/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3498325]

So we all know that global warming is real, it is being caused by human activity, and it is a big problem. That much is obvious.

How do we deal with it? Cap-and-trade? Fee-and-dividend? Cap-and-dividend? Straight carbon tax? Stalinization?

[Anonymous No.3498350]

Never thought Arizona would become one of the cooler places to live.

[Anonymous No.3498367]

>>3498350

It's just for a little bit, rest assured AZ is going to get their shit fucked like the rest of the Southwest

[Anonymous No.3498402]

Might as well post this

http://www.mediafire.com/?am4chb1ydli36v1

http://www.mediafire.com/?vsewt7lu0hw85je

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3498404]

>>3498325

Never mention it during cold times. That helps a lot.

[Peter Gabriel !neKNoT.lxg No.3498428]

that feel when it's hotter in St. Louis than almost anywhere else in the country

anyway, I think we're probably fucked, having read the IPCC report, and seeing how we're likely going to get nowhere near the necessary benchmarks for not being fucked. Also, the issue of the effect of methane released from under melting tundras is a big deal. It's not understood very well whether this will have a huge effect, causing a positive feedback loop till the poles are melted. If that does happen, we are most certainly fucked.

[Anonymous No.3498444]

>>3498325
What's scariest to me about global warming is that where I live, the sun doesn't even go down anymore until after 8 PM. It didn't used to be like that at all. If it keeps going, and the day just gets longer and longer and more and more hot, how can people even survive? All the water will dry up and the plants will die.

[Anonymous No.3498456]

>>3498428

It's true that there will be irreversible changes, but at this point we can still control how bad those changes can get. No matter how bad things those locked-in changes are, they can always get worse.

Might as well limit the damage if we still can.

[Peter Gabriel !neKNoT.lxg No.3498461]

My bet is that no president will want to be the one to force our economy to fuck itself to death in order to save the planet (er, the current state of the planet). Think about how long Cap and Trade lasted after the 2008 election. And that was BEFORE the tea party started cornholing the federal government

[Anonymous No.3498464]

The answer is: dismantle all society and industry under penalty of stoning.

[Anonymous No.3498471]

>>3498444

Is this a joke about summer

Someone help me here, I have trouble with sarcasm on the internet

[Anonymous No.3498473]

GENOCIDE 2011. ITS NOT TOO LATE TO KILL THE PEOPLE UNFIT TO SURVIVE.

[Anonymous No.3498487]

>2011
>Believing the Earth is warming and that it is even manmade

I seriously hope you guys don't do this

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg
http://zfacts.com/p/194.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global-blended-temp-pg.gif

[Anonymous No.3498498]

>>3498461

>force our economy to fuck itself to death in order to save the planet

Why does everyone think that fixing climate change will destroy the economy

>Think about how long Cap and Trade lasted after the 2008 election. And that was BEFORE the tea party started cornholing the federal government

The irony here is that Republicans fucking invented cap-and-trade

[Anonymous No.3498507]

>>3498471
Yes, it is.

[Anonymous No.3498512]

>>3498471
You can never really tell with /sci/

[Anonymous No.3498519]

>>3498487

Your last two links don't even support your own argument

[Anonymous No.3498522]

>>3498325
>mfw I live in Washington state.
>mfw the weather has been prefect here while everyone else is dying of heat stroke.

[Anonymous No.3498529]

>>3498522
>living in the Northwest
>thinks people should be "jelly"
I would rather die of sunstroke.

[Anonymous No.3498538]

>>3498487

Protip: It actually helps your argument if you try to make your case instead of vomiting a bunch of graphs and linking a fossil fuel-funded website.

[Anonymous No.3498540]

>>3498519

You are supposed to compare it to the first link.
It is sunspots doing this anyways

[Anonymous No.3498541]

>>3498487
>http://zfacts.com/p/194.html
>What do we know for sure? We know for a fact that CO2 levels are rising and that human activity is the cause.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3498543]

There's probably AGW, but CO2 probably has nothing to do with it. Carbon taxes are just an excuse to confiscate a shit ton of money, and carbon credits are just a way for politically connected corporations to get rich.

[Anonymous No.3498547]

Geo-Engineering bitches!

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html

[Anonymous No.3498555]

>>3498543

>Carbon taxes are just an excuse to confiscate a shit ton of money

If that were true, it would have been signed into law years ago. There are much easier ways to scam taxpayers, and in any case this still leaves us with the question of how to solve the problem

[Anonymous No.3498561]

>Why does everyone think that fixing climate change will destroy the economy

Do you really need to ask? Have ever you been to /new/?

[Anonymous No.3498565]

>>3498540

That graph I posted showed sunspots. Here's another.

[Anonymous No.3498571]

>>3498561

I know what /new/ thinks, but I figured /sci/ would be more educated about the subject

[Anonymous No.3498589]

>>3498547

Not such a great idea:

http://www.thebulletin.org/files/064002006_0.pdf

Plus if you go with SRM and keep pumping out greenhouse gases, you'd have to reflect more and more sunlight as time goes on. Eventually you'll have a situation where the sky is very dim and CO2 concentrations are extremely high. This is probably not good for health or crop yields.

[Anonymous No.3498611]

>>3498571

>I figured /sci/ would be more educated about the subject

It is! Can't you see that it's the same people in these threads spreading bullshit over and over again?

[Anonymous No.3498613]

>>3498589

What about CO2 sponges that act as leaves on tree? We can put those on all of our power lines and windmills.

[Peter Gabriel !neKNoT.lxg No.3498638]

>>3498498

the entire american economy (post WWII) is built around the fact that energy is cheap as shit and around the hope that it will remain cheap as shit.

I honestly don't believe we can rebuild our entire country's infrastructure away from fossil fuels and car-culture, which we will have to do. And especially not when there are faggots like Rick Scott in Florida actively suppressing attempts to create new, more sustainable infrastructure purely for political points

[Anonymous No.3498641]

>>3498613

I dunno brah, from what I've heard the CO2 scrubbing tech is only in its infancy and very expensive. Maybe it would happen if civilization was on the verge of destruction and we had absolutely no other option other than to build millions of scrubber machines.

[Anonymous No.3498646]

>>3498540

That's a nice temperature reconstruction you have there - which paleoclimate journal was it published in? Also, is it just me or is the graph missing a large portion of the 20th century?

[Anonymous No.3498657]

>>3498646

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

It's a hippie tree hugging website that contradicts itself with this article

[Anonymous No.3498666]

>>3498646

I recognize the scientist in the filename and he's the real deal (although from more of a "skeptic" bent). The reconstruction cuts off at around 1950, which is coincidentally just two decades before the solar-temperature correlation fell apart.

[Anonymous No.3498683]

>>3498657

Could you write that again, this time in English?

[Anonymous No.3498685]

>>3498657

That blog looks a little fishy

Maybe you should consider scientific sources that are not blogs?

[Peter Gabriel !neKNoT.lxg No.3498696]

mfw this shit was settled in 19fucking90 by the UN IPCC

also derailed thread is derailed

[Anonymous No.3498703]

>>3498547
Not very smart, we may have to prepare for unforseen consequences if go down that path.

[Anonymous No.3498730]

Carbon tax seems to be having some positive impact in Europe.

http://sapiens.revues.org/1072

[Anonymous No.3498739]

>>3498487
>Pretend to disprove the massive amount of scientific data and the perfect consensus of non-oil-financed climate scientists about anthropogenic climat change with a couple of graphs cherry-picked to loosely fit your point.
> Be butthurt when creationists dismiss a massive amount of evidence because of their beliefs.
>Pretend to act like a scientist
>I seriously hope you don't do this.
The IPCC report, fucking read it. If you're still not convinced, you should ask yourself if you are not because you don't want to or because of legitimate lack of evidence. Of course you have the right, the duty shall I say as a scientist to doubt, but when faced with evidence, one should put his preferences aside and assume that this is the best theory we've got for the moment.
Also, the transition phase to produce less CO2 is not catastrophic for the economy. Europe did a lot in this direction and their economy is just as bad as yours. It will actually create a lot of jobs for scientists.

[Anonymous No.3498765]

>>3498696

Meh it's fine, let's just get it back on track

Personally I'm a fan of cap-and-dividend:

http://www.capanddividend.org/

So you have a price on carbon like a carbon tax or cap-and-trade, initially set at a low level, then increases after however many years at a steady rate until it matches the "social cost" of carbon emissions. The difference is that instead of having tradable permits, or just straight-up taxing people, the revenue is collected into a single pool and then distributed to every citizen.

Unlike cap-and-trade, it provides an incentive for people to cut down their emissions, because then you can use more of your dividend. And if you make less than 90k a year, cap-and-dividend will be a net profit for you.

Other solutions: phase out all fossil fuel subsidies. Mining, refining, exploration, everything: sunset all of them in 10 years. Ramp up subsidies to energy R&D into nuclear and renewables. Imitate the French and standardize nuclear reactor designs and reduce costs as much as possible without sacrificing safety. Use feed-in tariffs like the Germans to encourage renewable energy sources. Tax incentives for energy efficiency. Plan development around pedestrians, bikes, electric cars and mass transit. Any new fossil fuel plants MUST be natural gas or CCS coal.

Google says it's feasible, pic related

[sage this idiocy for cthulu's sake No.3498762]

with the present administration allowing the banksters to plunder the world's economies, the political power of the Tea Potters of the world, the other libertarian/deniers in their basements, peak everything actually, I doubt this civilization will make it to 2020

You all are going to get a irl enactment of The Fall of Western Civilization up close and personal

By 2025, if you're still alive, you are going to think back on theses lively exchanges with nostalgia as you carve your life story on a rock

feelsbadman.tiff

[Anonymous No.3498779]

>>3498765

Google also says that solar is cheaper than nuclear, which is just whack

But I dunno, maybe they're using flawed methodology? Econometrics is not my strong suit

[Peter Gabriel !neKNoT.lxg No.3498797]

>>3498730
>>3498739

The problem is that the US has spent 60 years building itself into dependence on cheap energy, and that cannot be undone quickly. Suburbs are, at the core, unsustainable, and once taxing/whatever brings up the price of energy, suburbs will start to be abandoned. Cities, at the same time, are not currently capable of accepting all these people coming back, which would have to happen. Having studied urban design and environmental social science, I just don't think it's likely that this country can make these changes fast enough.

[Anonymous No.3498800]

>>3498779
It's only because of the absolutely crippling government regulation on nuclear. If they were to deregulate it then it could compete more effectively.

[Anonymous No.3498809]

>>3498779

Well, the cost of solar has been going down for a long time. I doubt we can say the same about nuclear. Even if they aren't matched today, the might be pretty soon.

[Peter Gabriel !neKNoT.lxg No.3498814]

>>3498779
except solar and nuclear are fundamentally different types of energy. There is a base load for our electrical grid that must be constantly met, which is what coal and nuclear are useful for, as they can run constantly and adjust their rate of production. With wind energy, if there's no wind, you're fucked. Battery technology is getting better, but is still not good enough.

[Peter Gabriel !neKNoT.lxg No.3498819]

>>3498814
Shit, I meant solar, not wind. the point still remains. We can't count on solar energy for the constant, 24/7 need for electricity

[Anonymous No.3498826]

>>3498800

>If they were to deregulate it

Now that sounds like a cool idea

[Anonymous No.3498829]

>>3498826
> implying meltdown is even a remote possibility on a modern reactor

Brainwashed envirofag detected, opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.3498830]

>>3498800

It's kind of a popular myth on /sci/ that it's all the government's fault that we didn't have a nuclear renaissance. Hate to break it to you, but nuclear is just uneconomic.

(This isn't to say that we should not expand nuclear energy. I don't think we have much of a choice.)

Even as far back as 1970, private investment in nuclear dwindled to almost nothing. This was BEFORE Chernobyl, before Three Mile Island, and before climate models first showed the possibility of nuclear winter. So the nuclear scare isn't the whole story.

The problem with nuclear is just that it's really fucking expensive to build a nuclear reactor. There's no easy way around it. And then you have tacked on what are essentially infinite liabilities in the form of nuclear waste. Insuring a nuclear plant is more expensive than any other kind of energy production. Sure, uranium is dirt cheap, but investors cringe at the enormous up-front cost of constructing a plant and the insurance costs thereafter.

There has not been a single nation on Earth where the nuclear industry survived without the help of a fuckton of government support. That's why I suggest we imitate the French as much as possible and pretty much nationalize the whole industry. And even then, the French have had trouble with ballooning costs. In the end though, nuclear has to be a vital part of the overall effort to transform our energy system, and if this means taking up huge costs, then so be it.

[Anonymous No.3498834]

>>3498829

A nuclear power plant melted down a few months ago

[Anonymous No.3498838]

>>3498826
If anything deregulation would make an accident LESS likely. Government regulation doesn't increase safety, and if anything it ties the hands of the experts in favor of retarded rules written by government bureaucrats and the greens that control them. Just look at the gulf oil disaster. Ridiculous government regulation made that inevitable.

[Anonymous No.3498839]

>>3498814

Actually, while coal can adjust its power output past a certain point, nuclear is pretty inflexible. In other words, you can't vary the output with nuclear like you can with fossil fuel plants, much to the annoyance of utilities.

[Peter Gabriel !neKNoT.lxg No.3498844]

>>3498834
>modern reactor

[Anonymous No.3498845]

>>3498838

>government

>controlled by greens

You gotta be shittin' me.

[Anonymous No.3498848]

>>3498325
Personally, I've given up that there is any way out of this horrible catastrophe. It is leading straight to a global meltdown, and I don't think there's any will to prevent it. Some dude above suggested O2 sponges? From where and made of what? This is the quality of the conversation about GW that is so typical everywhere. Cap and trade? Suicidal. Traded O2 is still excess O2

Global economic collapse by 2020, riots, wars, the usual til maybe 2030, then a slow silent decline to the Middle Ages for some, the Neolitihic for the majority, and some spots of steelclad hightech Soylent Green living buried somewhere in the Patagonia for the money vampire cocksuckers that stymie real solutions.

Remember, "the American Way of Life Will Not Be Compromised"!!1!! ~ B. Obama's Inaugural Address (quoting G. Bush, apparently)

[Anonymous No.3498852]

>>3498834
It was hit by an earthquake AND a tsunami, and it didn't cause a single death. If that's your example of something going wrong, then you're an idiot.

Even in the very worst case, nuclear is the safest for of energy.

[Anonymous No.3498850]

>>3498325
Whoa man. Global warming is not real. Am I being trolled? The Earth is heating up through a natural process. Humans aren't doing shit to the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.3498857]

>>3498850

Too obvious.

>>3498848

Cap-and-trade sux, cap-and-dividend is where the shit's at:

>>3498765

[Anonymous No.3498860]

>>3498850

Could you explain which natural process is causing the warming?

[Anonymous No.3498873]

>>3498860

Sunspots

[Anonymous No.3498875]

Why is there still talk of global warming.

Its been proved that:
A) its not true
B) we dont have enough data to prove its true
C) isnt shit we can do, the whole world isnt going to play ball
D) fuck our children

If you think I am paying $15 for a gallon of gas to save the planet fuck you, torch the planet, manking will find a way to survive.

[Peter Gabriel !neKNoT.lxg No.3498881]

>>3498875

fuck yeah, manking will survive. I mean, he is king, afterall

[Anonymous No.3498885]

>>3498873

>Sunspots

Uh....the graph you posted seems to be showing just the opposite.

[Anonymous No.3498892]

>>3498819

There are ways around that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_car
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid

... and the normal capacitors that already exist in our electric grid.

And for always-on electricity, you've got natural gas (for the time being), nuclear, hydro, geothermal, and HVDC lines bringing in electricity from faraway solar/wind plants.

[Anonymous No.3498893]

>>3498875

Which mitigation proposal suggest pricing gas at 15$/gallon?

[Anonymous No.3498897]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/A1b.html

Us humans do very little to the environment. Our planet is between ice ages and is approaching the hottest apex this go 'round.

[Anonymous No.3498898]

>>3498875
>its not true
>we dont have enough data
So which one is it fag? Do we not have enough data or is it not true?

People these days can't even troll properly.

[Anonymous No.3498899]

>>3498897

Flashing back to the '90s here

[Anonymous No.3498903]

>>3498897

You *do* realize that the processes responsible for ice ages act on the scales of tens of thousands of years, right?

[Anonymous No.3498914]

>>3498898

Dude, Mars is fucking warming

Isn't it crazy how those amazing scientists can accurately measure the temperature on motherfucking Mars? Anyway that proves that global warming isn't caused by man. But you know what else proves global warming isn't caused by man? The fact that it isn't warming!

Climategate proves that scientists were just faking the temperature record the whole time! That's right, every single temperature record! In reality, the Earth has been cooling!

And thank God for Cuccinelli and Inhofe and the guys who are investigating Charles Monnett for keeping those dastardly scientists in line

[Anonymous No.3498921]

>>3498914
>Climategate

[Anonymous No.3498929]

>>3498914

Ah, yes, the famous "tilted graph" technique. I've heard it's been successfully used with global temperatures a well.

[Anonymous No.3498933]

>>3498929

The tilted graph never lies

[Anonymous No.3498936]

Mt. St. Helens put more CO2 in the atmosphere than the US did since the industrial revolution.

Why destroy our businesses with more regulations when it won't stop anything? We need to stay competitive with China if we want to stand a chance in the world economy. Is congress going to carbon tax China too?

[Anonymous No.3498938]

If you walk into your house and find that it's being flooded because the bath faucet has been left on and it's flowing into the bathtub faster than the drain removes it and thereby overflowing into the rest of the house...

Do you:
1. Trade amounts of water between rooms so that rooms that have more water end up having equal amounts with all the other rooms, or
2. Tax the water, or
3. Turn off the fucking faucet.

[Anonymous No.3498947]

>>3498936

>Mt. St. Helens put more CO2 in the atmosphere than the US did since the industrial revolution.

Source on this?

[Anonymous No.3498946]

>>3498936

>no Y-axis

>mfw

Somehow, I don't think Cliff Harris is a real climatologist, and I don't think Randy Mann is a member of the AMS

Also this:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

[Anonymous No.3498956]

>>3498938

4. Only use bottled water for everything and throw the empty bottles directly into the ocean.

[Anonymous No.3498962]

>>3498946

Somehow, you seem to be right.

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=92074

[Anonymous No.3498963]

>>3498936
>Mt. St. Helens put more CO2 in the atmosphere than the US did since the industrial revolution

lol
i troll u

[Anonymous No.3498975]

>>3498963

No wait, I'd love to see what kind of crazy website he'll come up with.

[Anonymous No.3498992]

>>3498938

The problem is you can't turn off the faucet because if you do you lose the electricity to your house and your car stops working

You also can't leave your house

[Anonymous No.3498995]

>>3498975
don't hold your breath waiting, or atmospheric co2 will be the least of your worries.

[Anonymous No.3499008]

>>3498995

Dude, there's a website for everything.

[Anonymous No.3499009]

>>3498975

This is what bugs me about guys like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre

If you "audit" only one side for stupid nitpicks and ignore the horde of retards on the other side, it's false CNN balance

[Anonymous No.3499024]

>>3499009

They don't care about the truth, but self-aggrandizement. They have nothing to gain by "auditing" their own supporters.

[Anonymous No.3499031]

>>3498992
Right, except that electricity is not necessary for life and air is.

[Anonymous No.3499041]

>>3499024

So it goes

[Anonymous No.3499061]

>>3499031

Also I busted my own analogy: if I can't leave the house why would I need a car?

The point is, it's not as easy as just switching off all the carbon-burning sources.

[Anonymous No.3499078]

>>3499061
It's not easy, no, but the ultimate solution is simple. Just a very difficult simple. But even reduction would be better than political systems put in place to protect the ability to *grow* FF based economies.

[Anonymous No.3499105]

>>3498947

>Mt. St. Helens eruption released more of these gases, dust and ash into the atmosphere than all such emissions by human activity since the beginning of recorded human history. And there are numerous volcanic eruptions yearly.

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/

[Anonymous No.3499121]

>>3498963

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Total CO2 emissions from Mt St Helens eruption: 0.01 Gt

CO2 emissions from all volcanic sources in one year: 0.26 Gt

Total anthropogenic CO2 emissions in 2010: 35 Gt

[Anonymous No.3499138]

>>3498995

>http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/

See? I told you there's a website for everything.

[Anonymous No.3499144]

>>3499105
you're backing up your idiotic comment with someone else's idiotic comment?

do you believe errything you read on the internets?

[Anonymous No.3499145]

Don't worry OP, the free market will fix it.

But anyways the best solution is to stop dragging our feet and actually implement a solution like infrastructure of EVs and nuclear power plants. Course we all know that won't happen so I'll just be down here.

[Anonymous No.3499151]

>>3499138
he didn't even find a website, the quote was taken from a comment in essay form near the bottom, which he probably wrote.

weak.

[Anonymous No.3499172]

>>3499145

I doubt it would get that bad unless we actually try to fuck up

USA and Canada are dragging their heels, but China, India, and Europe are making steps in the right direction. On the other hand, aging US weather satellites will not be replaced thanks to budget cuts. Then more people will die in weather-related disasters, which will spur them to action! Therefore the Tea Partiers are secretly trying to save humanity with their Machiavellian scheme

[Anonymous No.3499174]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZWA6dM-L8g

> "CO2 WILL KILL US ALL HERP DERP, I AM GOING TO PAY EVERYSHIT MY GOV TELLS ME TO, BECAUSE I AM A FUCKING TOOL."

Thats how you sound like.

>mfw

>also noticed how noone is talking about climate change anymore?

[Anonymous No.3499190]

>>3499174

/new/ is that way -------------------------->

[Anonymous No.3499204]

>>3499174

The comments on that video are hilarious.


>also noticed how noone is talking about climate change anymore?

You live in the USA, I presume?

[Anonymous No.3499225]

>>3499204
the US is too busy roasting in the latest heat wave and enjoying an epic drought to say much about warming right now.

[Anonymous No.3499241]

>>3498838
ARE. YOU. FUCKING. SERIOUS.
10/10

[Anonymous No.3499245]

>>3499204
Otherway around, sir.
I assumed you guys were mostly from 'murika.
I am from germany and the mainstream news cooled down the "CO2" issue. High importance has the debate abour nuclear power plants and turks beating down old people.

[Anonymous No.3499249]

>>3499225

What? Heat wave? No, sir, that's a government conspiracy!

http://www.grist.org/list/2011-07-27-conservative-pundits-deny-existence-of-record-breaking-heat-wav
e

[Anonymous No.3499256]

>>3499245

Europe and America had the coldest winters in modern history.

There is no reason to report on things that are clearly not an issue

[Anonymous No.3499279]

>>3499256
(gerfag here)
Winter was cold indeed, but strangely it also had some hilariously hot days.

[Anonymous No.3499280]

>>3499256
Possible but I doubt it.

my part of murika continues to be plagued by pine beetle infestation which is stopped by a week of cold about 20 below... which we used to get all the time but haven't seen for the last 2 decades. Including last winter.

[Anonymous No.3499290]

only way to fix global warming is through geo-engineering

everything else is a waste of time

[Anonymous No.3499291]

>>3499256

No, you're just full of crap.

[Anonymous No.3499295]

>>3499291

That doesn't have 2010

[Anonymous No.3499301]

>>3499295
give us a citation

[Anonymous No.3499305]

>>3499295

So? We're discussing global warming, not "global weather".

[Anonymous No.3499306]

This past winter is known for it's blizzards which people (I use this word lightly) erroneously assume mean it was somehow colder than usual.

But of course anyone even remotely intelligent knows that in truth an increase of snowfall can be an indication of warmer global temperatures.

[Anonymous No.3499307]

>>3499280
Colorado fag here:

Half the fucking forest is dead. Im waiting for that shit to blow up in flames

[Anonymous No.3499309]

>>3499256

>Europe and America had the coldest winters in modern history.

lol no

Unless by "modern history" you mean "30 years." And even if Europe and the US are relatively for that winter, that doesn't mean the entire globe is relatively cold.

Btw, cold winters over the US and Europe were actually expected due to high pressure blocking events pushing cold Arctic air to the South. This kind of blocking event occurs when sea ice is exceptionally low, i.e. when the Arctic is unusually hot:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD013568.shtml

Note the date the article was submitted: November 2009. That was even before the cold winters of 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.

In b4 you can't wrap your head around the concept of global warming causing colder winters in certain regions

[Anonymous No.3499318]

>>3499307
have you seen scummit county lately?
fucking acres of firewood waiting to explode.

that stretch from eisenhower tunnel to copper mt. is just amazing.

[Anonymous No.3499320]

>>3499290

Geoengineering was discussed and dismissed:

>>3498547
>>3498589
>>3498641

On the other hand, we should probably do some more research into it, just in case we fuck up bad enough that we need to perform some emergency maneuvers

[Anonymous No.3499332]

>>3499306

>increase of snowfall can be an indication of warmer global temperatures.

Wouldn't rain be an indication of warmer temperatures?
I like how George Sorosfags are changing their fear mongering from global warming to climate change. Now, even if stuff gets colder, they can't lose. It's essentially a catch 22

[Anonymous No.3499339]

>>3498325
ITT: xenophobes have a hard time understanding global existence of other people.

[Anonymous No.3499344]

>>3499332
If global average surface temps go down so does the theory.

the theory does predict greater swings in temperatures (including cold ones), but an overall warming trend. We just changed the name because small minds can't distinguish weather from climate.

[Anonymous No.3499348]

We deal with it by doing strikes and pressuring the US government to sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

[Anonymous No.3499353]

>>3499320
then you're idiots for dismissing it

geoengineering is the ONLY way you can lower the temperature of the earth, efforts at reducing carbon emissions are too expensive and wont reverse the heating effects

[Anonymous No.3499355]

>>3499332

>I like how George Sorosfags are changing their fear mongering from global warming to climate change

IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
founded in... 1988

You need better talking points, dude.

[Anonymous No.3499367]

>>3499332
>Wouldn't rain be an indication of warmer temperatures?

Warmer local temperatures yes but we're discussing global temperatures.

[Anonymous No.3499368]

>>3499332
The name they use in the press has changed because people were misunderstanding "global warming" as "it will be warmer all the time"; "climate change" was adopted as a more descriptive name to avoid confusion.

The main prediction of global climate change, whatever you want to call it, is and always has been an increase in average global temperature; such an increase has been observed for several decades. A secondary prediction is that this increase in average global temperature will result in more extreme weather (heat waves, blizzards, hurricanes, etc); we've started to see this in the last few years, and it's likely to get significantly worse in the coming decades.

[Anonymous No.3499376]

>>3499348
Oh wait, the United States is a member
never mind

[Anonymous No.3499380]

>>3499355

>IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Funded and run by corporations that would profit from the otherwise unprofitable "green" industry. No conflicts of interest there.

This paranoia is being funneled by George Soros and GE. GE has invested billions in green technology but can't sell any of it unless it make congress force industries to use their products. Soros likewise has invested billions in propping up fear of CO2 and then investing billions in green tech to profit from this new industry he helped create.

You are a tool

[Anonymous No.3499385]

There is an answer to solving global warming but you may not like it
NUCLEAR POWER

[Anonymous No.3499390]

>>3499332

>Wouldn't rain be an indication of warmer temperatures?

Greater snowfall can occur with warmer temperatures. Think about relative humidity: higher temperatures = more precipitation. If it changes from -10 C to -5 C, you will actually get more snow with warmer temperatures. All there has to be is moisture in the atmosphere and temperatures under zero.

>I like how George Sorosfags are changing their fear mongering from global warming to climate change.

The term "climatic change" has been in use for almost a century. When Gilbert Plass published his seminal climate paper, "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change," George Soros was 16 years old. Who knows, maybe Soros was a teenage comic book villain.

The guy who popularized the term "climate change" over "global warming" in news media was George W. Bush political strategist Frank Luntz:

>It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

>“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

Also here you're just being ridiculous:

>Now, even if stuff gets colder, they can't lose.

The Earth as a whole is getting warmer. This is the unambiguous result of thermal physics, and there's no getting around it. But that doesn't mean that that the Earth is going to warm continously, year-after-year, in every season, and in every single part of the globe. Obviously.

[Anonymous No.3499395]

>>3499380
Someone get this kid a tinfoil hat.

[Anonymous No.3499410]

>>499380

>Funded and run by corporations

"The IPCC receives funding from UNEP, WMO, and its own Trust Fund for which it solicits contributions from governments."

Now add some commie conspiracy and it's perfect.

[Anonymous No.3499415]

>>3499395

True skeptics know that tinfoil hats don't work; building a Faraday cage into the walld of your house is the only way to be safe.

Source:
http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/

[Anonymous No.3499432]

>>3499353

Please read the article linked above

We have enough trouble convincing countries to limit emissions, there's no evidence that it is politically more feasible to pump the stratosphere full of sulphates that will probably alter monsoon patterns and precipitation over breadbasket regions.

>>3499380

You know that none of the IPCC authors get paid right? They actually take time away from their normal teaching and research duties to write the report. Their salaries are roughly $0/hr.

Also, the IPCC reflects the wider scientific consensus that exists in the literature. They do no original research, only summarize existing stuff. And they are pressured to write watered-down, conservative-leaning language and ignore papers that warn of more serious impacts. UN member states who are major fossil fuel exporting nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Australia and (for the 2007 report) the US under Bush, all had a vested interest in a weaker IPCC report.

[Anonymous No.3499443]

>>3499380
Your picture is inaccurate. We have been seeing warmer winters and hotter summers each year.

Also al gore is an idiot.

[Anonymous No.3499445]

>>3499415

That is fucking brilliant

[Anonymous No.3499447]

>>3499415
I don't know wether to laugh or feel bad

[Anonymous No.3499461]

>>3499443

I actually appreciate what Al Gore's been doing

If it wasn't him, then someone else would have been the champion for the cause. And that person would have been attacked by the media and the think tanks just the same.

[Anonymous No.3499473]

>>3499443

>Your picture is inaccurate
No. It snowed in May of 2008 during a climate conference

[Anonymous No.3499480]

>>3499385

Nuclear power has been discussed in the thread:

>>3498765
>>3498779
>>3498800
>>3498830
>>3498839
>>3498852

General consensus: it's pretty safe, very expensive, but we need it and we should pay for it

Also notorious green hippie commies like Mark Lynas, James Lovelock, and James Hansen are all behind nuclear

[Anonymous No.3499522]

>>3499473

Yes, and someone was skiing in front of the Capitol Building too

[Anonymous No.3499596]

>>3499385
nuclear power wont solve global warming

all that will do is set us as carbon neutral, you still have an atmosphere full of excess carbon

the only way to fix that is through carbon sequestration and geo engineering