass on Earth was many times larger. It was in the Devonian period that trees began to grow on land. Unfortunately, there were no tree-destroying xylotrophs in Devon yet, whose enzymes can break down lignin. In other words, trees have not rotted yet. Instead, they turned into coal and oil by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Now we bring back the CO2 that was taken from the atmosphere at the beginning of the biosphere back into the atmosphere, and this has a positive effect on climate.

[Anonymous No.11296116]

>>11296114
Every time there is an abundance of a nutrient, the plants/animals striving on it begin to flourish.
Maybe we should stop cutting down trees?

[Anonymous No.11296120]

>>11296114
>the planet didn't boil then, and life didn't die
so what, not the point
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s

[Anonymous No.11296123]

Over the past three decades, as CO2 increases, three-quarters of the planet has become greener. The so-called GPP, Gross Primary Production, an indicator that measures the daily productivity of the biosphere, has increased by 6.2% in 20 years by 2008 and continues to do so.
We cannot bring back into the atmosphere all the CO2 that was in it early in life. The fact is that, since CO2 is the basis of life, it was not only used by trees. Many marine organisms have learned to construct from CO2 dissolved in water and calcium their shells and shells, and as these shells were deposited at the bottom of the ocean as they died, this CO2 was taken out of circulation.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/change_in_leaf_area.jpg

[Anonymous No.11296125]

When you're told that CO2 is a poison, a pollutant and a toxic substance, that's not true. It is an essential substance for the biosphere, which was in dire straits because the biosphere nearly killed itself. And after man began to return this substance to the biosphere, what Matt Ridley fortunately put forth is not Global Warming, but Global Greening.

[Anonymous No.11296129]

>>11296120
tldr

[Anonymous No.11296143]

>>11296114
>There was already a period in the history of the Earth when the CO2 content was almost 20 times higher than the present one. It was a Cambrian. And in Devon, the CO2 content was 12 times higher. As we know, the planet didn't boil then, and life didn't die. Exactly the opposite, it was a time when it bloomed.
that doesn't mean anything. nature has always been chaotic and it was pretty normal back then for half of all life to die. the concern about global warming comes from the fact that there will be less farming and food because even the most developed countries rely solely on rain and sun and vast amount of land for food not to mention the long inefficient process it takes to turn farmed food into a product you buy from your local supermarket to eat.
glaciation will happen anyway and if we don't stop using 10 000 years old farming methods because they are cheaper, a lot of humans will die

[Anonymous No.11296144]

The Earth's climate is a non-linear dynamic system that depends on many factors and is constantly changing. The only constant feature of the climate is its change. There were periods when the Earth was frozen, and there were periods when it was possible to grow tomatoes at the pole. Moreover, there were periods in the world history of humankind when it was warmer than it is now. These were the Golocene Climate Optimum (7-3 thousand years BC) and the Warm Roman Period (I century BC - III century AD). In the medieval Warm Period (IX-XIII centuries BC) was as or almost as warm as it is now.
All these warm periods were characterized by one detail that is often forgotten to remind us. Specifically, when it gets warmer on Earth, this warming concerns primarily the medium and high latitudes, and not summer but winter temperatures. That was very well articulated by Freeman Dyson. "It doesn't warm where it's warm, it warms where it's cold."

[Anonymous No.11296148]

Sadly people don't give a fuck about long term new worldwide tropics, they only care about their homes and food during the next one or two lifetimes.

[Anonymous No.11296150]

>>11296114
The problem with climate change isn't how the planet will become, it's how fast it will become that way. Yes, life can thrive with 20x as much CO2, but only if that change happens over millions of years so that species and populations get a change to adapt. If everything happens at once, which is what anthropological climate change is doing, there will be hell to pay. Most species will go extinct, tens or hundreds of millions of humans will die. Trillions of dollars will be lost and society may entirely collapse, as whole cities or even countries become uninhabitable and their entire populations turn refugees and flood the remaining areas. As some of those areas start shutting borders, World War 3 may start and nukes may come flying.

[Anonymous No.11296154]

>>11296143
in modern world, you'd rather be killed by excessive consumption of hamburgers than by hunger.

[Anonymous No.11296156]

>>11296114
>WHAT IF WE BUILD A BETTER WORLD FOR NOTHING?!

[Anonymous No.11296171]

>>11296129
2 minutes, retard

[Anonymous No.11296212]

>>11296171
the video is two hours though

[Anonymous No.11296220]

>>11296114
Greenhouse gases are the main driver of climate change. And the warming that's happening (since the 1900s, the Earth has warmed up by about 0.8 degrees Celsius) is a terrible disaster. This catastrophe can only be stopped by radically destroying all the features of today's cursed civilization (the one that destroyed famine, epidemics and wars and that invented vaccines, planes and computers) and transferring power over the world to selfless people of good will.

[Anonymous No.11296231]

>>11296114
Back in the Cambrian the concentration of CO2 was saturating, so adding more CO2 didn't influence temperature. Whether or not it's saturating depends on the other bajillion things that influence the climate. With the way things are today the scientific consensus is that adding more CO2 in today's climate will have a large impact on the climate.

>>11296220
>This catastrophe can only be stopped by radically destroying all the features of today's cursed civilization (the one that destroyed famine, epidemics and wars and that invented vaccines, planes and computers)
This is what deniers trick themselves into believing as a method of cope

[Anonymous No.11296234]

>>11296114
Your argument does not make sense.
>Earth was warmer in the past
>CO2 in the atmosphere helps plants
>Checkmate alarmist

The topic is difficult because climate has always changed. But now it is changing under the influence of human activity in a way unprecedented on earth. We do not know for sure what will happen only that the climate could go towards a new equilibrium. And this could be a shit state for the world climate to be in...

>>11296220
>"Much that passes as idealism is disguised love of power."
Nice Bertrand Russell paraphrasing there

[Anonymous No.11296238]

>>11296231
>a large impact on the climate.

But this impact will be positive.

[Anonymous No.11296240]

>>11296231
When will the CO2 be saturated in our atmosphere though?

[Anonymous No.11296244]

>>11296231
When the IPCC was created in 1991, it had to answer three questions.
First: Is the world temperature rising?
Second: is this increase predominantly anthropogenic, that is, caused by human activity?
And three: is it harmful?
The IPCC was becoming a powerful tool to regulate the world, and the scientists who supported it would only get unlimited access to grants if all three questions were answered positively.
If at least one of the answers was negative, both grants and impact would be over.

[Anonymous No.11296251]

The ideology of Global Warming is not a science, but a totalitarian ideology. It forgets its own predictions when they are not justified, exactly as religion does. It ignores the facts. When she tells you the truth, she doesn't tell the whole truth. For example, when she tells you that the sea level is rising, she forgets to say that it has been rising for the last 18,000 years, and somehow humanity has survived this terrible process.

[Anonymous No.11296258]

>>11296125
You're simply presenting a false dichotomy. CO2 is both essential for life and dangerous when emitted into the atmosphere rapidly. It both increases plant life and negatively affects hunan cognition. No one is saying CO2 should be completely removed from the atmosphere, so this is all irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.11296259]

>>11296251
>>11296244
>>11296220
>>11296125
>>11296123
>>11296114
The International Panel on Controversial Characters is telling you to leave, samefag.

[Anonymous No.11296272]

>>11296251
>It forgets its own predictions when they are not justified, exactly as religion does.
Oh I forgot thai science is not allowed to make mistakes and adapt to new information. How religious. By the way, can you give me an example of these forgotten predictions?

>For example, when she tells you that the sea level is rising, she forgets to say that it has been rising for the last 18,000 years, and somehow humanity has survived this terrible process.
The irony here is that you are the one leaving out pertinent information. Current sea level rise is more rapid than in the past and is accelerating. Sea level in the past rose and fell according to the cycle of glacial and interglacial periods, so according to that cycle sea level should be peaking and eventually falling, but instead it's rapidly rising above the peak. This is similar to the temperature itself, which should be slowly falling but is instead rapidly rising on top of interglacial warming from 10000 years ago. So your claim that this is something humanity has encountered before is simply false.

[Anonymous No.11296279]

>>11296244
And don't forget that the moon is made of cheese: https://youtu.be/GXHNzNxV6RM

[Anonymous No.11296287]

>ugly girl with ugly name
did "they" chose it on purpose to associate a cause with disgust?
t. don't know anything about topic

[Anonymous No.11296296]

>>11296144
>The Earth's climate is a non-linear dynamic system that depends on many factors and is constantly changing. The only constant feature of the climate is its change.
Who says differently?

> There were periods when the Earth was frozen, and there were periods when it was possible to grow tomatoes at the pole.
What you never seem to understand is that these periods took many thousands or millions of years to develop. So life was able to adapt. Current warming on the other hand is very rapid and that causes great harm to ecosystems. Rapid changes in climate are often accompanied by mass extinctions.

>Moreover, there were periods in the world history of humankind when it was warmer than it is now. These were the Golocene Climate Optimum (7-3 thousand years BC) and the Warm Roman Period (I century BC - III century AD). In the medieval Warm Period (IX-XIII centuries BC) was as or almost as warm as it is now.
What data told you this?

>Specifically, when it gets warmer on Earth, this warming concerns primarily the medium and high latitudes, and not summer but winter temperatures. That was very well articulated by Freeman Dyson. "It doesn't warm where it's warm, it warms where it's cold."
That's great but current warming warms the entire Earth during both winter and summer. The problem with extrapolating from the past is that you have to be sure the causative factors and effects are the same.

[Anonymous No.11296297]

global warm deez nutz

[Anonymous No.11296306]

>>11296114
Every time earth got warmer nordic species died out and had been replaced by tropic species. Now warming happens again, people from the tropics move north and nordic (white) people are concerned. Maybe for good reason?
But if you want a world with no white people just go on.

[Anonymous No.11296311]

>>11296123
Completely ignoring the negative effects of CO2 emissions does not make them go away.

>Many marine organisms have learned to construct from CO2 dissolved in water and calcium their shells
There is no lack of carbonate ions in the water. Increased CO2 makes the water more acidic which pulls carbonate ions out of the shells and dissolves them. Bizarre that you would think this supports your argument.

[Anonymous No.11296314]

>>11296114
Yes I can't wait for the planet to get back to a climate millions of years before humans existed. Luckily OP is a fern and not hunan so this will be great for him.

[Anonymous No.11296327]

>>11296114
Climate change denial is an American invention. It's pure horsecrap.

Just watch the fucking video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg&feature=youtu.be&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

[Anonymous No.11296337]

>>11296114
https://xkcd.com/1732/

[Anonymous No.11296347]

>>11296272
Al Gore predicted in 2000 that the world would reach a point of no return in ten years. Two years later, the same Gore said that five years later the ice at the North Pole would melt. The Prince Charles of Wales said in 2009 that we have "96 months to save the world". Columbia University Professor James Hansen said in 1988 that by 2000 the West Side Highway, which runs in Manhattan parallel to the Hudson, "will be under water" (the West Side Highway will be under water). And the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) said in 2005 that the world would see 50 million climate refugees in 2010. They even published a detailed map showing exactly where the poor will run away from. In 2010, it turned out that the population in the areas to be depopulated had only increased, and the UN in Orwellian style erased the link.
The failure of these predictions did not stop anyone. We continue to predict droughts and floods, typhoons and hurricanes, we predict that by the end of the century 400 million people will be underwater, that the Sahara will expand and turn the Sahel into a desert adjacent to it, that frozen methane will be released from the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, and that the Earth will turn into Venus, that there will be a star Wormwood and riders in hyacinth armour on horses with snake tails, and that there will be an earthquake.
to prevent all this is possible only by transferring power over the world to the people of good will from the Extraordinary Climate Assembly.

[Anonymous No.11296348]

>>11296148
Well most of the effects will be seen as early as 2070. I'm 23 so it will happen shortly after my retirement (assuming they increase the retirement age from 67 to 70).

[Anonymous No.11296353]

The only reliably observed effect of the increase in CO2 concentration at the moment is greening of the planet. Since 1981, three quarters of the planet has become much greener and yields have increased by 95 percent, making a clear contribution to the fight against hunger. As Beijing's Professor Zaichong Zhu notes, it is as if a new green continent, the size of two USA, had appeared on Earth.
I recommend you an article by Zhu himself in Nature, data from NASA or, for example, a recent article from 2019 in Nature Chen et al, which is written on a specific Newspeak of " warmers" and therefore called "Vegetation structural change since 1981 significantly enhanced the terrestrial carbon sink". IMHO, this is an absolutely beautiful name, because, think about it: in what parallel universe live people who can not write the word "trees" and call the greenery of the planet "significantly enhanced the terrestrial carbon sink".
One more time. When someone tells you that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase, and we all boil like in a pressure cooker, ask the person who is speaking to explain how it happened that we all did not boil in this pressure cooker 500 million years ago in Cambria, when the CO2 in the air was 20 times higher.

[Anonymous No.11296360]

The primary way to CO2 emissions is with a cap and trade system (see Kyoto protocol) or a carbon tax (see switzerland).

It is just a short term tax that automatically phases itself out. It will hurt during the transitioning period but as more people invest in reducing their CO2 output the amount of tax people pay will shrink over time. If you buy an electric car and drive 20000km per year in Germany you would save around 100€ per month. If you change your electricity provider to only use 100% renewables you can further reduce your bill.

The solution to energy storage requires temporary investments into natural gas power plants. Yes, all the coal worker can now switch to natural gas to keep their jobs until they retire. Renewable power follows a normal distribution. If you have an average of 30% renewables then your average day will have 50% renewables. Extremely low output say 10% may happen but the probability of that happening gets lower and lower the more extreme it is. That means that on around 10 days per year you may only have 20% renewable power output. The shortfall can be covered with natural gas which is load following unlike coal. This means 90% of the time renewables are enough and you may need natural gas during extreme events.

Why are natural gas plants more desirable than coal? They produce less emissions per kWh. They are less expensive to build. (remember they must stay idle most of the time so they can't be expensive). Coal plants can only throttle their output to 75% of their maximum production capacity. Natural gas plants can throttle arbitrarily. Finally the key ingredient. Natural gas is more expensive than renewables per kWh. This means if renewables are available they will be prioritized and natural gas plants will be shut down. Coal plants? They would keep running and clog the grid.

[Anonymous No.11296362]

>>11296360
fuck.

I meant to write "If you have an average of 50% renewables then your average day will have 50% renewables."

[Anonymous No.11296395]

>>11296347
>Al Gore predicted in 2000 that the world would reach a point of no return in ten years.
Without context this means nothing. Provide the source so we can see what he's talking about. Also, why are you listening to Al Gore and Prince Charles and not climate scientists?

>Two years later, the same Gore said that five years later the ice at the North Pole would melt.
He was misquoting a climate scientists that said this was possible but unlikely.

>Columbia University Professor James Hansen said in 1988 that by 2000 the West Side Highway, which runs in Manhattan parallel to the Hudson, "will be under water" (the West Side Highway will be under water).
Incorrect. He said that if CO2 doubled this would occur. CO2 will be doubled around 2030 if current trends continue.

>And the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) said in 2005 that the world would see 50 million climate refugees in 2010.
They said 50 million environmental refugees, not climate refugees. Climate change is only one factor affecting environmental refugees. Here is the research this prediction was based on: https://www.osce.org/eea/14851

There were already 25 million environmental refugees in 1995.

>The failure of these predictions did not stop anyone.
The only ones you cited that failed are from laymen, so why would this stop anyone? The science is still strong.

[Anonymous No.11296417]

>>11296212
if you're too stupid to see the timestamp in the url, you should cut your head off

[Anonymous No.11296432]

>>11296353
>The only reliably observed effect of the increase in CO2 concentration at the moment is greening of the planet.
You just completely destroyed your credibility with an outrageous lie. Ocean acidification is reliably observable. Warming from CO2 emissions is reliably observable: http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>When someone tells you that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase
This is also reliably observable. If increased vegetation creates a sink that makes up for increased emissions, why is CO2 concentration increasing? Hint: because the sink is too small to counter our emissions.

>ask the person who is speaking to explain how it happened that we all did not boil in this pressure cooker 500 million years ago in Cambria, when the CO2 in the air was 20 times higher.
Because we did not exist, you massive retard. 500 million years ago, all land was barren. Doesn't that sound great? What did exist was in the oceans and had millions of years to evolve in and adapt to their environment. How do you still not understand this?

[Anonymous No.11296437]

[Anonymous No.11296450]

>>11296150
Based and factpilled

[Anonymous No.11296499]

>>11296279
OP btfo how will he ever recover

[Anonymous No.11296528]

>>11296123
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows

[Anonymous No.11296601]

>>11296417
except that the timestamp does not work you trisomal cock smoker

[Anonymous No.11296804]

>>11296601
so? 4chan is retarded, what's your point

[Anonymous No.11296950]

>>11296114
>bait thread
>soon 200 posts ommitted

it's all so tiresome

[Anonymous No.11296974]

>>11296125
>When you're told that CO2 is a poison, a pollutant and a toxic substance
strawman. You're being told that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will magnify the greenhouse effect.

[Anonymous No.11297072]

>>11296114
From what I understand global warming is gonna make things hotter and wetter, and warm wet places are where we find the greatest abundance of life. What again is there problem with global warming?

[Anonymous No.11297078]

>>11296974
I was also told by politicians that methane is not a concern

[Anonymous No.11297158]

>>11297072
Ocean acidification, loss of polar ice caps and change in ocean currents (leading to massively local changes of temperature) means huge loss of biodiversity.
Rapidly increasing sea levels on top of extreme temperature variations will affect human living and agricultural space, leading to the greatest refugee crisis in history when human population is at the highest it's ever been.

[Anonymous No.11297242]

>>11297078
Methane is a problem in the short term. It decays relatively quickly compared to CO2. If you cut methane emissions today you'll see the benefits within a decade.

[Anonymous No.11297614]

>>11297072
From what I understand eating 10,000 calories a day is going to increase the amount of energy available to my body, and energy is necessary for life. What again is the problem with eating 10,000 calories a day?

[Anonymous No.11297657]

>>11296114
Responding to you people is not worth our time. Here, educate yourself.

https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf

[Anonymous No.11297721]

>>11297072
In terrestrial plants chlorophyll based plants stop producing proteins when the air temperature reaches 85F. At 87F the proteins that already exist in the plant will begin breaking down. The Earth will lose app. 25% of its ability to produce proteins as the Earth warms. Aquatic plants are more complicated.

[Anonymous No.11297748]

>>11297721
This is interesting, do you have any further reading for this topic?

[Anonymous No.11297754]

>>11296144
It absolutely can be modeled as an LTI.
It is locally linear.

[Anonymous No.11297989]

>>11296327
If the chinks agree they why won't they stop putting so much co2 into the atmosphere?
>but muh per capita
Who gives a shit about per capita.
If the problem is co2, then we need to worry about stopping the majority of it regardless of the per capita numbers.

[Anonymous No.11298072]

>>11297748
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
#43
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

thumbnail explanation why food supply gets hit
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

[Anonymous No.11298078]

>>11298072
tropical: lat 0 - 23.5°
subtropical: lat 23.5° - 40°
temperate: lat 40° - 65

[Anonymous No.11298080]

>>11298072
tropical: lat 0 - 23.5°
subtropical: lat 23.5° - 40°
temperate: lat 40° - 65°

[Anonymous No.11298089]

>>11297989
>Who gives a shit about per capita.
only those with a functioning brain

[Anonymous No.11298121]

>>11296150

Excellent factual summary.

[Anonymous No.11298133]

>>11296114
Enjoy your 1000 ppm perma-narcosis, if you live long enough to experience it.

[Anonymous No.11298139]

>>11296395

Friend, you went to a lot of trouble to correct a fuckwit. While I admire your dedication are you aware that the fuckwit will simply shut up now for a while, but repeat the same shit the next day somewhere else? Are you aware that the fuckwits are easily manipulated to anything that sounds like their own vested interests and can vote? Are you aware they outnumber the likes of you not by just double digits but more likely in excess of triple digits?

This is the politics of the situation. The fuckwits are like the flat earth morons. No amount of hard evidence changes their world view. No amount of informed discussion. No amount of logic. No amount of reason. They prefer to remain willfully ignorant, or worse, as willfully deceitful and lying sacks of shit.

[Anonymous No.11298142]

>>11296437

Fuck me days, its that pretty gif poster again. Jesus. Do you live here?

[Anonymous No.11298161]

>>11298089
>x amount of co2 causes x amount of warming
300 people cause 16 tons a year per person
1.6 billion cause 8 tons each per year per person
which is the bigger problem you fucking idiot?

[Anonymous No.11298193]

>>11296114
You guys never stop coming from /pol/ do you?

[Anonymous No.11298256]

>>11296114
Humans weren't alive during the Cambrian period

[Anonymous No.11298258]

>>11298161
>The population of all western nations combined is 300 people

[Anonymous No.11298260]

>>11296114
>As we know, the planet didn't boil then, and life didn't die. Exactly the opposite, it was a time when it bloomed.
We, human beings, would die. I don't give a shit about arthropods.

[Anonymous No.11298261]

>>11298258
300 million, you know what he meant anon, don't be retarded.
>combining all western nations to protect china
chink detected

[Anonymous No.11298290]

>>11296114
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc

[Anonymous No.11298294]

>>11298261
It's not 300 million either you retard ape.

[Anonymous No.11298318]

>>11298290
>but how can something that makes life possible be bad?
Does this guy care that he sounds like a 10 year-old?

[Anonymous No.11298331]

>>11296360
Gee this sure doesn't sound like lining the pockets of those in bed with the governments at all

[Anonymous No.11298376]

>>11298161
The 300 million, since they lead by bad example, and now the 7+ billion people not causing 16 tons a year want a standard of living where they cause 16 tons a year

[Anonymous No.11298697]

>destroys climatetards

[Anonymous No.11298711]

>>11298697
>it was hotter in some place 800 years ago
>that means global warming is a lie!!!
local vs global, retard

[Anonymous No.11298723]

>>11296114
Well, can you imagine 0.04% of the atmosphere driving its temperature. And peoplescreaming about 0.01% moves.
That's where we're at.

[Anonymous No.11298728]

Meanwhile, Mars has way more C02 per cubic meter of athmosphere than Earth.
How come it's not Venus?

[Anonymous No.11298741]

>retards conflate rate of change with change

[Anonymous No.11298743]

On the bright side, mankind will move on, when they realize they were retarded.
On the other side, they'll make me eat bugs to 'save the planet'.

[Anonymous No.11298744]

>>11298741
Couldn't tell what you're talking about, really.

[Anonymous No.11298748]

>>11296114
>Now we bring back the CO2 that was taken from the atmosphere at the beginning of the biosphere back into the atmosphere, and this has a positive effect on climate.

Prove it.

[Anonymous No.11298750]

>Look at this, anon, from fossil records, we can tell CO2 levels and temperatures match.
>OK, so obviously, CO2 levels are driving temperatures, not the other way around.
>We all know dinosaurs liked biking.

[Anonymous No.11298760]

>>11298290
You really going to listen to the guy telling you to drink round up?

[Anonymous No.11298761]

>>11298743
Once the world's breadbaskets collapse you'll be begging for bugs

[Anonymous No.11298765]

>>11298761
You're retarded.
I'll be eating vegans instead.
But CO2 is a primal example of reverse logic.
See >>11298750
and >>11298723
CO2 always FOLLOWED temperature changes.
Why? because more animal life happens when temperatures are higher.
Anyways, We should be done by now, according to very serious science from 20 years ago, when I first heard about climate change.

[Anonymous No.11298767]

>>11298728
>what is pressure broadening
>What are positive feedbacks?
The real question is are you a shill or just utterly ignorant?

[Anonymous No.11298774]

>>11298767
Keep being in the mold.

I've calculated CO2 to be about 30 times more molecules per cubic spare meters on Mars than on Earth.
>What are positive feedbacks?
I don't know, the Billion tons of CO2 ice at the poles.

[Anonymous No.11298779]

>>11298774
Once again
>>11298774
Answer the question

[Anonymous No.11298781]

>>11298779
Well, according to science, CO2 is capable of holding heat like the devil.
Yes, pressure is lower, but temperature is an exact science.

[Anonymous No.11298791]

>>11298779
Let me re-iterate:
>0.04%
Idk, play some stationeers or something/

[Anonymous No.11298794]

>>11298779
PV=NP

[Anonymous No.11298795]

>>11298697
This destroys the deniertard

>A schematic (non-quantitative) curve was used to represent temperature variations over the last 1000 years in chapter 7. The vertical temperature scale was labelled as "Temperature change (°C)" but no numerical labels were given; it could be taken to imply that temperature variations of the MWP and LIA were each of the order of 0.5 °C from the temperature around 1900. The section specifically states recent climate changes were in a range of probably less than 2 °C. The 1990 report noted that it was not clear 'whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global. However, large regional changes in hydrological conditions have occurred, particularly in the tropics. Wetter conditions in the Sahara from 12 000 to 4,000 years BP enabled cultural groups to survive by hunting and fishing '(p 202). The graph 7.1 (p.202) picture is about global temperature in IPCC FAR; those publications have no explicit calibration against instrumental data, [and are] just Lamb’s qualitative judgement and interpretation of what he refers to as the ‘evidence’ [1]), and disappeared from the 1992 supplementary report.

[Anonymous No.11298799]

>>11298795
Don't care.
CO2 follows temperature.

[Anonymous No.11298800]

>>11298139
>Friend, you went to a lot of trouble to correct a fuckwit. While I admire your dedication are you aware that the fuckwit will simply shut up now for a while, but repeat the same shit the next day somewhere else?
Of course, my responses are for the benefit of naive readers, not for the fuckwit.

[Anonymous No.11298802]

>>11298791
0.04% of all living beings on earth are human, is humanity insignificant?
(Yeah, I just made that percentage up, I wouldn't be surprised if it's lower)

[Anonymous No.11298806]

The truth is, we don't know the impact of putting more CO2 in the athmosphere.
Geological records are worthless because they're not the result of putting more C02 in the atmosphere.
Fucking wake up already.

[Anonymous No.11298807]

98 replies

Come on guys, stop replying to retarded bait threads. Here's everything you need to post ever.
https://www.ipcc.ch/

Move on and ignore.

[Anonymous No.11298808]

>>11298806
If only all the experience and the records of the last hundred years hadn't been lost...

[Anonymous No.11298809]

>>11298808
If only dinosaurs had bikes.

[Anonymous No.11298816]

>>11298809
Is this a new /pol/ meme I am not aware of? Enlighten me

[Anonymous No.11298817]

Global warming is real and anthropogenic

BUT there is a natural balance
AND the human action on climate does not happen through CO2

http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/7/4/3/index.html

[Anonymous No.11298820]

>>11298294
300 million Americans you dumb faggot.
>>11298376
>implying the chinks or anyone else on that list give a flying fuck about your example
If they believe their co2 is causing it then why shouldn't they stop making so much of it on their own?
Why should America cuck itself with no guarantee everyone else will follow their lead?
It's suicide.

[Anonymous No.11298824]

>>11298816
You're saying CO2 level drives temperature.
All we know is that there's a corelation.
CO2 and temperatures matched for billions of years.
But there's a catch with planet Earth: Life.
More temperature means more vertebrate life that breathes CO2 out.
The pun about dinosaurs biking is that they were never doing this.

[Anonymous No.11298831]

>>11296123
>I don't know how the carbon cycle works

[Anonymous No.11298833]

>>11298824
Why is the stratosphere cooling? Why is outbound infrared radiation declining?

[Anonymous No.11298839]

>>11296114
That was the environment steady state that the ecosystem at the time developed in. The planet has not gone past 300 ppm CO2 in the past million years thus the current ecosystem has adapted to these temperatures.

[Anonymous No.11298840]

>>11298824
>But there's a catch with planet Earth: Life.
>More temperature means more vertebrate life that breathes CO2 out.
You don't provide anything to prove your claim.
Meanwhile you deny that the rise in temperatures over the last 70 years was caused by CO2, yet also provide no explanation on what suddenly caused it. Or do you have statistics showing a correlation between an increase in vertebrae life in the last 70 years and the temperature?

[Anonymous No.11298846]

>>11298833
Well, look, you just need to look at the empiricle data.
CO2 followed temperature through times.
When there were no un-natural CO2 emitters.
We're doing an experiment right now, that's never been tried before. And given how weak of a gas it is regarding atmosphere composition, I conclude that we'll just be fine.
In fact, I know we'll be, because we've reached concentration levels scientists told us we'd be all dead with, 30 years ago, already.

[Anonymous No.11298847]

>>11298820
Please, just don't be cruel enough to procreate. It would be evil of you to put children into a steadily worsening environment while you're taking no actions against it.
At least as long as you say "I don't care about the climate as long as I'm doing well and I don't plan to have children" one can pretend you're only being egoistic, and not acting out of malicious intent

[Anonymous No.11298850]

>>11298846
You failed to answer the question. Do you not understand it?

>scientists told us we'd be all dead with, 30 years ago
Which scientists? Can you provide a source?

[Anonymous No.11298851]

>>11298846
>We're doing an experiment right now, that's never been tried before.
Except for the last 70 years...
That's not "right now", that's more than enough data to analyze (as we know simply because it was analyzed)

[Anonymous No.11298853]

>>11298850
Stratosphere is fucking nothing.
03 and stuff.
Not CO2.

[Anonymous No.11298857]

>>11298850
>>11298851
It's fine, you're in denial.
I was because I was told to.
But then the apocalypse didn't happen.
Only then I looked up what part per million meant.

[Anonymous No.11298858]

>>11298853
Okay, you're obviously not understanding the question. The troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling. What is causing that?

How is ozone cooling the stratosphere and heating the troposphere?

[Anonymous No.11298864]

>>11298858
Wow, a myriad of other factors, other that CO2 couldn't be the cause.

[Anonymous No.11298868]

>>11298864
Wonderful, I love your enthusiasm.
>a myriad of other factors
What factors?

[Anonymous No.11298887]

>>11298868
The sun, precession, forest coverage, you name it.
If I follow your fairytale, an advanced space fairing civilization died on earth every time before the last ice ages.

[Anonymous No.11298896]

>>11298857
>I can't believe small number can have big impact!
>small number MUST have small impact!!!
based r*tard dodging the questions about the obvious flaws in his conspiracy theory

[Anonymous No.11298897]

>>11298887
How does the sun and precession cause the troposphere to warm but not the stratosphere? How does forest coverage cause the stratosphere to cool?

[Anonymous No.11298904]

>>11298847
What do you suggest America should do to stop climate change and "lead by example"?

[Anonymous No.11298908]

>>11298904
Reduce their greenhouse gas emissions

[Anonymous No.11298909]

>>11298896
>>11298897
See you in 30 years, nice people.
You're not spitting any more argument as they were back in 1990 when we were all doomed by 2000.
Also learn what precession is, and that the orbit of Earth is not circular.

[Anonymous No.11298913]

>>11298909
I have a degree in Earth science, I probably know more about the Milankovitch cycle than you do.

How does the sun and precession cause the troposphere to warm but not the stratosphere?

Outgoing longwave radiation from the Earth is declining, why?

[Anonymous No.11298915]

>>11298913
How does not having human make the fossil records not a flat line?

[Anonymous No.11298924]

>>11298915
I …. what? I don't even understand what you're saying.

Earth's energy budget
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

Please explain how the Milankovitch Cycle, Solar irradiance, and … trees? I guess? You brought it up. Cause the Troposphere to warm but the Stratosphere to cool.

I'm still waiting.

[Anonymous No.11298935]

>>11298924
You're so certain about being wrong, you can't even see how wrong you are.
Don't you think past warming event didn't see a lower infrared output?
I'm not saying the Earth is not warming. Just that we've got nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.11298941]

>>11298908
No shit you fucking faggot, how do you suggest they do that?

[Anonymous No.11298950]

>>11298941
I'm sure you can find a list composed by scientists giving dozens of ways to reduce them, but I guess that won't make you happy. So I'll just say what you want to hear:
taxes

[Anonymous No.11298958]

>>11296150
Imagine thinking the loss of currency is relevant on an event like this.

Also, society is pretty shit right now, maybe a quick reset will bring about a new era of art and spiritual awakening.

[Anonymous No.11298962]

>>11298935
You are dodging the question and refusing to answer. It's almost as if …. you don't understand.

Want me to teach you? It's very simple. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes traps more infrared radiation from the Earth causing the troposphere to warm and the stratosphere to cool.

Easy. Your turn. Explain how your mechanism works.

[Anonymous No.11298964]

>>11298962
Oh, I understand.
You want me to eat bugs because you're scared, for no reason.
This is all a social engineering experiment.

[Anonymous No.11298966]

>>11298962
You even got a degree in parroting, I guess that tells it all.

[Anonymous No.11298970]

>>11298964
>>11298966
Answer the question. What is causing the troposphere to warm and the stratosphere to cool? You have an alternative theory. Let's hear it.

[Anonymous No.11298974]

>>11298970
It's called warming.
Never denied it.

[Anonymous No.11298976]

>>11298962
Not that guy, but I've heard that the heating effect from CO2 in the atmosphere is related logarithmically to it's concentration, and that the concentration is past making anything more than a few degrees Celcius change with orders of magnitude more CO2. It is undoubtable that humans make a significant addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. It must be asked: just how much of an effect on heating does that CO2 have?

I'd really like to know with someone with a degree in earth science, given my degree is in Chemical engineering, I fall short in the natural sciences.

[Anonymous No.11298978]

>>11298970
So what bugs do you eat?
Oh wait, bugs are for plebeians, aren't they?

[Anonymous No.11298980]

>>11298976
Fucking Mars, man.
Fucking Mars.

[Anonymous No.11298981]

>>11298935
>we have nothing to do with it

[Anonymous No.11298988]

>>11298981
Look at all those space-fairing civilization we lost.

[Anonymous No.11298989]

>>11298976

[Anonymous No.11298997]

>>11298980
I don't follow. Does mars have a CO2-rich atmosphere? Are there figures relating temperature and its concentration over time?

[Anonymous No.11299000]

>>11298799
>CO2 follows temperature.
And temperature follows CO2.

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf

Or if you're too dumb to read scientific research: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

[Anonymous No.11299003]

>>11298950
>I'm sure you can find a list composed by scientists giving dozens of ways to reduce them
You seem to think you know everything there is to know about this stuff, so shouldn't you have some idea of which ones are good ideas?
I want to hear solutions that aren't retarded.
Like stopping air travel or eating cows, that's fucking stupid.
>taxes
What will they spend that money on is the question.

[Anonymous No.11299012]

>>11298997
Mars has 30 times more CO2 per cubic meter square than Earth.
With half the Sun energy input.
Yet it's mostly negative temperatures.
I'll let you do the math.

[Anonymous No.11299014]

>>11298723
https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm

[Anonymous No.11299015]

>>11298989
I appreciate the chart. Do you have any knowledge about how CO2's radiative effect vary with its atmospheric concentration?

Also, since I've asked this several times, it might be interesting to add how CO2 might have an effect on the ocean. There tends to not be as much discussion about it.

[Anonymous No.11299017]

>>11299003
>You seem to think you know everything there is to know about this stuff, so shouldn't you have some idea of which ones are good ideas?
I don't, at all, but I see no reason why I should distrust the scientists working in this area
>Like stopping air travel or eating cows, that's fucking stupid.
My idea would be reducing air travel and eating cows, is that retarded too? First worlders eat more meat than doctors recommend anyways

>What will they spend that money on is the question.
I'd suggest climate friendly energy sources or (re)forestation projects

[Anonymous No.11299022]

>>11299012
Negative temperatures? Are you claiming that it has close to no effect? I'm just more confused than anything. Is this the "Mars, man," guy?

[Anonymous No.11299029]

>>11298974
No. You are not explaining it. What warming is causing the troposphere to warm and the stratosphere to cool?

>>11298976
This is false
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

[Anonymous No.11299030]

>>11299015
The ocean is the major sink of CO2 in the planet. That's why I hate brainlets who talk about the greening effect when the terrestrial biosphere is only a fraction of the Carbon cycle with short residence times.
The ocean has taken the majority of the impact when it comes to the addition of anthropogenic CO2 but out activities have caused its ability to uptake and transport CO2 into the deep ocean to be diminished.
The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the hotter it gets and it produces a positive feedback loop where more water vapor is able yo be held in the atmosphere which is a more potent GHG than CO2

[Anonymous No.11299031]

>>11296114
>Build temperature regulated greenhouses
>Move infrastracture to higher elevation
Even if the pseudoscience behind "climate change" wasn't politically loaded trash to panic jerk people into agreeing to complete nonsense, it would be laughably easy to deal with.

[Anonymous No.11299035]

>>11299029
But I'm not explaining it, and neither are you, with your CO2 claims.

[Anonymous No.11299037]

>>11298728
>>11298774
>>11298779
CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Use your brain.

[Anonymous No.11299043]

>>11298750
>>Look at this, anon, from fossil records, we can tell CO2 levels and temperatures match.
>>OK, so obviously, CO2 levels are driving temperatures, not the other way around.
The fact that CO2 drives temperatures is proven via the greenhouse effect, not by correlations. You have no clue what you're taking about. Are deniertards capable of doing anything but making up strawmen?

[Anonymous No.11299045]

>>11298728
>what is water vapor
>what is pressure

[Anonymous No.11299046]

>>11298806
>The truth is, I don't know the impact of putting more CO2 in the athmosphere because I'm in denial of scientific facts
ftfy

[Anonymous No.11299047]

>>11299031
You think changing temperatures and increased sea level are the only problems with climate change?

And even if they were, the "solutions" you propose are actually ridiculously difficult to the point of being impossible. Do you realize how gargantuan of a task it would be to basically rebuild every harbor city from scratch elsewhere, much less build temperature-regulated buildings around all farmland in the world?

[Anonymous No.11299053]

>>11299043
The lengths they go to dance around the truth are incredible.

[Anonymous No.11299057]

>>11298958
>Imagine thinking the loss of currency is relevant on an event like this.
Less so currency and more so value, it's just that currency is the colloquial way to measure value. Value is always relevant. Value was even relevant a billion years ago when only microorganisms existed. Food is value. Shelter is value. Not being killed is value.

[Anonymous No.11299060]

>>11299047
I wonder how much it would cost to climate control just 1 acre of farmland, and there's almost a billion acres of farmland in the US alone.

[Anonymous No.11299064]

>>11299035
Wonderful, as I said, I love your enthusiasm. So explain then, what's causing the troposphere to warm and the stratosphere to cool. I won't quit asking until you either

1. Admit that CO2 is the cause
2. Admit that CO2 is the cause

You literally have no other theory that fits the data.

[Anonymous No.11299067]

>>11298817
Nice fake journal

https://predatoryjournals.com/publishers/#R

Are you the quack author or just a gullible retard?

[Anonymous No.11299072]

>>11299017
>is that retarded too?
Yes it's retarded, I guess I wasn't clear enough in my post you just quoted where I said "that's fucking stupid"..
Who gets to stop flying and eating cows?
There's basically zero chance that will happen without some serious backlash, and certainly not forcing 1 country to do it alone.
Maybe you should stop eating plants, since you're eating the things that convert co2 to oxygen.
>I'd suggest climate friendly energy sources or (re)forestation projects
Fair enough, I think we should focus more on fusion personally.

[Anonymous No.11299098]

>>11298824
>All we know is that there's a corelation.
That's wrong you fucking retard. Causation is proven. It's called the greenhouse effect. It can also be directly observed: http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>More temperature means more vertebrate life that breathes CO2 out.
Breathing is carbon neutral. All carbon that breathed out was taken out of the atmosphere by plants. You have no idea what you're taking about. The reason CO2 is correlated with temperature in the past is because temperature determines how much CO2 is absorbed or released by the oceans. However this does not imply that CO2 doesn't also have an effect on temperature. Your argument is both factually and logically wrong.

[Anonymous No.11299108]

>>11298846
The results of the experiment are in, you're wrong: http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

[Anonymous No.11299109]

>>11299047
Yes, especially considering we'd have several decades to do so, you underestimate how fast people can build infrastructure if they really want to. For example German cities were rebuild in a decade or so after WW2. Would create a lot of jobs too. But even if the timeframe was too short, you could first do it netherland style and build dams and water pumps to keep water outside of the harbor cities. As for greenhouses, many farms already build them just to extend their growing season. If that's not enough, most people can build their own climate controlled greenhouse in their own backyard to feed themselves just in case.

Quite frankly, i'm not bothered that the Oil industry is dying, it makes us less dependent on Oil countries and cities have cleaner air, but both you and me know that "climate scientists" make shit up for nothing but financial and political reasons that fuck us all over.

[Anonymous No.11299126]

>>11299012
So you think if CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars increased, it wouldn't have a warming effect? I'm confused since all you're doing is comparing CO2 and temperatures, not the effect of CO2 on temperature.

[Anonymous No.11299176]

>>11299126
He is a Flat Earth - tier troll and don't fall for it

[Anonymous No.11299181]

>>11296114
I bet u sniff ur own farts and take pleasure in breathing. Polluting Fuck kill yourself. Save the environment

[Anonymous No.11299517]

>>11296950
told ya

[Anonymous No.11299543]

>>11296337
>this comic
>small changes in temperature lead to DRASTIC changes in the past
>temperature changes in modern times are drastic
>literally nothing changes

AAAAAND thats how I know the entire thing is pure fabricated bullshit

[Anonymous No.11299549]

>>11296360
It's hilarious how all car designers are struggling with the front grille now that it's useless. I haven't seen a single electric car that handles it in a sensible way.

[Anonymous No.11299556]

>>11299543
If you understood how stupid you just sounded, you wouldn't have said that.

Look at it in Kelvin. Temperature of the Earth is about 252 degrees Kelvin (which is about 15 degrees below 0*C). The other 30 degrees comes from trapping heat in the atmosphere for a total of about 283 degrees Kelvin. The rise in temperature has been only been about 1.5 degrees in the last century. When compared to the total solar output of 252 degrees K this is hardly anything at all. However this small amount of change will thaw icecaps and glaciers, increase desertification, and disrupt our way of life.

You prove again and again that you are uneducated. Why not listen to the experts instead of pushing your uneducated agenda?

[Anonymous No.11299587]

>>11298331
why do you hate capitalism? fuck off you dirty commie

[Anonymous No.11299980]

>>11298290
>unironically linking a BoomerU video

[Anonymous No.11300007]

>>11298765
>>11298723
0.00007mg of botox can kill a fully grown adult male you utter retard. "it's a small number compared to the overall amount" is absolutely not an argument against the negatives of CO2.

[Anonymous No.11300013]

>>11299031
>dude just build massive greenhouses
>dude who cares about how we're going to power them global warming is just a big scam
I've heard more viable fucking solutions from 8 year old kids