hottest year EVAR

[Anonymous No.8218927]

• warming faster than expected
• early and fast Arctic sea-ice melt
• new highs in carbon dioxide
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-wmo-idUSKCN1011KY

[Anonymous No.8218931]

>the """climate change"""/global warming/global cooling meme again
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8218939]

>>8218931
>hurr scientists are wrong, i'm smarter than them
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8218942]

>>8218927
I hope this natural cycle is over soon.

[Anonymous No.8218944]

>>8218942
>I hope this natural cycle is over soon.
Right after the mass extinction.

[Anonymous No.8218951]

<- Lake Mead, Nevada

[Anonymous No.8218953]

>>8218927
as a geologist myself I steer far away from this topic, too memey

[Anonymous No.8218963]

>>8218939
>Reuters
>scientists
Good one.

[Anonymous No.8218965]

>>8218953
I'm going to meme your balls right up through your skull.

[Anonymous No.8218971]

>>8218953
Hey geologist sir. I hope to graduate next summer. My final class will be field camp where we map facies. Wish me luck.

[Anonymous No.8218977]

>>8218963
pop sci is very informative for people like you

[Anonymous No.8218986]

← China

[Anonymous No.8218988]

>>8218971
hello friend! my buds just came back from field camp with SDSM. They said they stayed in an awesome log cabin and has all their food made for them. You're gonna be pretty tired when you're finally about to graduate, I recommend you take it easy ;)

[Anonymous No.8218992]

[Anonymous No.8219003]

[Evy No.8219007]

>>8218992
Some kind of beige algae?

[Anonymous No.8219016]

>>8219003
>>8218986
>>8218992
>>8218951
>>8218927

Why must I reap the worldwide environmental destruction that my parents and grandparents have sowed?

I keep my lights off and only use appliances when needed. My commute to work is less than 10 minutes, and I carpool. I do not eat meat often, and when I do it's only poultry. I moderate my consumption, but I guess it's too little too late.

I do feel some comfort in seeing baby boomers and gen x-ers painfully succumbing to several different cancers due to their past vices (it's hard not to crack a smile seeing my bed-ridden grandmother-in-law trying to light a cigarette with shaking, arthritic hands) but I think the end in store for us will be far more painful.

How could a few generations ruin so much?

[Anonymous No.8219035]

>>8218986
Looks pretty fake if you asked me, the vignette gave it away btw.

[Anonymous No.8219051]

>>8219016
what environmental destruction, retard
the problem is they are fucking liberals who want to piss away the country to foreigners

They grew up in a white country, then they go "hurr whats the problem" when we're now living in a non-white one

[Anonymous No.8219064]

>2013 was, in fact the coldest year in the last 112 years
>Even places like Egypt got a little bit of snow
>"It's gradual global warming! Just because it's cold today doesn't mean there's no global warming!"

>Some data seems to lead 2016 to be "the hottest year"
>"It's over! It's warmer ever faster!"

[Anonymous No.8219070]

>>8218977
>pop sci
What do you think Reuters is bud?

Certainly not a primary source of research

[Anonymous No.8219072]

>>8218927
Natural cycle, only with humans adding a bit onto what occurs naturally. The question is exactly what impact humans are having on the natural cycle of the earths warming and cooling cycles.

[Anonymous No.8219077]

>>8218927
>hottest year EVAR

So was last year
and the year before that
and the year before that
and the year before that
and the year before that
and the year before that
and the year before that

[Anonymous No.8219080]

>>8219077
It's like there's a trend or something

[Anonymous No.8219084]

>>8219080
It's like they are basing it off a record over the last ~100 years for sensationalist titling and click bait or something.

[Anonymous No.8219085]

>>8219084
> Using the accurate data
Who'da thought?

[Evy No.8219086]

>>8219080
It's as if every year is hotter than the last.

[Anonymous No.8219087]

Meanwhile....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

[Anonymous No.8219088]

>>8219085
No shit if you shorten the time span in which you are willing to examine you'll always find the most extreme of X

TODAY HOTTEST DAY EVER RECORDED!!!!!!*
*Note this record is of 1 week

I'm not saying the earth isn't going through a warming stage but this shit has been going on LONG before humans have caused indirect action to the natural cycles

[Evy No.8219101]

>>8219088
Okay. So tell us what the data is beyond 100 years. You seem really informed, so I imagine you must be familiar with it. What's the 500 year trend, anon?

[Anonymous No.8219111]

>>8219101
Mind if I do the last 2000?
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html


Basically we are at the average

[Anonymous No.8219117]

>>8219088
>>8219111
So what is your argument? That because climate changes are natural humans can't change the climate?

This is an argument as stupid as 'forest fires have happened naturally in the past, therefore humans can't cause forest fires'

[Anonymous No.8219118]

Oh look /pol/ and /x/ are spamming a global warming thread. It like these faggots have nothing better to do on a Thursday night.

[Anonymous No.8219121]

>>8219117
I'm saying the threads are useless on a large scale because everyone already knows climate change is a real thing.

[Anonymous No.8219266]

>Arctic is warming faster than the
>rest of Earth, but there are fewer
>historic temperature readings than
>from lower latitudes because it is
>so inaccessible.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6576

[Anonymous No.8219268]

THE SKY IS FALLING

[Anonymous No.8219280]

>>8219111
>worldclimatereport.com
>funded by Western Fuels Association
>coal mine owners
L0Ligarchy fgt pls

[Anonymous No.8219292]

it's the middle of winter here in Australia and it feels like spring already

im actually scared for next summer

[Anonymous No.8219305]

>>8219051
>they are fucking liberals

[Anonymous No.8221288]

it's not whether or not climate change is real (it is) but if its being accelerated by humans

[Anonymous No.8221301]

The next US president is pro-coal and denies the sacred warming

thoughts /psy/?

[Anonymous No.8221395]

What the climate changers fear most is a changing climate change.

[Anonymous No.8221403]

>>8221288

[Anonymous No.8221423]

>>8219072
If azolla event buried carbon and made polar earth doesnt it reason that pumping the stuff out and burning it would return earth back to the tropical paradise it once was?

[Anonymous No.8221438]

>>8221301
fuck bernouts desu

[Anonymous No.8221453]

God dammit, I can't deal with you uneducated morons this often.

Start with the Steffan-Boltzmann energy balance equation. This'll prove to your fragile little mind that and increase of CO2 WILL ABSOLUTELY AFFECT THE TEMPERATURE. The only way anybody can argue against this is if they deny physics, chemistry, or math.

Then examine the only real arguments which have existed against man made climate change in the last 50 year. Whether or not aerosols will offset warming by CO2 and whether increased cloud cover caused by warming will lower temperature enough to offset it.

Every single argument in this thread amounts to poor education and bad fact hunting and has nothing to do whatsoever with any real educated debate on climate change.

This is a math and science board goddamn it. I expect better of you people.

[Anonymous No.8221461]

>>8221453
he says water vapor is 85%
and then he says "We don't concern ourselves with water vapor"

Sounds like pretty normal warmist thinking

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8221469]

>>8221461
That's because water vapor is generally at saturation in the atmosphere. If it wasn't, then the oceans would be gone. Protip: Look up this thing called "the water cycle".

Whereas, CO2 concentrations can have very drastic changes.

[Anonymous No.8221479]

>>8221423
At least it helps.

[Anonymous No.8221482]

>>8221469
Pretty sure we don't live at 100% humidity all day round

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8221488]

>>8221482
My point is simply that the atmosphere cannot take in any more net water, because it would fall down as rain or snow, and this has been true for millions, closer to billions, of years. In other words, the amount of water in the atmosphere has been about the same for about billions of years.

[Anonymous No.8221532]

>>8221488
Except the atmosphere is not anywhere near close to saturated with water
So yes, it can absorb more

And if CO2 actually has a negative feedback effect on water vapor, then we could look at a decrease in temperature, not increase.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8221563]

>>8221532
Again, you really need to look into this thing called the water cycle. The reason the oceans don't evaporate away entirely is because water in the air rains back down. This has been true for billions of years. The concentration of water in the air has been about the same for billions of years.

[Anonymous No.8221810]

>>8221563
Your holy water cycle seems to produce some mental fog. The average near-surface humidity is 78%. The oceans are still with us.

"Calculations with GCMs suggest that water vapour remains at an approximately constant fraction of its saturated value (close to unchanged relative humidity (RH)) under global-scale warming [...]
Under such a response, for uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere." (IPCC)

The assumption of constant relative humidity is not correct. (Data from NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory) More at www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=710

[Anonymous No.8221831]

>>8221395
so we just wait until 2032 for the "Quiet Sun"?

[Anonymous No.8221840]

>>8221453
>poor education and bad fact hunting
'Murika!

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8221895]

>>8221810
I've been doing some reading.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity

Absolute humidity, aka specific humidity, aka the amount of water in the air, is increasing.

Because of increase temperatures, the saturation point of water in the air is also increasing. The saturation point is increasing at a faster rate than absolute water content, which means the relative saturation, aka the relative humidity, is decreasing.

Color me surprised still.

[Anonymous No.8221914]

>>8221453
>>8221840
4chan!

[Anonymous No.8222054]

>>8219016

Because shit happens. Ultimately you won't feel it because the US government will engineer around the effects. Coastal cities will get levees, inland farms will either get desalination or water recycling.

It's a matter of choosing where to put money. For example, California is shut down all their nuclear plants in exchange for cheaper (and dirtier) natural gas. The enviomental effects, Drought, are a nonissue to the state as both PG&E and Sacramento see a net gain from farmland being turned into suburban housing (1 $500k parcel of farmland that gets their water for free vs 100 $700k homes that pay for water). The farmers are pushed east of the Rockies, where there's more moisture. The federal income taxes Californians pay go towards water projects (and perhaps desalination) for them.

However, you as a normal American won't see any changes except higher power and water costs (but not prohibitively so). The people who get fucked over are those in the third world who are too stupid and too poor to engineer around problems. The net result is crop failures, famine, and refugee crises. But this is a european problem, not an American one.

[Anonymous No.8222094]

>>8222054

Hilariously, the countries that are putting the most money into green power are also northern european countries that are getting swamped with refugees caused (in part) by climate change. Resources devoted to expensive green power are resources that could otherwise go to border security. Butter or guns.

[Anonymous No.8222105]

You /pol/acks realize it doesn't fucking matter how natural global warming is? Natural events kill humans all the time. Natural events have led to mass extinctions before.

The thing here is, we know that global warming is natural and we know we are making it worse. We also know we have the potential to lessen it, and possibly avoid a mass extinction.

[Anonymous No.8222112]

>>8221895
Some newer data + healthy confusion at www.climate4you.com --> Greenhouse Gasses
Let's face it: During the last two decades, all models have been empirically falsified.

[Anonymous No.8222126]

>>8221461
If you read my post you see that water vapor has a residence time of about a week. While it's still vastly important at warming the Earth my point is that it is not a primary driver of atmospheric temperature.

Without CO2 water vapor is done (yes even just providing only 10% of the total forcing) because once you lose that 10% of warming places in the world close to freezing will freeze trapping more water vapor as ice and increasing the rate of cooling. You would have a runaway affect on the temperature and soon you lose ALL the warming affect of water vapor because it simply all precipitates out and becomes water and then ice.

Likewise if you increase the rate of water evaporation into the atmosphere it simply rains out. Answering your question of course local weather cycles play a large part of why the Earth is never at complete saturation. Imagine areas around the ocean and lakes. You will feel a difference in temperature around those places of water because in those locations water where water resides it has reached saturation. However in places such as the middle of the Atacama Desert you have nearly 0% water vapor because geologic features simply cannot effectively transport water there.

It is called the water cycle. The only affective method of increasing total water vapor in the atmosphere is to increase the atmosphere's temperature. Water plays no role in primary heating and cooling of the Earth. It simply has no residence time to do so.

If you ever suggest that water vapor alone is what causes heating and cooling of the Earth I will punch you.

[Anonymous No.8222157]

>>8222126
Not that guy

Your reasoning suggests that the water has no effect on the heating, as if ALL the water evaporates and precipitates at the same time. It's a continuous thing

[Anonymous No.8222174]

>>8219016
You sound like an incredibly boring person.

[Anonymous No.8222225]

>>8222126
>it simply all precipitates out and becomes water and then ice
That's a Russian prediction and they're preparing for it.

[Anonymous No.8222232]

>>8218939
>global warming
>scientific

Opinions are not scientific

[Anonymous No.8222237]

>>8222232
>Opinions are not scientific
Of course not. That's why scientists have studied the atmosphere and the history of climate in order to understand climate change. Thy have observed recent global warming.

[Anonymous No.8222247]

>>8219051
How can one be this uniformed, yet so willing to express their opinion?

[Anonymous No.8222251]

>>8222157
>Primary

This is why water is known as an amplifier and not a driver of climate.

[Anonymous No.8222265]

>>8219101
For instance, we know that the climate was warmer during the Roman Era. So much warmer in fact that Great Britain was prime land for vineyards. It's exactly this warming that allowed the development of agriculture in Scandinavia and Russia, leading to their settlements by the Germanic and Slavic tribes respectively.

[Anonymous No.8222271]

>>8222265
Warmer in one area != warmer all around. Only Europe and North America experienced unusually warm weather during the Roman Warm Period

[Anonymous No.8222299]

>>8222251
Fair enough

[Anonymous No.8222305]

>>8222271
Except it wasn't just Europe and North America. That's also the time that drought and desertification were severely experienced in the Middle East and North Africa, which used to be the fertile grasslands in which the first civilizations emerged.

[Anonymous No.8222318]

>>8222305
The desertification of those areas occured far before the Roman Warm Period, and were a result of shifts in the North African Monsoon

[Anonymous No.8222330]

>>8218931
How can you even convince yourself that it's not real?
Do you deny that CO2 absorbes infrared? Do you deny stats on human emissions? It's pretty basic math

[Anonymous No.8222343]

>>8222330
Thank you sir. It's just physics and chemistry.

[Anonymous No.8222899]

>>8221453
Water vapor/atmosphere is general does not physically behave as a black body. Stefan-Boltzmann is inapplicable. And CO2's effect on temperature is logarithmic; pic related. And you might want to mention that the majority (about 6/7) of heat transport in the atmosphere is convective; not radiative. Which of course, means CO2 has no effect on 6/7 of all heat transport. Oh, and please mention that water vapor's absorption spectrum almost completely covers the absorption spectrum of CO2; rendering it irrelevant (there's only a fixed amount of solar radiation to absorb).

If you're going to talk scientific facts, you can't omit the inconvenient ones.

[Anonymous No.8222907]

>>8221810
>"Calculations with GCMs suggest that water vapour remains at an approximately constant fraction of its saturated value (close to unchanged relative humidity (RH)) under global-scale warming [...]
>Under such a response, for uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere." (IPCC)

Ah yes, the predictions of models. Its almost as if they've taken a life of there own. But let's do something the IPCC hates; look at actual, untampered data. Pic related.

Oh noes!, The upper troposphere humidity DID NOT go up. Now if the IPCC and company actually behaved like scientists, they would admit that the theory is wrong. However, their job is fundamentally political, not scientific so don't hold your breath for an admission of failure any time soon.

[Anonymous No.8222926]

>>8221395
lol the 11 year solar cycle is barely measurable, it literally can't explain shit

[Anonymous No.8222929]

>>8222899
The problem is sir that I actually studied this in school. It's pretty simple to discover when someone's trying to pull a fast one on me.

The purpose of Stefan-Boltzmann is to show that without greenhouse gases the Earth's temperature is too low. You can't get around this, especially not simply claiming that the atmosphere is not a black body as if you understand anything you're saying.

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/
https://scied.ucar.edu/planetary-energy-balance-temperature-calculate
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance.html
http://www.teachastronomy.com/astropedia/article/Stefan-Boltzmann-Law

There is absolutely no way for Stefan-Boltzmann to become irrelevant unless you completely disregard physics. This is well understood basic science and is the foundation of all advanced meteorology courses.

Duh about the atmospheric window. It's like you never studied at all and simply did a quick google search than formed an opinion based on a tiny fraction of information

http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RemoteSensing/remote_04.php
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/ir_tutorial/irwindows.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php
http://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Atmospheric_window.html

Do not fuck with me, I know far more about this than you pretend to

[Anonymous No.8222931]

>>8222251
this

[Anonymous No.8222937]

>Climate deniers getting btfo in this thread

[Anonymous No.8222940]

>>8222937
stop breathing so you stop emitting CO2 ;)

[Anonymous No.8222950]

>people in this thread actually worried about global warming

How does it feel to have such low IQ?

[Anonymous No.8222957]

>>8222950
I know right?
don't they know that very rapid and strong climate change has a good track record of being beneficial?

[Anonymous No.8222960]

According to global warming hysterics we shouldn't exist.

[Anonymous No.8222962]

>>8222957
This isn't strong climate change. It's slow.

[Anonymous No.8222964]

>>8222957
pop quiz

What was the source of carbon for life on earth for the past 60 million years?

Did they dig it up?

[Anonymous No.8222965]

>>8222251
>muh model stands

[Anonymous No.8222967]

>taking carbon that was sequestered throughout life on earth's history and releasing it BACK into the atmosphere is going to destroy the earth.

[Anonymous No.8222971]

>>8222929
How can you just ignore convection which is way stronger than radiative cooling/heat transfer?

[Anonymous No.8222972]

>>8222962
I don't know if you're refering to the P-T-boundary or to today, but you are wring for both. In both these examples, the rate of warming was/is almost instantaneous in geologic terms

[Anonymous No.8222974]

>>8222972
This just a dumb argument.

Global warming is a stupid thing to be scared of. I'm done with this thread.

>muh coastal homes will be destroyed
>somehow this ends human life.

[Anonymous No.8222975]

>>8222967
>taking atmospheric chemistry back to the Cambrian in an incredibly short time interval will do us no harm

[Anonymous No.8222978]

>>8222964
what?

[Anonymous No.8222983]

>>8221453
>once you put CO2 into the atmosphere it aint coming out again
>what are plants?

[Anonymous No.8222985]

>>8222983
>for a long time
we can all read the same text you are

[Anonymous No.8222989]

>>8222985
what is "long time"?
and consequently what is "long long time"?

[Anonymous No.8222990]

>>8222929
>The purpose of Stefan-Boltzmann is to show that without greenhouse gases the Earth's temperature is too low. You can't get around this, especially not simply claiming that the atmosphere is not a black body as if you understand anything you're saying.

That sir, is called a strawman argument. I never said that the Earth didn't have greenhouse gases, nor did I say it wouldn't be colder without them. I say that water vapor/greenhouse gases in general do not behave as Black-bodies. Look at this paper:

Robitaille, Pierre-Marie. "On the equation which governs cavity radiation II." Progress in Physics 10.3 (2014): 157.
"Arbitrary Cavities Do Not Emit as Black-bodies. ... As previously stated, the constants of Planck and Boltzmann can no longer be viewed as universal."

>There is absolutely no way for Stefan-Boltzmann to become irrelevant unless you completely disregard physics. This is well understood basic science and is the foundation of all advanced meteorology courses.

Those courses might have to be rewritten. Don't be so sure that greenhouse gases behave as black-bodies.

>Do not fuck with me, I know far more about this than you pretend to
Oh noes, tough guy! I'm shaking in my shoes.

PS, All the other stuff I mentioned, that's important too.
>>8222343
>And CO2's effect on temperature is logarithmic; pic related. And you might want to mention that the majority (about 6/7) of heat transport in the atmosphere is convective; not radiative. Which of course, means CO2 has no effect on 6/7 of all heat transport. Oh, and please mention that water vapor's absorption spectrum almost completely covers the absorption spectrum of CO2; rendering it irrelevant (there's only a fixed amount of solar radiation to absorb).

[Anonymous No.8222994]

>>8219086
Where will it all end?

[Anonymous No.8223002]

>>8222989
for carbon to be permanently removed from the atmosphere you have to do more than just grow plants, because the carbon they absorb will be completely released when they decompose or burn. You have to bury the dead plants with sediment and form coal beds, which takes in the very least thousands of years to have a noticeable impact.

The only other large-scale process that removes CO2 is the chemical weathering of silicate rocks, which takes place on even bigger time scales

[Anonymous No.8223040]

>>8219088
>I'm not saying the earth isn't going through a warming stage but this shit has been going on LONG before humans have caused indirect action to the natural cycles
you underestimate humans. We like to start fires so imagine that going back millions of years burning down millions of square miles of forest all of the time.

[Anonymous No.8223064]

>>8222975

Yeah we are totally on track for 7,000 ppm

STUPID FUCKTARD

[Anonymous No.8223072]

>>8223002
We can do 30 tonnes per hectare with current life forms.

We can greatly improve that efficacy with genetic engineering.

Literally, global climate change is a joke. I'm all for investing in solar, wind, and fusion. That being said, I'm not aboard this hysteric mayan doomsday cult that is global warming nuts.

[Anonymous No.8223353]

>>8218992
Hey faggot thats the Aral sea. It got fucked cause the soviets were massing with the river's that fed it. Its an issue but not caused climate change exactly.

[Anonymous No.8223378]

>>8218927
Yet the O-Zone hole is getting smaller ( according to MIT ) and I believe the western part of Antarctica's ice shelf is growing ( not fast enough at all to keep up with the ice melt from Greenland, and the North Pole but enough to almost off shoot what's melting on the artic plate itself) either way were fucked because earth and nature is going to do what it's going to do, I don't see any turning back now.

[Anonymous No.8223384]

>>8223353
You tell em man, way to watch the science channel you go bud

[Anonymous No.8223480]

>>8222989
>what is "long time"?
that'll be extra

[Anonymous No.8223493]

>>8219064
...are you a troll, or merely delusional?
>The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the
>fourth-warmest year globally since
>records began in 1880
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313

[Anonymous No.8223504]

>>8223493
they have been falsifying the record

[Anonymous No.8223507]

>>8221423
>return earth back to the tropical paradise
>49Myo
>no people
great idea Anon

[Anonymous No.8223514]

>>8222054
>this is a european problem, not an American
...becoz there is no Mexico

[Anonymous No.8223516]

>hottest year
It's actually been a pretty cool summer.
Usually I'd be sleeping with my shirt off, but I've found my self with a shirt on and a blanket. Still hot when I go out though, but it's not that bad; only when I'm in the car

[Anonymous No.8223522]

>>8222978
you just failed the quiz, friendo

[Anonymous No.8223528]

>>8223504
just put on your aluminum-foil suit,
you'll be fine

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8223543]

>>8223002
There's very promising research involving pumping CO2 in water into basalt deposits, where it quickly forms stable chemical bonds.

Then, if we had enough CO2-clean power, we could dig up a bunch of limestone, heat it to release CO2 and make quicklime, capture the CO2 and pump it into basalt, and drop quicklime into the ocean to absorb CO2.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8223546]

>>8223504
lol

[Anonymous No.8223558]

>>8223504
...so does this mean troll, or delusional?

[Anonymous No.8223665]

>>8219070

[Anonymous No.8223671]

>>8218927
These threads will always be terrible.

[Anonymous No.8223719]

>>8222330
human emissions is a meme and methane is a larger problem and is released by the tonnes

>>8218927
warming is a meme, we're cooling our butts off but nothing terrible, the 70s were worse

[Anonymous No.8223744]

>>8223671
I think it's fun

HAHAHAAHAAHAHA YOU IDIOTS what are we talking about

[Anonymous No.8223766]

It's funny how global warming is always a bad thing, even though it means milder winters, fewer deaths from cold, and better ability to grow various plants in Northern and higher areas.

Yes there will be losers but there will also be winners.

They also forget time discounting. In 50 years, we could all be long dead from a nuclear war, AI gone wrong, some new pathogen or asteroid impacts. Or we could have new technology that makes removing carbon from the atmosphere a trivial expense.

[Anonymous No.8223777]

>>8222957
To the survivors, yes.

[Anonymous No.8224039]

>>8223719
>methane is a larger problem
>and is released by the tonnes
...from fracking and from natural gas mining.

[Anonymous No.8224043]

>>8223766
>there will be losers
humanity
>but there will also be winners
cockroaches

[Anonymous No.8224050]

>>8224043
Little bit exaggerated, don't you think. Of course people far from the equator and in the upper regions are better off if winters are milder. Also some new agricultural opportunities arise.

[Anonymous No.8224090]

>>8224039
lmao
>human emissions are a meme

methane levels were as high as 2505 ppb at an altitude of 4,116 m or 13,504 ft on the morning of July 15, 2016. At a higher altitude (of 6,041 m or 19,820 ft), methane levels as high as 2598 ppb were recorded that morning and the magenta-colored area east of the north-east point of Greenland (inset) looks much the same on the images in between those altitudes. All this indicates that the earthquake did cause destabilization of methane hydrates contained in sediments in that area.

roflmao yeah Ohio is increasing methane in Greenland to 4000 ppb

[Anonymous No.8224421]

>>8223744
>what are we talking about
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

[Anonymous No.8224439]

>>8222990
Ok, looks like I need to start at the beginning. We're in agreement about the existence of greenhouse gases. Good.

We'll have to start at the very beginning. Climatology 101. Please explain Daisyworld to me. What it's about and why we start with such a simplistic model to begin teaching Climatology.

you can do that much for me I hope.

[Anonymous No.8224597]

Global warming is the natural population control we need

People who are anti-global warming are like people who are anti-abortion
Retarded do-gooders trying to destroy the planet

Let the Globe warm
Let the sea levels rise
Prosperous white civilizations will fluorish

Don't gimme that shit about migrants either, fuck migrants shoot em at the border

[Anonymous No.8225021]

>>8224439
Well, I'll answer my own question, tired of waiting.

Daisyworld is a simple model to show the importance of negative feedback loops in maintaining atmospheric temperature.

Water vapor is a positive feedback loop. Think of an example like this. The noisier the children get the angrier the parents become. The angrier the parents become the noisier the children get. This is a positive feedback loop that goes to infinity. Eventually the children are infinitely noisy and the parents are infinitely angry.

Water vapor cannot maintain temperature of the Earth on it's own because IT IS A POSITIVE FEEDBACK. Yet you won't shut up about the atmosphere not being a blackbody. Who cares? At no point does my argument have anything to do with the atmosphere being a blackbody.

My argument is and has always been that greenhouse gases must be responsible for warming and maintaining the temperature of the Earth and the explanation for Earth's stable system cannot be water vapor. Water vapor has not EVER been a serious consideration for global warming and cooling cycles.

Clear?

[Anonymous No.8225505]

>>8224439
>Ok, looks like I need to start at the beginning. We're in agreement about the existence of greenhouse gases. Good.
>Oh, it looks like I got shown to be a condescending fool, so I'll pretend it wasn't all about the Stefan-Boltzmann. Law.
> Hope he doesn't notice that I changed the subject.

What were you saying about the absolute applicability of Stefan-Boltzmann to Greenhouse gases and Climate Change?
Not to mention, your deep knowledge of the subject? Oh yeah
>>8222929
>Do not fuck with me, I know far more about this than you pretend to

Have a look at the attached pic (which I attached with my tremulous hands. Oh the terror!) of the emissivity of CO2. Its a logarithmic graph with log T on the x-axis. That means that if it follows Stefen Boltzman, it should have a slope of 4. In reality, its not a straight line, and certainly not a positive slope.

What's this about the applicability of Stefan-Boltzman to CO2?

[Anonymous No.8225523]

>>8225021
>Water vapor has not EVER been a serious consideration for global warming and cooling cycles.
Because you can't generate a need for socialist world government if water vapor is the problem

[Anonymous No.8225536]

>>8225505
>>8224439
>Ok, looks like I need to start at the beginning. We're in agreement about the existence of greenhouse gases. Good.
>Oh, it looks like I got shown to be a condescending fool, so I'll pretend it wasn't all about the Stefan-Boltzmann. Law.
> Hope he doesn't notice that I changed the subject.

And have a look at the attached pic (oh, how I wish I could stop trembling!) of the emissivity of water vapor. vs. log T. The slope isn't even positive, let alone of a value of 4! Stefan-Boltzmann completely violated!

What's this about the applicability of Stefan-Boltzman to water vapor?
Oh, and Stefan-Boltzmann assumes thermodynamic equilibrium. But there's constantly changing heat transfer to and from the surface of the earth because of convection.

NO Equilibrium at the Earth's surface (not to mention the atmosphere) which is what climate change is worried about.

And Stefan-Boltzmann assumes only outward radiation, no backward radiation. But Climate Change is all about backward radiation from CO2 and water vapor. Oh noes!!! That violates the assumptions of Stefan-Boltzmann.

No wonder you changed the subject.
And Cl

[Anonymous No.8225552]

>>8225523
>Because you can't generate a need for socialist world government if water vapor is the problem

I was wrong to think that on /sci/ there would be serious discussment

[Anonymous No.8225587]

>>8225552
rookie mistake.

[Anonymous No.8225613]

>>8225021
>Water vapor cannot maintain temperature of the Earth on it's own because IT IS A POSITIVE FEEDBACK. Yet you won't shut up about the atmosphere not being a blackbody. Who cares? At no point does my argument have anything to do with the atmosphere being a blackbody.
Huh? What was that you said earlier? About Stafan-Boltzman, Oh yeah, you said:
>>8222929 >The purpose of Stefan-Boltzmann is to show that without greenhouse gases the Earth's temperature is too low. You can't get around this, especially not simply claiming that the atmosphere is not a black body as if you understand anything you're saying.
Now you change the subject since you got thrashed over Stefan-Boltzmann >>8222990 >>8222990 >>8225505

And what's this changed subject?
>>8225536
> Our models say CO2 increase leads to water vapor increase. Positive Feedback.

Ah yes, them models. But what does reality say? See the pic here:
>>8222907
And also see the attached pic.No Water Vapor Increase. Another beautiful theory slayed by facts.

>nb4 humidity increase in lower troposphere.
That's just evaporative; its nothing more than heat transfer from the Earth's surface to the lower troposphere. Like the heat transfer from our bodies when we sweat. Its substantive positive feedback. The important "predicted" positive feedback is in the upper troposphere because that prevents heat from going to the stratosphere where its essentially guaranteed to be radiated into space.

What now? Let me guess, you're going to pretend that you never talked about water vapor and positive feedback.

[Anonymous No.8225644]

>>8224421
Do you not know English, philistine?
the joke has, as they say gone over le proverbial head methinks!

[Anonymous No.8225661]

>>8225613
>Its substantive positive feedback.
Its NOT substantive positive feedback

[Anonymous No.8225746]

>>8225021
>Water vapor has not EVER been a serious consideration for global warming and cooling cycles.
You have got to be kidding. Are you trying to rewrite the history of Climate Change? I can't believe how disingenuous climate change "science" is.

Climate Change/Global Warming predicted a hot spot in the troposphere over the equator caused by increased water vapor. It is a signature of positive feedback from increased CO2. The hot spot is created by increased water vapor in the Hadley cell (over the equator). Specifically, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is supposed to be higher than the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere. This demonstrates positive feedback via water vapor.

It didn't happen. That's why you pretend that prediction never happened They used to teach about a simplified version of this in school (so a friend told me). Anyway, the prediction IS at
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf . P. 675, 9.1(f).
PIc related.

Other references to Water Vapor induced "hot spot"

Santer, B.D., et al., 2003a: Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science, 301, 479–483.

[Anonymous No.8225749]

>>8225613
>>>8225536
>> Our models say CO2 increase leads to water vapor increase. Positive Feedback.

Meant to say:
>>8225021
>Water vapor is a positive feedback loop.

[Anonymous No.8225758]

>>8225746
>Specifically, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is supposed to be higher than the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere.

And the moist adiabatic lapse rate is supposed to decrease by the effect of CO2.

[Anonymous No.8225771]

>>8225746
Water vapor is an amplifier of climate. It is not a driver. No serious climatologist would ever claim that water vapor is a driver of climate. Only that it's an amplifier.

Steffan-Boltzmann, from my very first post, is to show that without greenhouse gases the Earth is too cold. Why are you going apeshit about proving it wrong? It's only relevance to the point at all is to show what I already showed, that without greenhouse gases the world is fucked.

you even admit this yourself, so there's no point whatsoever to bring it up again. Why are you bringing it up again?

Do you understand what I'm saying? Or do you not understand basic English.

[Anonymous No.8225813]

>>8225771
I think he can only respond with one of a limitted amount of pre-written answers that tie into one of his memegraphs. He just chooses the response that has the most words in common with your post and hopes you won't notice that it doesn't respond to what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.8225845]

>>8222237
These recent changes are called weather, climate change is too big a word

[Anonymous No.8225861]

>>8225746
wow dude you are fucking retarded

you shouldn't hang around smart people. you just humiliate yourself lol

[Anonymous No.8225882]

seriously guys are we fucked? whats the worst case scenario that will happen in our life times?

[Anonymous No.8225938]

>>8225882
Superbacteria wiping out humanity because of our pleb organic bodies

[Anonymous No.8225942]

I'm just glad nations of the world are uniting to slow down our emissions instead of waiting for every citizen to be on board and understand.
By the time everyone would actually be in agreement on this subject we would all be dead.

When greenland loses 1 trillion tonnes of ice over 4 years as the sun's activity decreases, and each consecutive year is hotter than the last, only the extreme fringe zealots will deny reality.

[Anonymous No.8225956]

>>8225942
>ice gets btfo
>huge swathes of new farmland are created
>more fresh water to combat the crisis
>just in time for the population boom
who says no?

[Anonymous No.8225967]

>>8225956
If only
>Coastal flooding and soaring equator heat displace over 1 billion refugees
Not looking forward to it

[Anonymous No.8226044]

>>8225967
build the wall

[Anonymous No.8226068]

>>8226044

>TRUMP 2016

[Anonymous No.8226093]

>>8223002
>for carbon to be permanently removed from the atmosphere you have to do more than just grow plants, because the carbon they absorb will be completely released when they decompose or burn. You have to bury the dead plants with sediment and form coal beds, which takes in the very least thousands of years to have a noticeable impact.
Yeah, man. The CO2 isn't even removed from the atmosphere until it becomes coal. When it sits around as moss and tree trunks and topsoil, the CO2 is actually still in the atmosphere. Quantum teleportation pulls it out of the air at the moment it becomes coal.

We don't have to wait for coal to form. We can actually suck down CO2 faster that we're releasing it using a variety of methods including incentives for farmers to build up organic matter in topsoil and tricks involving fertilizing the ocean.

>The only other large-scale process that removes CO2 is the chemical weathering of silicate rocks, which takes place on even bigger time scales
...as long as nobody's doing anything to hurry them along, like increasing the CO2 level of the atmosphere or mining.

Also: "silicate rocks"? It's not the silicates that matter. It's the light metal oxides, like CaO, MgO, Na2O, and K2O, which are hugely abundant in the crust. We smash this stuff up, expose it to the air, it becomes carbonates, by becoming hydroxides then sucking up atmospheric co2.

On top of these methods of controlling atmospheric CO2, there are also various ways of taking control of global temperature (like deliberate upper atmosphere particulate emissions). The reason you don't hear environmentalists or leftist big government types talking about these "geoengineering" approaches is that the whole point is that they want excuses to strangle industry and increase central monitoring and control of economic activity. They don't want to hear about simple ways to tidy it up at minimum inconvenience. They want it to be a crisis that forces us to reorganize society.

[Anonymous No.8226102]

>>8225967
Equatorial temperatures won't go up from dry greenhouse gasses, except maybe in the basically-unlivable-already places like the Sahara and Death Valley.

Most of the tropics are pretty much maxed out for greenhouse effect with water vapor already. The warming is concentrated in cold, dry weather, like the Canadian and Russian winters.

High-temperature eras in the past have generally had a pretty even temperature worldwide, and between the day and the night, because the higher amount of water vapor in the air increased its heat capacity. This consistency also had the effect of stabilizing the winds and ocean currents.

High-temperature eras have had mild weather and abundant life.

[Anonymous No.8226246]

>>8225845
>too big a word
for you

[Anonymous No.8226265]

>>8225644
babby got trigger'd

[Anonymous No.8226938]

>>8226093
>The reason you don't hear environmentalists or leftist big government types talking about these "geoengineering" approaches is that the whole point is that they want excuses to strangle industry and increase central monitoring and control of economic activity. They don't want to hear about simple ways to tidy it up at minimum inconvenience. They want it to be a crisis that forces us to reorganize society.
Denialists can't seem to ever go more than four posts without revealing that they actually don't give a fuck about climatology, and are just here for the politics.
It seems like it's a law of nature or something.

[Anonymous No.8227228]

>Denialists

Sir, our latest iteration of this weaponized term is:

DENIALISTISTS

Please adjust your parroting accordingly.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Ministry of Truth
Dept. of Public Deception

[Anonymous No.8227618]

>>8222094
germany and other countries makes alot of money from weapon exports to war zones -> more refugees.
wonder who they'll exploit if the southern hemisphere stops playing.

[Anonymous No.8227875]

>>8225813
Thank you. He had so little understanding of what he was saying he didn't realize we were saying the same thing.

My post: Steffan-Boltzmann is wrong, it shows the world too cold than it actually is. Some mechanism for warming the Earth outside Steffan-Boltzmann must be driving it. Water vapor is an amplifier and not a driver of climate.

His posts: Steffan-Boltzmann is wrong, some mechanism for warming the Earth outside Steffan-Boltzmann must be driving it. See, see water vapor is an amplifier of climate!

It was like arguing with a down syndrome child.

[Anonymous No.8229825]

>>8225771
>>8225813
>>8225845
>>8225861

Nice samefagging. You don't take a solid ass-kicking well do you?
Let's go through this again, what did you say?
>>8221453
>Start with the Steffan-Boltzmann energy balance equation. This'll prove to your fragile little mind that and increase of CO2 WILL ABSOLUTELY AFFECT THE TEMPERATURE. The only way anybody can argue against this is if they deny physics, chemistry, or math.

And here:
>>8222929
>There is absolutely no way for Stefan-Boltzmann to become irrelevant unless you completely disregard physics.
Waxing arrogant:
>Do not fuck with me, I know far more about this than you pretend to

I proceed to show that CO2, water vapor and the conditions of the atmosphere violate the assumptions/results of Stefan-Boltzmann
>>8222990 Stefan-Boltzmann is not universally applicable:
>Robitaille, Pierre-Marie. "On the equation which governs cavity radiation II." Progress in Physics 10.3 (2014): 157.
CO2 violates Stefan-Boltzmann:
>>8225505
Water vapor violates Stefan-Boltzman as do the conditions of the Earth's Atmosphere
>>8225536
>NO Equilibrium at the Earth's surface (not to mention the atmosphere) which is what climate change is worried about.
>And Stefan-Boltzmann assumes only outward radiation, no backward radiation. But Climate Change is all about backward radiation from CO2 and water vapor

And then the inevitable denial and back pedaling:
>>8225771
>Steffan-Boltzmann, from my very first post, is to show that without greenhouse gases the Earth is too cold.

NO. What did you say?
>>8221453
>Start with the Steffan-Boltzmann energy balance equation.--- The only way anybody can argue against this is if they deny physics, chemistry, or math.
>>8222929
>There is absolutely no way for Stefan-Boltzmann to become irrelevant unless you completely disregard physics... This is well understood basic science and is the foundation of all advanced meteorology courses.

YOU SAID THAT STEFAN-BOLTZMANN WAS THE BASIS OF ALL METEROLOGY!!

[Anonymous No.8229830]

>>8227875
>>8229825
Also same-fag. Get out of the house more.

[Anonymous No.8229839]

>>8229825
I wonder how much did that caricaturist get paid by Oil Companies to make that comic?

[Anonymous No.8229840]

>>8227875
>My post: Steffan-Boltzmann is wrong
Now you're flip-flopping, or you're so angry you can't think straight. Deep breaths..., Deep breaths.

>His posts: Steffan-Boltzmann is wrong, some mechanism for warming the Earth outside Steffan-Boltzmann must be driving it.
You idiot, Stefan-Boltzmann isn't a heating mechanism, its a description of how a blackbody radiates in accordance with its temperature. If you want a heating mechanism, turn on your heater. Seriously, you've shown how profoundly scientifically ignorant you are.

Again, I never denied the existence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
>>8222990
You must have grown up on a farm, seeing as how familiar you are with strawmen.

[Anonymous No.8229854]

>>8222126
>If you read my post you see that water vapor has a residence time of about a week. While it's still vastly important at warming the Earth my point is that it is not a primary driver of atmospheric temperature.

And the water vapor obsession. You think you're being clever denying the importance of water vapor. Hey I'm all for it. Its just that all the Climate Change models predicted a significantly amplified warming effect due to increased water vapor in the upper troposphere. See graphs here:
>>8222907
>>8225613
And read from your sacred United Nations IPCC
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf P. 675
And famous Climate Scientist Prof. Ben Santer:
Santer, B.D., et al., 2003a: Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science, 301, 479–483

Your arguing against water vapor is hilarious. Because its the primary feedback in climate change models!! Go ahead and dismiss it, I'm all for that. But strangely, you're unaware that you're spitting on your sacred theory of Climate Change.

Hey, I just showed the the water vapor feedback didn't happen as predicted and the Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply to it. Your sputtering rage should be directed against other climate scientists!!

[Anonymous No.8230030]

All you fagets falling for media hysteria

We'll be fine

[Anonymous No.8230123]

>>8218927
>warming faster than expected
How many times a year do the climate memers say this?

[Anonymous No.8230197]

>>8218927
every. single. time.

They ALWAYS underestimate how bad it is. Are they afraid of saying what they know or are the models that wrong? At this point I wouldn't be surprised if we had a 10C increase within 10 years. They are just so consistently wrong in their predictions.

[Anonymous No.8230262]

>>8230197
It's no coincidence the predictions are always
a day late and a dollar short.
The delays are built in the reporting process.

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=8m15s

[Anonymous No.8230335]

>>8230197
They're afraid of saying what they know because a lot of climate scientists believe we're fucked at this point.

[Anonymous No.8230352]

>>8230197
>if we had a 10C increase
we are going to die

[Anonymous No.8230353]

The clathrate gun already fired 7 years ago. We're so fucked, but at least as first-worlders we'll see the rest of the world descend into complete and utter chaos before we start to feel it. Make no mistake, this is a mass extinction and humans are gonna survive by the skin of their teeth if at all.

[Anonymous No.8230355]

Honestly, I don't think humanity as a species is going to be able to summon the coordination and willpower to do anything about it.

So is everybody going to suffocate? Or is life just going to be fairly shittier in the west and everybody in Africa is dead? or what?

[Anonymous No.8230357]

>>8230355
We might suffocate. I would invest in a self-sustaining greenhouse, solar panels, and a lot of guns preferably at a high altitude. It's gonna get bad, I'd be surprised if most people in the millenial generation lived past 40 outside most developed nations.

[Anonymous No.8230360]

>>8230353
we'll survive because we survived from a similar extreme bottleneck (of about 1000~10,000 people), but it's going to hurt and it might mean we never get to space in the long run.

[Anonymous No.8230365]

>>8218927
Ozone hole: Closing
We've put enough CO2 in the atmosphere to raise the temperature way past the mass extinction rate. Don't think you can fix this. But it's okay, it's not real anyway.

[Anonymous No.8230378]

>>8230123
about once a year, every year,
becoz the rate-of-warming
increases every year, duh

[Anonymous No.8230383]

Anyone know of research into how increased atmospheric carbon has affected the size of natural carbon sinks - like say algae populations?

From what I've casually picked up, algal blooms have become more common and widespread recently due to warming and pollution.

Apparently anthropogenic CO2 release is like, 3% of natural emissions - do adaptable natural sinks like algae or terrestrial plants simply not increase their size in response to more abundant CO2?

I'm guessing that other conditions like ocean acidification can actually reduce the size of natural sinks?

[Anonymous No.8230402]

>>8230365
>Ozone hole: Closing
Smaller area in August than
the average from 2005-to-2014,
but greater from September,
about the same as the maximum
from 2005-to-2014, so in whose
delusional mind does any of that
constitute "closing"??

[Anonymous No.8230404]

>>8230383
>algae
killed by pollution
>terrestrial plants
eradicated by clear-cutting
and other means of deforestation

[Anonymous No.8230541]

>>8230383
>response to more abundant CO2?
see pic and >>8221479
requires current co2 level and more is even better

[Anonymous No.8230764]

>>8223516
>The numbers say different
>But oh boy, I FEEL like it's not true.

[Anonymous No.8230911]

> middle east runs out of water
> California submerged
> crop areas just have to be moved
Where is the downside again?

[Anonymous No.8231002]

>>8230197
>>8230262
>>8230335
>>8230352
>>8230353
>>8230357

>THE SCIENTISTS AREN'T SAYING WHAT THE MEDIA IS! THEY MUST BE HOLDING BACK!

stop right now

[Anonymous No.8231070]

>>8230541
>more is even better

CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. [..] Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient. (Canadian Ministry of Agriculture)

To provide a guideline for CO2 addition, a theoretical calculation is given below for a glass house of 100 m2, with a growing crop, on a day with average light intensity. In this calculation, a level of 1,000 ppm CO2 will be supplemented to maintain 1,300 ppm during the day. Normally CO2 supplementation is not required at night as no photosynthesis occurs. Actually, the CO2 concentration will tend to build up naturally as a result of plant respiration. Therefore, it is not uncommon to find elevated levels (500–600 ppm) early in the morning. Growers using high-pressure sodium lighting during the night should maintain at least 400 ppm of CO2. (www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm)

[Anonymous No.8231420]

Why does everyone keep forgetting about the record breaking el nino over the last 2 years that we just got out of in May? I wonder how many failed dooms day predictions the one in 98 caused.

[Anonymous No.8231485]

>>8231420
Because the media ignores it and only the most political of scientists get the limelight. The truth about climate is neither catastrophic nor is it a hoax. What it is, is a problem that should be solved but it's not too late and the means are absolutely within our reach. The alarm and doom comes from activist scientists and green interests seeing their platform suffer from their belligerent and abusive guilt trip on the public failing. We do need to and will tackle climate change in fact we already are beginning to. It's not too late and alarmist predictions almost always fail. And the methane issue is vastly overstated. Earth has had large rapid natural shifts before and we are probably enhancing this one. But it's not insurmountable.

[Anonymous No.8231503]

>>8231485
>le rational middleground

Nah lad, pick a side and shitpost.

[Anonymous No.8231505]

Why bother caring about climate change when human ingenuity far outpaces anything wimpy nature can throw at us. Hell I look forward to earth turning into a venuslike world with us all living in comfortably AC'd dome cities linked via underground rail lines.

[Anonymous No.8231511]

>>8231503
Sorry I forgot where I was for a second. I'm just gonna dump motor oil on my driveway and light it on fire.

[Anonymous No.8231665]

>>8230911
>crop areas just have to be moved
>can grow anything anywhere
Lrn2agriculture, cityboi

[Anonymous No.8231667]

Have you seen those cool towers that create wind flow thriugh a series of carbon fikters and they capture airborne contaminants? How are we supposed to do that with our massively polluted waters and remove the stuff thats actually already stored in our top soil? Even if the entire world switched to 100% renewables we'd still have global warming due to altering magneticfield and change of revolution of or sun / axis tilt. We are in a warming period while polluting this is dangerous.

[Anonymous No.8231694]

>>8231667
How did we manage to clean up three mile island and the love canal? How did green sea turtles and manatees come off the endangered list? How did we manage to bring the recovery of fisheries and other advancements in land use and food production. People are more capable than anyone will give us credit for. And most people do give a shit. Our air and water and soil have been in worse states than now.

[Anonymous No.8231749]

>Our next president thinks global warming is a myth

[Anonymous No.8231780]

>>8231749
God Forbid the next president isn't a fucking shill totally owned by internationalists, jews, socialists, and big businesses huh!

[Anonymous No.8231785]

Fikter? Wtf is wrong with your dumbass?

[Anonymous No.8231787]

>>8231749
Take your pedophile cartoons back to >>>/a/.

[Anonymous No.8231790]

>>8231787
topkek

[Anonymous No.8231792]

>>8231780
you are fucked anyways
sorry

[Anonymous No.8231863]

>>8219016
Just live it up, anon. We are past the point of no return and instead of reversing our effects we are at a runaway worst case scenario. Plan your future like normal, set your retirement funds, continue becoming more independent and enjoy the fruits of your labors as nothing short of a runaway Clathrate Gun effect will affect you within your lifetime. Just don't have kids, there's simply no point as within the next century or so the only genes being carried forth won't be human. Even with everything going on in the world, politically/socio-economically speaking and including the relatively mild rise in temperatures, we are living in the most comfortable and luxurious time in human history. If you're one of those people who think the "hurr durr, we will just go to another planet cause were humans and humans persevere" mentality will save us, just forget it. If you do, you are insane to think that we will have regular interplanetary travel, let alone interstellar propulsion, BEFORE we have fully conquered our shitty habits and stabilized our own little planet. That's like expecting any people to harness nuclear energy prior to learning how to make fire. Also, if that ain't enough to convince you to throw in the towel, just know for every environmentally concious act you perform, there's another pic related to undo your work. Enjoy hikes through the forest and pristine oceans while they still exist. And if I am proven wrong( I rarely am) about us having the ability to reverse our course and you find yourself wanting kids to continue your bloodline, just knock a few bitches up in the future. :D

[Anonymous No.8231867]

>>8231694
>did we manage
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

[Anonymous No.8231883]

>>8231785
gitcher Propur Fiktered Water Pitcher
w/ free Fruit Infused accessory from
Alex Jones at InfoWars
Fiktered and Fruit Infused Water Pitcher
--6 Month Fikter Lifespan

[Anonymous No.8231905]

>>8231505
>human ingenuity far outpaces
>anything wimpy nature can throw at us
...hence poverty, famine, and pestilence

[Anonymous No.8231915]

>>8219280
>muh funding

what would happen if a government funded "climate" """""scientist"""""" discovered strong evidence that there will be no warming feed back?

would he:
a. be praised for his great discovery and unbiased pursuit of the truth

b. BAN HIM BAN HIM FIRE HIM DENIER DENIER DENIER DENIER DENIER WITCH HERETIC FIRE HIM KILL HIM


no other field does this crap, you cuckolds have to see something fishy going on here

[Anonymous No.8231932]

>>8231915
Bullshit. If he abided by scientific standards, everybody will be very happy to hear it.

[Anonymous No.8231943]

>>8223504
you can't argue with someone this delusional

[Anonymous No.8231944]

>>8223766
>he wants snowless winters
you probably live in some low latitude shithole anyway

[Anonymous No.8231950]

>>8231932
>everybody will be very happy to hear it.
lol

[Anonymous No.8231959]

>>8229825
>publishes cartoon
>opens email from exxon mobil
>"$20 have been deposited in your account"

[Anonymous No.8231971]

>>8231950
Goddamned retard. People would love not caring about climate change. It would mean one problem less to deal with.

The reality of the situation is that the deniers have no scientific basis on their side. Do you seriously believe scientists all over the world want to engage in fake problems for no reason? Idiot.

[Anonymous No.8231985]

>>8229840
Isn't the steffan-boltzmann equation disregarding the decay of radioactive elements from the interior of the planet?

[Anonymous No.8231990]

>>8231971
So the hundreds of thousands of peoples who's careers now exist because of the global warming hoax would love to lose their jobs?

[Anonymous No.8232007]

>>8231985
http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html

[Anonymous No.8232039]

>>8232007
TL:DR

[Anonymous No.8232043]

>>8231990
The same can be said about the propaganda machinery of the fossil fuel industry, and all government burocracy.

For someone to call global warming a "hoax" shows a severe misinformation about the scientific community. It's huge and people try to make a name by proving each other wrong all the time. The collusion you are implying is ridiculous.

In contrast, the fossil fuel propaganda machine is streamlined at one goal, to brainwash or pay people like you to spread misinformation about the state of the scientific evidence.

[Anonymous No.8232137]

>>8223766

those effects are going to happen regardless, people making a stink about climate charge are doing so because we've gone too far and are going to cause runaway warming from all the methane being released in siberia.

[Anonymous No.8232160]

>>8232137
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Xc3LtZRWo

[Anonymous No.8232174]

>>8232043
>the fossil fuel propaganda machine
Wew, the machine you type on requires fossil fuels to manufacture, ship from Taiwan and run on a grid. You may be the victim of a propaganda machine that wants to take your energy away with your complete cooperation and little to no critical thought about your life - in the oil age. How on earth would you ever shitpost?

[Anonymous No.8232401]

>>8231863
>j-just don't have kids goyim

[Anonymous No.8232439]

>>8232137
>methane

https://cage.uit.no/news/methane-not-escaping-into-the-atmosphere-arctic-ocean/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069292/full

[Anonymous No.8232471]

>>8218927
>•

[Anonymous No.8232511]

>>8218927
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm3_sX_obmQ

Why do people deny Global Warming. A lot don't bother to research the topic themselves and resort to their knowledge on the subject to word of mouth or pure passive aggressive denial. Why does this happen? In general

[Anonymous No.8232590]

Don't worry lads

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates

[Anonymous No.8232624]

>>8232174
>the machine you type on
>requires fossil fuels to manufacture
...maybe 5kg?
I use it 5 years, that's 1kg per year.
>take your energy away
wat

[Anonymous No.8232636]

>>8231863
>Just don't have kids
I agree with this, and as a bonus, if you're white, you can make the retarded racists butthurt. There is no purer pleasure than the whiny cries of a white supremacist who thinks the jews are ruining his race by convincing everyone not to have kids (yes, this is what white supremacists actually believe - their superior race is dying out because jews).

Just to annoy these people, I would welcome it. After all, they've annoyed me for years just by shitposting and general assholism.

But more rationally, the lower the population, the more land area are available for each individual to grow energy crops, dispose of waste material or use other renewable resources. And with increasing automation, fewer workers are needed to create the same wealth. Climate change mitigation will also be cheaper because we can lose arable land without a problem.

The real problem is that some people will never stop having children they can't afford, and if we open borders and give them handouts, the end state is malthusian misery.

[Anonymous No.8232707]

>>8232174
>you live in the system, therefore you can't criticize it
noice. i guess that renders all forms of political protest moot then.

[Anonymous No.8232713]

>>8219016
>it's hard not to crack a smile seeing my bed-ridden grandmother-in-law trying to light a cigarette with shaking, arthritic hands
kill yourself you sick fuck

[Anonymous No.8232777]

If countries like China don't reduce, there's no point for the West to reduce.

We'll just eat their garbage while they outcompete us.

[Anonymous No.8232795]

Who cares lol

Enjoy your 5-10 remaining years to live

I'm going ahead and killing myself at new years eve

[Anonymous No.8233000]

>>8231932
I remember when when everybody was happy to hear that cannabis is the best NATURAL medicine man ever knew since forever.
Yeah, that went well.

[Anonymous No.8233057]

>>8232713
that's no way to speak to a grandmother