/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9889689]

it's to late to do anything about global warming.

What now?

[Anonymous No.9889692]

Die, I guess

[Anonymous No.9889699]

>>9889689
>What now?
Let it warm my asshole

[Anonymous No.9889703]

if you put an ice cube into water, the water gets cooler. how come the world isn't cooling if there's icebergs melting? check mate

[Anonymous No.9889704]

>>9889689
Unless you have accurate measurements taken during past periods of climate change(read millions of years), you're going off implicit evidence that could or could not be precise and accurate, an approximate estimate at best with clues that point towards this possibly being right. Also, meteorologists can't predict what the weather is doing right now. You're telling me that there are scientists who can predict that global warming is happening in and is caused by man-made emissions and it will ruin us? Riddle me this, Batman. When were fossil fuels supposed to run dry? How many times has the end of the world been predicted? Who do carbon taxes effect the most?

[Anonymous No.9889718]

>>9889689
Late to stop the co2 from going over 450 ppm tipping point, by reducing emissions.
Never late for devices that actively remove co2 from the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9889721]

>>9889689
I'm confused by this statement. We can certainly prevent warming past 4 degrees.

[Anonymous No.9889722]

>>9889704
weather =/= climate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k

[Anonymous No.9889723]

>>9889718
>Late to stop the co2 from going over 450 ppm tipping point
That hypothesis is believed by <50% of scientists, and as such given full authority to their knowledge you're more likely to be right believing the opposite

[Anonymous No.9889735]

>>9889723
>"facts" i just pulled out of my ass

[Anonymous No.9889736]

>>9889689
Buy military equipment to kill millions of refugees, I guess.

[Anonymous No.9889753]

>>9889721
Pretty sure that's already prevented.
We're heading for 3 right now, aren't we.
It's just 1.5 that's completely out of range so a few islands are doomed already.
2° might be really hard and probably needs geo engineering with mass removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. Whoever is supposed to fund those millions of CO2 capture facilities that only produce costs without any tangible economic benefit is anybody's guess.

[Anonymous No.9889778]

>>9889736
'kill millions of amerifats' would work so much better
a major part of china's emissions come from producing crap for americans, so it would get rid of that too

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9889788]

>>9889689
>Learn to survive hot temperature
>Find areas in your town with the less pollution
>Stop alcohol and cigarets
>don't vote republican (or any right wing retarded party)

[Anonymous No.9889866]

>>9889753
Paris accord was designed to funnel 100 billion dollars to china, india, and africa
could use that money to do something of actual value instead

[Anonymous No.9889876]

>>9889689
>global warming
junk science
shit thread

[Anonymous No.9889880]

>>9889876
>HEY EVERYONE
>LOOK AT HOW RETARDED I AM
>GIVE ME ATTENTION
>GIB GIB GIB

[Anonymous No.9889901]

>>9889704
>accurate measurements
>millions of years
>could or could not be
>an approximate estimate
>meteorologists can't predict the weather
You missed a few of Scott Pruitt's approved talking points,
so please read the memo again. Your job may depend upon it.

[Anonymous No.9889909]

>>9889718
>devices that actively remove co2
Those are called "vegetation", but those are being actively destroyed.

[Anonymous No.9889935]

>>9889901
It's called limited sample data from an EXTREMELY limited collection period, you pleb. Please tell me what drilling I've cores reveals, anon.

[Anonymous No.9889939]

>>9889935
Drilling ice cores*

[Anonymous No.9890042]

>>9889689

[Anonymous No.9890078]

>>9889704
most science-based policy changes have been based in large part on implicit evidence. the first wave of tobacco regulations used mostly implicit evidence, for instance. insisting on explicit evidence is a standard that has never been applied to policy changes.

[Anonymous No.9890081]

carbon taxes are a scam, but

the 21st century will bear witness to climate change induced wars and mass genocide that will make the 20th century look like a walk in the park

it's too late, you will die fighting your neighbor to the death over the last bag of rice before 2030

[Anonymous No.9890084]

Global warming is just a bullshit distraction from the real issue which is petroleum/ fossil fuel/ phosphorus scarcity. The 'end goals' are the same to address both issues. The difference is that if the elites told the truth the peasants would drive up oil prices and the stock in energy companies and the elites do not want that because it would implode the economy and we'd be fucked. Also they'd lose money.

Okay worst case, all the carbon is released and the climate is hot and muggy, the conditions that caused life to flourish so much it created these oceans, mountains of petroleum fuels, trillions of tons of fossil fuels in the first place.

Global warming, yeah you need to buy this electric car, stop consuming non-renewable resources, the elites will need them once they've cleansed you and 5 billion other humans off the planet.

[Anonymous No.9890097]

>>9889736
BASED

[Anonymous No.9890127]

Worst case we will just have to block out the sun. Picture related - for an estimated $20 billion a year any plausible warming effect could be blocked. There are a variety of other proposals as well, like marine cloud brightening. I have little doubt that the Chinese will start doing this if there coastal cities are threatened.

Of course, that leads to the issue of countries fighting over what the global thermostat should be set at. I imagine India & Russia might have very different preferences there, for example.

[Anonymous No.9890157]

>>9890127
Just destroy the sun. Shoot heavy metals like uranium into it, no sun is stable with any element heavier than lithium.

It'll fuse those elements and release energy enough to blow off it's mass, but quickly cause fission enough to blow off even more.

Any element heavier than iron is toxic to the nuclear reactions in a sun. Do the the right thing. Destroy the sun. send our nuclear waste there.

[Anonymous No.9890224]

>>9890157
The sun has an outer layer called the coronitas which acts as a flashpoint and outer deflective barrier. It's where the force of the constant explosion that is the sun pushes debris outwords, or incinerates it if it's big enough before ejecting it. This wouldn't work.

[Anonymous No.9890228]

>>9889692
This

[Anonymous No.9890247]

>>9889778
>Nuke China
>World population reduced by 2 billion
>Gas emissions halved since shitton of production takes place in China
>Poaching rates drop as there is no more demand for obscure animal parts for traditional medicine
>Deforestation slows down in Indonesia and other Asian countries as there is no-one funding them
>Western governments cannot outsource jobs to China now
>Nuclear winter cancels out climate change

Are Chinese the ultimate enemy?

[Anonymous No.9890250]

>>9890224
That is a point I'm sure you're educated, but irrelevant since that isn't what I am proposing, I am not suggesting the sun is normally induced into a fission decay that destroys it from loose iron atoms. I am talking about a high density, high velocity missile designed to destroy the sun that we can create as humans., today, right now, we have this we just need to do it. Obviously I am not talking about loose atoms of heavy metal out there randomly.

Hey, you should help me design a missile or some other vehicle to deliver spent uranium fuel rods into the sun. Maybe then humanity will know peace.

[Anonymous No.9890306]

>>9889909
>Imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.9890309]

>>9889689
>it's to late to do anything about global warming.
Good, so libtards will finally stop bitching about it, right?

[Anonymous No.9890330]

>>9890247
Nuclear winter will eventually turn into a nuclear summer since all those burning cities, forests and whatnot would release more greenhouse gasses.

Now, if it was just the USA, India and China then that'd probably make the world a better place, the economic collapse would kill off another 3 billion through starvation, disease and violence.

If only our leaders had the gumption to do this. If they don't have the balls to destroy the sun, they could at least do this.

[Anonymous No.9890333]

Global warming, the myth.

It’s a racket.

[Anonymous No.9890389]

>>9889689
Throw another log on the fucking fire!

Also, buy land in the Mountains -- cooler and further from potential inundations as the sea rises.

[Anonymous No.9890394]

>>9889778
>Kill off people that have reduced their per capita CO emissions.

I can think of an even better plan.

[Anonymous No.9890396]

>>9889866
I suppose they COULD use it for that.

I'm not sure I trust that they WOULD.

[Anonymous No.9890399]

>>9889909
Bad news for you -- plants are, over the course of their life and decomposition, neutral in their impact on CO2.

[Anonymous No.9890452]

>>9890399
>Plants take co2 as input, put off o2 as output.
>A lot of land has so much vegetation you can see it from space.
>Underwater vegetation.
>Is neutral.
I bet you more and more plants will fill with more and more co2

[Anonymous No.9890476]

inb4 animatrix tier blot-out-the-sky solutions

[Anonymous No.9890489]

>>9889689
No it's not. It just means we have to mitigate and adapt. We need more environmental consciousness generally. Adults should know the larger "tragedy of the commons" cost of wastefulness and unsustainable activities, and act accordingly. But the ignoramuses will call everything a scam so they can keep their planet rapers and order stuff from Amazon without thinking about it, so the situation is still grim.

[Anonymous No.9890604]

>>9889718

/sci/, why don't we just pay all the unemployed people to plant a bunch of trees?

[Anonymous No.9890665]

>>9890084
>petroleum/fossil fuel/phosphorus scarcity
Phosphorous supplies are secure for the remainder of the century at least, the concern of 'peak phosphorus' has passed. Fossil fuels supplies are also secure for the next few decades, and will avoid hitting a peak the more we switch to renewables. We already have practical alternatives to the fossil fuel industry and they're gaining more and more traction.

The only issue is climate change. Luckily carbon capture technology is proving to be more competitive than we had initially thought, and more effective too. Reports out of Stanford are extremely promising. It's not a silver bullet, but combined with other techniques, could keep us at two degrees.

It's too late to stop climate change, but its not too late to stop runaway climate change. Things like the clathrate gun hypothesis is a fringe theory. With the continual improvement of climate technology beyond our expectations, and the unprecedented renewables boom, we may see an eventual reverse of the effects of climate change. But it'll be tough times before we get to that point, that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.9890786]

Enjoy the ride right now, we live in the good times. Future generations are absolutely fucked.

[Anonymous No.9890844]

>>9890399
they literally take co2 out of the atmosphere and make most of their mass out of it.

[Anonymous No.9890881]

>>9890844
whoa do they put it in the bank before they die?

[Anonymous No.9890894]

>>9890881
>Trees evaporate when they die

No.

[Anonymous No.9890896]

>>9890894
>What is a forest fire?

[Anonymous No.9890912]

>>9890896
An additional step beyond tree life and death needed to release the carbon back to the atmosphere as CO2.

[Anonymous No.9890918]

>>9890896
>All trees are killed by forest fires

No. Plants suck carbon out of the air, so the more carbon tied up in plant biomass, the less carbon there is in the air...

[Anonymous No.9890920]

>>9890912
So in the fullness of time, plants are, over the course of their life and decomposition, a neutral impact on CO2

[Anonymous No.9890921]

>>9889689

Arctic sea ice volume is above normal, highest in thirteen years, and melting at the slowest rate on record.

Arctic ice cap volume and thickness - daily measurements between Jan 2003 and June 2018.

(Source: the official Danish meteorological institute, administrated by the Ministry of Energy, Utilities and Climate)

https://youtu.be/0loIDvze_nI

[Anonymous No.9890922]

>>9890918
Y'know if we just killed a bunch of people we'd have a bunch more water.

[Anonymous No.9890925]

>>9890920
no you retard

do you understand what topsoil is?

[Anonymous No.9890935]

>>9890844
Yeah.. and then what? They die, right? And then what?

>>9890881
Building a good library of good old fashioned paper books is a good way to sequester atmospheric carbon. As good as "putting it in the bank."

[Anonymous No.9890942]

>>9890918
And then plants die, and decompose, or burn, or whatever -- unless they get made into coal, the carbon winds up back in the atmosphere and around and around it goes.

[Anonymous No.9890950]

>>9890942
How hard is this to understand? Forest establishment leads to topsoil growth over centuries, which leads to whole complex ecosystems developing within. A sustainable, permanent ecosystem storing carbon by virtue of its existence. Desertification, that is topsoil and forest loss, is another major issue of conservation.

[Anonymous No.9890952]

>>9890925
So your position s that, over time, plants will strip the air of all atmospheric carbon which will then be locked up in topsoil?

Because I don't think that's right.

[Anonymous No.9891002]

>>9890921
Low ice: THE WORLD IS ENDING! DAMN YOU CLIMATE DENIERS!!!
High ice: Let's talk about kittens!

[Anonymous No.9891250]

>>9890935
>mfw we can save the world by reading books
>mfw this was probably the solution all along
>mfw i have no face

[Anonymous No.9891301]

Aside from CO2 there is also methane and this stuff called HCFC. Here is a cool article that just came out with a nice video
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-20/climate-change-is-disrupting-the-planet-s-seasons
I wonder if there are any gasses or chemicals that can maybe react with any of these pollutants and maybe either change their properties or neutralize them. They are probably fairly stable as is though.

[Anonymous No.9891303]

>>9890921
>>9891002
I love it when deniers so easily show how dishonest they are. This isn't even a new cherrypick, you retards do this every year and get BTFO every year. See https://youtu.be/bEieWJghRNY

[Anonymous No.9891357]

So when are suicide parties going to become a thing?

[Anonymous No.9891359]

>>9889722
Science weather inst climate, we shouldn't be blaming heat waves, fires, storms on global warming r-right?

[Anonymous No.9891362]

>>9891359
Weather isn't climate but changes in climate can cause changes in weather, where as the opposite would be incredibly rare

[Anonymous No.9891438]

>>9889689
Try to reduce its effects as much as we can

[Anonymous No.9891444]

>>9890918
Some climate scientists think planting trees won't work because they absorb more sunlight that other surfaces, thus warming the planet overall. By extension, this implies they also believe wiping out the forests worldwide is one of the "tools" (along with carbon taxes) to be used in the fight against climate change.

[Anonymous No.9891483]

Global warming is beneficial, why stop it? Only third world like Africa or USA will suffer.

[Anonymous No.9891485]

>>9891483

[Anonymous No.9891488]

>>9891485

[Anonymous No.9891537]

>>9891488
US produces 100
Canada produces 10
total: 110

US drops 50%:50
Canada increases 35%: 13.5
Total: 63.5

Well ain't that fucking great

[Anonymous No.9891700]

>>9891303

>I love it when deniers so easily show how dishonest they are. This isn't even a new cherrypick, you retards do this every year and get BTFO every year.

Oh, wait, you mean this? I understand you try to associate the other side with "deniers", as in the pejorative "the holocaust deniers", but you see, your arguments don't stand a chance. Showing a graph since the 1979 is not proving anything. On the contrary, it reinforces what I said.

Here you go, fag. 80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming

Now ask yourself why these faggot scientists tried to make you spend more money on their BS pseudoscience and finance all the nonsense Al Gore and Obama had in their minds.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/#sthash.ktF0tSb7.Uq6H7gKE.dpbs


Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

> Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

> This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”


> Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/receding-swiss-glaciers-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-warmists-try-to-suppress-findings/

[Anonymous No.9891756]

That image is a picture that correlates particulates in the air, and temperature, with volcanic eruptions in the geologic past, dumb fuck.
We pour way more green house gasses and polluting particulates into the air than volcanoes do

Try harder next time brainlet

[Anonymous No.9891762]

>>9889689
>What now?
Personally, I'm stockpiling weapons to protect my soon to be temperate comfy af country from desert plebs

[Anonymous No.9892073]

>>9891700
So if climate change isn't real, what are your propositions to slow the anthropocene extinction event? If the planet isn't warming, it doesn't fix any of the other catastrophes headed our way.

[Anonymous No.9892171]

>>9892073
Do you think there exists a technology capable of terraforming the atmosphere for the most ideal suitable environment according to the last 100 years?

[Anonymous No.9892176]

>What now?
Just go to Iceland, it's going to be the new Florida.

[Anonymous No.9892186]

>>9890399
So I guess burning coal doesn't produce CO2 then?

[Anonymous No.9892187]

>>9892171
forests

[Anonymous No.9892189]

>>9889689
Fortify southern borders and enjoy peak farming conditions.

[Anonymous No.9892201]

>>9892189
Not everyone lives in Canada.

[Anonymous No.9892223]

>>9891700
>Showing a graph since the 1979 is not proving anything. On the contrary, it reinforces what I said.
It shows that arctic sea ice volume is decreasing, and that ice volume being above the recent average for a few days is a common occurrence throughout this decrease, since volume fluctuates. I'm not saying what you said is not "supported," I'm saying it has no relevance since you're cherrypicking a single point of data instead of showing a trend. Now you're attempting to hide the trend by posting data that doesn't even have modern temperatures.

>Here you go, fag. 80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warming
Which claims exactly do these invalidate? It seems to be a bunch of cherrypicked regional temps, which tells us nothing about the global temperature.

>Now ask yourself why these faggot scientists tried to make you spend more money on their BS pseudoscience and finance all the nonsense Al Gore and Obama had in their minds.
I can tell you're quite the intellectual.

[Anonymous No.9892237]

>>9891756
>way more
100x more

https://skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

[Anonymous No.9892243]

>>9889692
finally

[Anonymous No.9892248]

>>9892223

> I can tell you're quite the intellectual.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/climate-change-expert-sentenced-32-months-fraud-says-lying-was-f2D11768995

At least I'm not a fraud. If you are unable to understand or read a simple graph, and see why even a simple painting can negate a whole theory, then you are wasting everyone's time.


Here is Pieter Bruegel the Elder: Hunters in the Snow

Now google for Maunder Minimum and The Little Ice Age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[Anonymous No.9892281]

>>9891700
>> Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.
Wrong.

>> This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century.
Wrong.

The climate changing in the past does not make the current rapid global warming caused by CO2 emissions go away. Neither does covering your ears and saying "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/denier-weirdness-how-old-block-of-wood.html?m=1

[Anonymous No.9892305]

>>9892281
>!WARNING!WARNING!WARNING!WARNING!
Maximum CO2 emissions have been detected
from your computer. Turn off your PC immediately
for 24 hours or you will be banned for a week.
Thank you for your cooperation in this fight
against climate change.
>!WARNING!WARNING!WARNING!WARNING!

[Anonymous No.9892313]

>>9892248
If you're unable to respond to a single thing I said, why post? You are pathetic.

[Anonymous No.9892479]

>>9889689
There will be a MASSIVE scale back of humanity throughout this century due to climate change. Probably within the billions. This will be due to the climate itself and human resource wars.

I only wish my fellow Europeans would unit within this cause because it's coming whether we want it to or not.

[Anonymous No.9892506]

>>9892479
>has "green" energy stocks
>THE WORLD'S GOING TO END UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING NOW
>World quickly starts adopting green energy
>$$$$ YESSSSS BABY!
>50 years later, earth is still here
>Well done everyone, we saved the world, glad you listened

[Anonymous No.9892522]

>>9892171
Doing things on that scale is not a matter of technology but of will, and these days, money.

[Anonymous No.9892531]

>>9891537
>US produces 100
>Canada produces 10
>total: 110

>US drops 50%:50
>Canada increases 35%: 13.5
>Total: 63.5

>Well ain't that fucking great

Nobody cares about Third World.
Plenty of countries will be fine with peak farming conditions

[Anonymous No.9892613]

>>9892531
low iq post

[Anonymous No.9892885]

>>9892248
>an EPA official got busted for pretending to work for the CIA so he wouldn't have to do his actual job
>and some dude painted a wintery day hundreds of years ago
>therefore anthropogenic climate change is a lie!
imagine being this retarded

[Anonymous No.9893216]

>>9892885
>>and some dude painted a wintery day hundreds of years ago

It's called Maunder Minimum, you moron. Iknow you guys are illiterate and don't know who Pieter Bruegel the Elder was, but see where that painter lived. And how many times people were skating there, in the last 100 or 500 years.

[Anonymous No.9893225]

>>9893216
>It's called Maunder Minimum, you moron. Iknow you guys are illiterate and don't know who Pieter Bruegel the Elder was, but see where that painter lived. And how many times people were skating there, in the last 100 or 500 years. Therefore anthropogenic global warming is a lie!
Imagine being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.9893237]

>>9893216
Are you saying that because it was cold before and hot now and there are more sunspots that that completely explains the temperature increase and invalidates anthropogenic climate change?

[Anonymous No.9893251]

>>9893237
>>9893225

You guys can't read a graph, right? Solar activity rings any bells, the links provided above don't tell you anything?

You do realize that even IF humans had an effect in the last century, there is this lag in temperature due to oceanic water mass, that takes at least 100 years to show some kind of influence, right?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

[Anonymous No.9893257]

>>9893251
I wish I was as delusional as you.

[Anonymous No.9893265]

>>9893257
>I wish I was as delusional as you.
I guess it would be nice for you to be less delusional.

[Anonymous No.9893288]

>>9889866
Riddle me this meathead. As countries are trying to industrialize they're using more and more coal and oil. How do we give them an incentive to stop? This won't work if only a few countries stop burning fossil fuels. We need the entire world to quit. Paris accord was designed to funnel money to those countries for a reason.

[Anonymous No.9893300]

>>9893251
>You guys can't read a graph, right? Solar activity rings any bells, the links provided above don't tell you anything?
Solar activity doesn't change enough or slowly enough to cause the trend observed. Try making an argument instead of just spouting buzzwords.

>You do realize that even IF humans had an effect in the last century, there is this lag in temperature due to oceanic water mass, that takes at least 100 years to show some kind of influence, right?
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The rapid change in temperature is already observed. The fact that most of the incoming heat is being absorbed by the oceans and yet we still see such rapid warming in surface temperatures does not exactly help your cause.

It appears you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and are just spouting denier memes you read somewhere else without even understanding.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg [Embed]
https://web.archive.org/web/20090731234855/http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/4/parent/0/pid/4/t/publications/title/response-to-recent-documentary-the-great-global-warming-swindle-bamos-article

[Anonymous No.9893302]

>>9893288
The US already provides plenty of hand outs to the rest of the world. Some one else can pony up.

[Anonymous No.9893309]

>>9889689
No, it’s not actually. There are tons of large scale geo engineering projects that could reverse or mitigate it, but climate scientists don’t want solutions, they just want a paycheck.

[Anonymous No.9893312]

>>9893302
>has nothing to say about the point at hand
>employs whataboutism
You're highly qualified to work in the current administration

[Anonymous No.9893317]

>>9893309
Could you perhaps name some of these large scale operations, and what makes them economically viable?

[Anonymous No.9893319]

>>9893312
Prioritizing my countries finite resources is not whataboutism. Maybe if we weren’t providing free defense for half the planet and giving charity to the other half we could spare a bit more for global warming. Also I have no problem with green policies at home but incentives like the Paris accord are just screaming to be abused.

[Anonymous No.9893324]

>>9893319
Who then, should take the burden? We have the highest per-capita emissions, we're industrialized, the only other option is Europe and they're doing all they can.

[Anonymous No.9893326]

>>9893309
>Deniers stop the government from doing anything about global warming
>See, none of these climate "scientists" are doing anything about global warming
Ah, the classic self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Anonymous No.9893345]

>>9893317
Oh, the solution to our dire global crisis need be economical?

First maximize hydropower output. Hippies have all but banned not only new dams but increasing output of current dams. Second, nuclear motherfucking power. Third, optimize the power grid and send excess energy to power-to-gas machines that extract CO2 from the ocean or any other large body of water. Reinforce where necessary with wind and solar and you don’t even have to get rid of hydrocarbon fuels because you just went closed loop.

Or we could just flood Australia and parts of Africa with seawater to alter the albedo of the earth.

[Anonymous No.9893349]

>>9893326
>denier
Just because I don’t agree about what should be done doesn’t mean I deny there is a problem.

[Anonymous No.9893359]

>>9893349
You're blaming scientists for not solving what they can't solve in the first place, retard.

[Anonymous No.9893360]

>>9889689
Find a way to join the elite OP, just wait till they leave on a spaceship or construct a heavily fortified underground bunker or a private ecodome, in fact, they actually have a lot to gain from the end of the world.

[Anonymous No.9893372]

>>9893359
No that is not what I’m doing. I’m calling out the so called experts on their ham fisted “solutions”. Taxes are not an acceptable solution. Hand outs to other countries is not an acceptable solution

[Anonymous No.9893376]

>>9893372
>Taxes are not an acceptable solution
>Global geo-engineering that doesn't even exist is an acceptable solution
You are retarded, buddy.

[Anonymous No.9893380]

>>9893376
I don't think taxes are a solution either.

[Anonymous No.9893384]

>>9893380
Why are they not a solution?

[Anonymous No.9893386]

>>9893372
You're right, but it'll be a few more years before we can get to technology that will make an impact on emissions, the idea is that if we tax carbon it will deincentivize further investment in technology that is literally killing us. That's the problem, people have no foresight, it's all "hur dur lets build 50 new coal plants before we stop emissions, lets get that GDP up to 5% next quarter!". While the strategy is not acceptable in the short run, it will eventually save our bacon.

[Anonymous No.9893391]

>>9893376
Shut the fuck up you ignorant shit. I’ve worked for the government so when I say these things it’s from experience. Giving the feds money for no other reason than to curtail hydrocarbon usage is a colossal waste. The government has a terrible track record with shit like that. But oddly enough, executing seemingly nigh impossible feats of engineering are passé.

[Anonymous No.9893401]

>>9893391
Fuck you, people like you are the reason trump got elected and now he's kissing the elite's asses. Go back to to 1970s when it was acceptable to have 0 trust in the government.

[Anonymous No.9893406]

>>9893401
>1970’s
>not 1770’s

Our country was founded on the principle of not trusting the government.

[Anonymous No.9893413]

>>9893386
We have the technology. There is so much we could do now that isn’t encouraging rent seeking behavior but we aren’t doing it.

[Anonymous No.9893418]

>>9893386
>hur dur lets build 50 new coal plants before we stop emissions, lets get that GDP up to 5% next quarter!". While the strategy is not acceptable in the short run, it will eventually save our bacon.
That's like saying you need one more pepsi to get the energy you need to go for a jog. Just one more! I swear! It's laughable. It's absolutely ridiculous. If its not a short term solution then its not a long term solution either. Just go for a jog, fatty.

[Anonymous No.9893420]

>>9892506
>do nothing
>planet warms 5C average and 90%+ species die
yeah your argument destroyed that guy

[Anonymous No.9893424]

>>9893413
Yeah, but the big thing is developing solid state batteries or our grid will have massive amounts of waste with what we do have, same thing with electric cars. We have most of what we need, but there are just a few developments left before we can truly enable it to be competitive.

[Anonymous No.9893426]

>>9893418
>planet warms by 5C and 90%+ species die
>a-at least the economy was growing for a few decades guys

[Anonymous No.9893427]

>>9893391
>I’ve worked for the government so when I say these things it’s from experience.
Clearly you're "experience" has no relevance, since you're posts are uniformly retarded.

>Giving the feds money for no other reason than to curtail hydrocarbon usage is a colossal waste.
An optimal carbon tax pays for itself by avoiding damage to the climate.

>But oddly enough, executing seemingly nigh impossible feats of engineering are passé.
Ah I forgot that the government just pulls engineering projects out of its ass and doesn't have to pay for anything with tax dollars. Problem solved, thanks for showing us your expertise in the matter.

[Anonymous No.9893433]

>>9893406
>Don't trust the government to reduce demand in something by taxing it, something it does every day
>Do trust the government to carry out global geo-engineering that doesn't exist
I can't tell if you're mentally ill or trolling.

[Anonymous No.9893435]

>>9893418
I know, I was saying that that's the mindset of people who oppose carbon taxes, and that taxation will be what saves us.

[Anonymous No.9893436]

>>9893427
Lol keep talking about things you have no clue about fag. There is more than one funding mechanism than taxes. More importantly, a carbon tax will hit the bottom rungs of society the hardest so thank you for outing yourself as an elitist piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.9893438]

>>9890127
I'm pretty sure that pic related would create a lot of acid rain.

[Anonymous No.9893442]

>>9893433
Yeah. The US government is actually pretty good at crazy engineering projects. See manhattan project, moon landing, and every infrastructure project from 1920 to 1960.

[Anonymous No.9893456]

>>9890952
It's called C geochemical cycle. And yes CO2 would still exist, because there are several other fonts of it such as volcanic activity.

[Anonymous No.9893466]

Why don't we just spray aerosols into the atmosphere? Global temperatures will decrease and global warning is gone.

[Anonymous No.9893472]

>>9889692
Based

[Anonymous No.9893473]

>>9893435
lol ya taxes are gonna save the world haha you're funny

[Anonymous No.9893479]

>>9889788
>don't vote republican
Like democucks are any better.

[Anonymous No.9893480]

>>9893436
>There is more than one funding mechanism than taxes.
Like what?

>More importantly, a carbon tax will hit the bottom rungs of society the hardest so thank you for outing yourself as an elitist piece of shit.
The evil carbon tax in your head? Certainly. Not the one I would propose though.

[Anonymous No.9893485]

>>9893442
How did the government pay for those projects? Certainly not through evil, no good, very bad taxes I hope.

And how is geo-engineering technology that doesn't even exist and therefor ehas completely unknown consequences comparable to nuclear weapons, the moon landing, and infrastructure?

[Anonymous No.9893495]

>>9893480
>Like what?
Bonds, cost reductions in other segments of government.

As of now, hydrocarbons are a necessity for the average American. I’m guessing you’re rich or at least upper middle class and don’t understand how increasing the price of gas or electricity, even by a little, impacts those guys not making more than $35k a year.

[Anonymous No.9893501]

>>9893485
>technology that doesn't even exist and therefor ehas completely unknown consequences

Nigga that was literally the problem statement for the moon landing and the atomic bomb

[Anonymous No.9893507]

>>9893485
I will also clarify that the technology does exist, it only has yet to be implemented at scale.

[Anonymous No.9893514]

>>9889689
Hopefully sub-saharan african mass mortality

[Anonymous No.9893552]

>>9893324
>300 million Americans
>3 billion Chinese
>1 billion Indians
Can you give me the raw total numbers on these emissions, anon? I don't want any numerical trickery. I would just like to see the raw emission output of nations.

Surely China doesn't have 10 citizens per 1 US citizen, and surely all of them are responsible with their emissions.

[Anonymous No.9893559]

>>9893552
Goddamn we need to neutron bomb those countries.

[Anonymous No.9893569]

>>9893495
Bonds are just loans that are paid back with taxpayer dollars. What spending is going to be reduced for this geo-engineering project that you can't even name?

>As of now, hydrocarbons are a necessity for the average American.
They are a necessity because everything in the economy is built around the cheapest energy source. You have to make fossil fields not the cheapest energy source in order to replace it. The revenue should be spent on research as infrastructure to replace it. And there is no reason why the tax would have to be regressive. Lower income people could simply be given rebates as with many other taxes.

We already have an easy solution to the problem, and there is no time to waste.
There's no need to rely on a magical solution being created in the future.

[Anonymous No.9893574]

>>9893507
What is the technology then? You keep referring to it without naming it. Do you even know?

[Anonymous No.9893576]

>>9893559
Americans, everyone

[Anonymous No.9893593]

>>9893576
Yeah my bad.
Lets continue business as usual so we all die over the next century

[Anonymous No.9893597]

>>9893574
>>9893569
Hydro and nuclear power. Upgrading and optimizing our power grid that is ancient as fuck. Power-to-gas is the most pipe dreamy of ideas and it was realized in years ago by the navy

[Anonymous No.9893625]

>>9893569
Bonds were exceptional at raising funds for WW2 and had little impact on low income families. You can reduce costs by stop giving out free defense services and humanitarian handouts to the rest of the world. If you think that is a trivial sum, you are wrong.

Anyway you tax the hydrocarbon up the chain is going to be passed on to the little man in terms of cost of living, it’s like taxing food.

[Anonymous No.9893648]

>>9889689
welcome to the human race
we would never have done anything about it.
just die

[Anonymous No.9893664]

>Peak everything
>Acid rain
>Ozone shit
>Coastal cities underwater by 2000
Lul

[Anonymous No.9893720]

>>9893593
AMERICANS, EVERYONE

[Anonymous No.9893726]

>>9893720
The rest of the world everyone!
Where slow agonizing death is preferable to instant death

[Anonymous No.9893747]

>>9893251
>Solar activity
>3.8W/m2 total variation
>0.3% of mean
virtually nothing

[Anonymous No.9893751]

>>9893664
nice scientific analysis there bud, really proved a point

>>9893593
Luckily, we currently aren't on the business as usual track. We aren't doing anywhere near enough, but we are doing something. The only way forward though is to elect political figures that will take necessary action instead of continually burying their heads in the sand. We can't rely on cities and states to do the heavy lifting, or just the private sector. The federal government has to get involved to make sustainability economically viable by subsidizing renewable developments and taxing polluters.

[Anonymous No.9893763]

>>9893726
Is your name thanos by chance?

[Anonymous No.9893765]

>>9891483
>why stop it?
Two words : tropical disease

[Anonymous No.9893766]

>>9893747
It's like these deniers don't even read the fucking graph

[Anonymous No.9893770]

>>9890452
>I bet
there is no wagering at 4chan, Grandpa

[Anonymous No.9893771]

>>9890399
Lrn2deforestation and ecosystem conversion

[Anonymous No.9893772]

>>9889880
He says while giving the retard attention.

[Anonymous No.9893784]

>>9893300
>most of the incoming heat is being absorbed by the oceans and yet we still see such rapid warming in surface temperatures

It gets even worse for Europe, the Atlantic has a 30-40 year cycle (salinity driven) that makes the water take more/less than the average amount of heat.
We've been in the more-intake-of-heat phase since the 1980's. Even with that, the atmosphere has warmed up fast.
In the 2020's the water will start burping up extra heat for 30-40 years again. Good times a comin'

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140821-global-warming-hiatus-climate-change-ocean-science/

[Anonymous No.9893787]

>>9889689
Its stupid to think Humans ever could have an affect on the weather anyway.

[Anonymous No.9893790]

>>9889901
>You missed a few of Scott Pruitt's approved talking points
I would take anything he says over your usual global warming alarmist.

[Anonymous No.9893792]

>>9889880
"climate science" is a pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.9893793]

>>9891303
>deniers
Call us realists

[Anonymous No.9893795]

>>9892281
>rapid global warming caused by CO2 emissions go away.
That doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.9893807]

>>9893787
>argument from personal incredulity

[Anonymous No.9893809]

>>9889689
Solar shade at L1.
Next question?

[Anonymous No.9893820]

>>9893807
There is no scientific proof that Humans are the cause of climate change. There is also nothing that shows us that we could prevent global warming if we tried.

[Anonymous No.9893824]

>>9893288
Give more countries access to nuclear power, which is what we are trying anyway.
China and India already do use it and places like Egypt, Iran and some other regional players are currently trying to get into it.

[Anonymous No.9893829]

>>9893288
>Paris accord was designed to funnel money to those countries for a reaso
No it wasn't. If you think that shit agreement was anything other than a scam to line to pockets of a few people then you're mistaken.

[Anonymous No.9893831]

>>9893312
>You're highly qualified to work in the current administration
Why because he's a realist?

[Anonymous No.9893832]

>>9893820
>ignoring this whole thread
Okay there champ
Here's your participation medal

[Anonymous No.9893833]

>>9893831
>has nothing to say about the point at hand
>employs whataboutism
>makes one a realist
Thanks for clarifying.

[Anonymous No.9893868]

>>9893793
>>9893831
>realist
how presumptuous of you

[Anonymous No.9893874]

>>9893312
>whataboutism
thank god for this word, it made spotting psueds oh so easy

[Anonymous No.9893891]

>>9893784
That theory isn't widely agreed upon, even the linked article contains multiple dissenting opinions from credible sources.

[Anonymous No.9893934]

>>9893891
So the water hasn't heated up?

[Anonymous No.9893936]

>>9893934
http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/

[Anonymous No.9893942]

>>9893936
its the exact same story but this one has less scientific rigour than the national geographic one. I'm not disputing climate change or warming oceans, I'm not disputing anything. All I'm pointing out the conclusions you're drawing aren't verifiable, even the conclusions of the scientists forwarding these theories are uncertain and you're taking a big doomist leap from theirs.

[Anonymous No.9893951]

Why is the solution to climate change always "restrict the freedoms of people by bureaucratic means" instead of just incentivising/investing in terraforming technology? I don't think I have ever known anyone who is worried about climate change ever suggest some course of action other than 'delay-the-inevitable'.

[Anonymous No.9893954]

>>9893942
>theories are uncertain

sure bud, 3% don't think cigarettes cause cancer either
talk about the Boiling frog

[Anonymous No.9893961]

>>9893951
To make investment in technologies they need to be made competitive for investment, the ways these are done is by governments taxing bad behavior to promote good behavior and offering subsidies to develop this technology, subsidies sourced through taxing the bad behavior. Business doesn't have a moral direction, it requires government intervention. Trusting big business to do the right thing has never worked, and you can't conjure the money for investing in future technology from nothing.

>>9893954
You should help solve the carbon problem by killing yourself.

[Anonymous No.9893967]

>>9893961
>big business

[Anonymous No.9894024]

>>9893747
>>9893766

> 3.8W/m2 total variation.
Now multiply that with the surface of the earth, morons. See the total energy balance, idiots. Only 0.9W/m2 is absorbed by the earth and contributes to the so called "global warming" you talk so much.

Jeez you are such idiots. Btw, you do know that even without the Sun you could have warming, right? The nuclear thorium and uranium reactions happening inside earth's core release a lot more than you think. It's almost half of the total energy received directly from the Sun. Venus is much more colder than expected (-157 Celsius) but you morons don't ask yourselves why. Do the math.


>>9893809

I had exactly the same idea in 2005. You need a 500 km array orbiting around L1 to deflect or absorb 0.5% of the total radiation. That could trigger ice ages (the big ones, correlated with Jupiter's orbital plane - every 26.000 years), and small ones as well (the ones that appear every 8-10.000 years).

0.5% is enough. You don't need much more than that, because the whole Earth will be in penumbra (think of a partial eclipse of the Moon).

[Anonymous No.9894028]

>>9894024
>Venus -157 C

[Anonymous No.9894059]

>>9894024
>if we didn't have the sun
>we could have warming
>warming
I suppose being as "warm" as pluto could be pleasant until all the nitrogen and carbon dioxide snows finally finished falling

[Anonymous No.9894160]

>>9893597
That's not geo-engineering. Literally what I said.

[Anonymous No.9894168]

>>9893784
Europe is a freak accident of climate. Your weather shouldn't exist and you are on borrowed time. Maybe that's why they are flooding refugees in, they know the current that keeps Europe warm is about to get interrupted by ice cap meltage, and thus another European ice age with millions of them trapped in the north.

[Anonymous No.9894170]

>>9890489
You're blaming the wrong people. Regular Joe's impact on climate and wastes is not so great. The real enemy is capital that tries to outgrow itself, to expand beyond all borders. It will eventually collapse and bury us all in another World War. This War had already began, in the Middle East, in the North Africa.
But if we lucky enough not to extinct, we may just build normal people society after the War.

[Anonymous No.9894201]

>>9893625
>Bonds were exceptional at raising funds for WW2 and had little impact on low income families.
Gee I wonder why they worked for WW2. And this doesn't respond to what I said. Bonds are just loans that have to be played back with tax dollars.

>You can reduce costs by stop giving out free defense services and humanitarian handouts to the rest of the world. If you think that is a trivial sum, you are wrong.
Total foreign military and humanitarian aid is about $50 billion. It will take trillions to replace fossil fuels if their price remains low.

>Anyway you tax the hydrocarbon up the chain is going to be passed on to the little man in terms of cost of living, it’s like taxing food.
Food is taxed though. People with low income get welfare tied to the cost of living. You're only reason for not having a carbon tax is that it makes poor people suffer, this is not necessarily true. Not that even care since you don't have a problem with eliminating $40 billion in humanitarian aid.

[Anonymous No.9894206]

>>9893795
>LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU
Great argument.

[Anonymous No.9894214]

>>9894024
>4.543 billion year old planet
>Have multiple extinction level events caused by natural planetary processes.
>Even have several cataclysmic events caused by planetary and extraplanetary processes.
>Wealthy elite hatch plan to tax retards making retards believe they are responsible for something that has happened historically without said retards.
>Approach it from emotional appeal of higher moral authority.
>Retards that feel instead of think eat these appeals up and use them to gain a self-warranted feeling of superiority over those they are inferior to. This is the stepping stone they've needed their whole life to be better!
>Retards latch onto said stepping stone and never let go.
>Retards double down on stepping stone and build entire stepping stone based identity.
>Retards never realize stepping stone is really just a pit that has trapped them in order to be exploited by wealthy elite.

Liberals everyone! Born to feel!

[Anonymous No.9894257]

>>9889689
>What now?
Buy stock in construction companies?
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article129284119.html

[Anonymous No.9894350]

>>9894257
>Muh rising see levels

[Anonymous No.9894376]

https://jamiemataac1.blogspot.com/2018/04/introduction.html List of all blogs for programming, engineering, storytelling..etc...

[Anonymous No.9894613]

>>9894214
According to you effectively the entire scientific community consists of "retards that feel instead of think". What do you think is more likely: all of the educated people who spend all their time on this are wrong, or all of the illiterates who spend no time on this are wrong?

[Anonymous No.9894738]

>>9894613
Who are these people? Can you give me some names? Backgrounds? Levels of credibility? Backing evidence? Counterpoints that have been effectively dispelled? Where is the substance? I never see any hard evidence, only feel good bullshit documentaries and screaming leftists

[Anonymous No.9894756]

>>9893485
>technology that doesn't exist RIGHT NOW is completely impossible to make and can never ever never ever be made ever
WHAT DO YOU THINK RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IS FOR, YOU AUTOFLAGELLATING SHITGOBLIN

[Anonymous No.9894768]

>>9894738
quiet goy

[Anonymous No.9894832]

>>9894738
Googling "climate science research" will yield dozens of relevant credible organizations: hadley, NASA, tyndall, USGS, various professional organizations like ACS, AMA, AMS, national academy of sciences. The list goes on and on and those are all western and American sources. That you are too much of an idiot to do your own research before forming an opinion does not mean you are right. It means anyone can dismiss you offhandedly because youve not provided any evidence.

[Anonymous No.9894889]

>>9894832
>Tells me to Google shit instead of providing credible sources that he used to formulate his opinions.
>Then proceeds to chastize me for my reasoning without providing a single legitimate counterpoint
Ladies and gentlemen! We have a shill!

Nobody is denying climate change is happening. Nobody is denying that man doesn't emit and it has an effect, however small that effect is. People are denying that the planets climate is changing directly due to man made emmissions and farming. People are also denying that taxing small powerful nation's is better than slamming tarriffs on irresponsible shit tier countries. You might be too smart to see that though, right?

[Anonymous No.9895007]

>AGW
No.

[Anonymous No.9895120]

>>9894889
1) People do deny climate change
2) People do deny AGW
3) AGW is demonstrably a significant causal factor for climate change based on semi black body radiation experiments and our knowledge of gas laws. If you disagree with that you better take the insulation out of your walls, the sheets off your bed, and the jacket off your back.
5)Economists dont agree on economic dynamics, laymen certainly dont. Meaning they are extremely unqualified to debate the subject.
6)"Irresponsible shit tier countries" constitutes every developed nation in the world.

You asked me to give you sources to support my claim that virtually all scientists agree AGW is real. So I did, how exactly have I not offered a legitimate counterpoint? Why dont you provide me with contradictory evidence on the same scale as I have. All that is left for you to do is read the material and brush up your physics education where necessary, which is something I literally cannot do for you.

[Anonymous No.9895131]

>>9895120
"virtually all" is not a source
it is not data either, it's immaterial appeal to authority, where you haven't even numbered the amount of authority figures that support it, or any evidence that there is a majority support at all
are you still using the "97% agree" point that got debunked literal years ago?

[Anonymous No.9895132]

>>9889689
It's not "too late to do anything," it's never too late to lessen the future impacts.

[Anonymous No.9895137]

>>9895132
it's also never too late to do something genuinely fucking productive, and manually and directly repair the damage instead of sending standard of living into the shitter so street shitters can have "their turn"

[Anonymous No.9895311]

>>9895131
>anon gives evidence
>"but what about..."

>>9895137
>sending standard of living into the shitter so street shitters can have "their turn"
>so street shitters can have their turn
>employs speculation, and appeal to an unverified motive

[Anonymous No.9895326]

>>9894756
What are you talking about retard? Where did I say that?

[Anonymous No.9895340]

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/14/17445622/direct-air-capture-air-to-fuels-carbon-dioxide-engineering

The long-term plan is to decarbonize energy production and then use negative emissions to draw the excess carbon out of the atmosphere. It is, in fact, possible to reverse global warming. Some damage will be done, true, but there is a way forward.

[Anonymous No.9895359]

>>9895131
>"virtually all" is not a source
Youre right, but the names I listed here are
>>9894832
>where you haven't even numbered the amount of authority figures that support it
Just from that list there are at least 8 large credible institutions, I didnt cherrypick them there were literally the first ones that showed up upon a cursory search.
>or any evidence that there is a majority support at all
See above
>"97% agree"
I didnt cite a number, I said virtually all because I dont know of a single credible scientific organization who denies AGW, I dont know of a single scientist who wholesale refutes AGW.

Youre trolling or outright retarded at this point.

[Anonymous No.9895407]

>>9895340
Even if we returned to pre-industrial levels of carbon tomorrow, it will take decades for the planet to reorient itself. I'm not saying it won't work long term, but saying 'some damage will be done' is putting it mildly. The article you've linked puts a stop on the idea that carbon capture will fix the problem, it is no where near the scale it needs to be and the likelihood of it getting to scale in a time to make a difference is highly unlikely. For whatever reason economists don't consider human survival a worthwhile long term investment.

[Anonymous No.9895438]

>>9895407
Economist are the cheerleaders of consume.

[Anonymous No.9895442]

>>9895407
The only reason economists even care about climate is because it might slow down their ability to consume/pollute. It's like cancer cells coming to the realization that they're killing their host - but they can't change what they are.

[Anonymous No.9895475]

>>9895407
It's not at the scale it needs to be YET. But the technology does work, as the demo plants have shown. We could power it on a massive scale using nuclear power to make it completely carbon-negative.

And if we can lower carbon back to acceptable levels, the ice will start to reemerge in the Arctic and Antarctic, which will amplify the cooling as the Earth's albedo increases.

Obviously we need to stop emitting carbon dioxide, period. But negative emissions technology offers us the possibility of not only preventing further damage to the atmosphere, but of repairing the damage we've already done. It gives me grounds to be optimistic.

[Anonymous No.9895484]

How about stop burning shit for starters.

Future generations are going to look at our carbon the way we look at boomers' economic practices. ...fuuuuuuuck

Do you want to get absolutely BTFO'd every time some punk kid tips his hypervisor and says "muh oil" while you're trying to get the prune juice? fuck no. I don't.

[Anonymous No.9895491]

>>9895475
We can only hope some government or billionaire sees the self-interest in industrial, clean carbon sequestering. I know Bill Gates is putting a lot of money into it.

The greatest irony is that India and China, the biggest polluters right now, are taking this shit more seriously than the US.

[Anonymous No.9895505]

>>9895491
The best part about direct air capture is that you can do it from anywhere. It doesn't have to be situated near the site of the carbon emissions because it pulls the carbon from the atmosphere itself. So you could have a nation that decarbonizes AND that captures carbon, and it would have a doubly positive impact on the atmosphere.

Maybe the Europeans will do it, or the Chinese.

[Anonymous No.9895513]

>>9895120
Do you think that scientists truly have an understanding of how Earth's climate really works? Several hundred years ago, scientists believed the Earth was flat. Several hundred before that they believed it was geocentric. Of you want to see how expert opinions change over the course of time, go look at the reasons for circumcision for the last 100 years. " But they are doctors! And most agree on why it should be done!" These are experts in their field, and they can't even nail down a reason for performing surgery on an infant.

My point is, just because someone is in a professional, or is solely dedicated to researching something, doesn't mean they know anything. They have numbers and observations, and they choose the most reasonable sounding hypothesis and test it. There is one funny buzzword that gets thrown in climate change arguments when you look up the facts. "2000-2009 was the hottest decade (((on record)))." Hmm, ok, sounds reasonable. What else "models successfully reproduce temperatures back to (((1900)))." So.. we really don't have that much data. The linear regression they performed matches the trends for the last 100 years... What about before 1900? Surely we were recording temperature prior to 1900. Why don't the models accurately depict that? Well, this is all already starting to fall apart. Maybe these guys don't know what they are talking about, even though they are the experts and believe in what they're saying. Maybe Al Gore got them with some feel good solutions to a problem that seems real when you don't think about it..

[Anonymous No.9895515]

>>9895491
That's because cities in those countries are absolute shit with pollution because they are the main contributors of shit ecological policy. The air in the worst cities there is considered a health hazard.

[Anonymous No.9895517]

>>9895513
>Several hundred years ago, scientists believed the Earth was flat.
No they didn't. Literally all our navigation tools from as much as 2000 years ago are reliant on a spherical earth. No credible scientist has believed the earth was flat since the era of ancient Rome.

[Anonymous No.9895525]

>>9895517
>>9895513
If you don't believe the scientists, you know who you should believe? Insurance agencies and the military industrial complex. Both recognize anthropocentric climate change as a real thing having a direct impact on our lives. Neither of them are known for fucking around or being lead by green movements.

[Anonymous No.9895565]

>>9895517
Just because a tool exists doesn't mean people know how to use it or why it works... Do you know how a computer works? Do you know how and why GPS works? Do you know how your smart phone communicates on a carrier network? If yes for those, do you know how to write a program that calculates the shortest route between point a and b whole driving, taking traffic reports into consideration, and also memory and processor usage, while not creating an unoptimized piece of garbage?

Even if you did know how these things work, you have to understand thatost people dont know and don't care to know, but they still use them effectively every day.

Also, there are people today that believe the Earth is flat.

Until you start posting some convincing sourced evidence, I will assume you are a faggot larper catfishing with bs information.

[Anonymous No.9895567]

>>9889692
this

[Anonymous No.9895570]

>>9889880
>he believes in "global warming"
>believing a jewish lie.
i laugh at you

[Anonymous No.9895574]

>>9895007
awesome science there anon
thanksthanksthanks for your contribution

[Anonymous No.9895597]

>>9895513
>Do you think that scientists truly have an understanding of how Earth's climate really works?
They understand enough to make the conclusions they make. Why do you think they don't?

>Several hundred years ago, scientists believed the Earth was flat. Several hundred before that they believed it was geocentric.
Exactly, so when they say it's not flat and the universe isn't geocentric, we can't trust them right?

>What about before 1900? Surely we were recording temperature prior to 1900.
Temperature measurements weren't standardized until the late 19th century.

>Why don't the models accurately depict that?
Why do you think they don't.

>Well, this is all already starting to fall apart.
Your criticisms are very naive. You clearly know nothing about climatology yet believe you understand it enough to dismiss it. Ironic.

[Anonymous No.9895630]

>>9895513
>Do you think that scientists truly have an understanding of how Earth's climate really works? Several hundred years ago, scientists believed the Earth was flat.
This is factually incorrect but even if it were true consider : for a board dedicated to science and math there are many posters like you who apparently have no idea what natural philosophy is and why it matters. It doesnt matter that science isnt right 100% of the time, the alternative is to just say "its magic" which is useless. As for the rest of your post, the timeline we are interested in is 1900 onwards because that is when we started dumping Co2 into the atmosphere in truly large and ever escalating quantities.

[Anonymous No.9895636]

>>9895505
don't get too hyped. the Iceland pilot scheme worked, and everything suggests it can be scaled up effectively, but we're a long way, possibly decades, from that being implemented.

[Anonymous No.9895638]

>>9895565
None of this has anything to do with the factual statement that we have known the world was a spheroid since at least ~200 BC with Eratosthenes calculation of the planets circumference.

[Anonymous No.9895646]

>>9895636
Which is why we still have to stop emitting carbon, or at least become carbon-neutral as a civilization. But once we do that we can go further and take the carbon out of the atmosphere.

Here's an analogy: manmade CO2 emissions are like piss on the floor. It's bad to piss on the floor, and we shouldn't do it. But there's already a lot of piss on the floor as it stands. It's important to stop pissing on the floor and adding to the piss that's already there. But we would still be stuck with piss all over the floor even if we stopped. Now, though, we have a mop and a bucket, and once we've stopped pissing on the floor we can use the mop to clean up the piss that's already there.

[Anonymous No.9895660]

>>9889692
...And live again! The apocalypse will be fun, cheer up mate.

[Anonymous No.9895661]

>>9895646
moving to a 100% carbon neutral civilization isn't likely on account of the developing world, livestock and agricultural practices, international transportation, and most importantly the construction industry. We could apply wide-scale carbon capture to help wean us off dirty energy sources as we transition to renewables, and get us moving into the direction of carbon negatives. We kind of have to do both at once, since the timeline doesn't permit us any leeway in 'waiting' for a full transition of the industry.

we're just now getting effective storage capacity for renewable sourced energy, all the solutions to the other problems are barely in their infancy.

we also need to get into office the political leadership that will make clean energy and carbon removal effective. unfortunately carbon capture has a bad reputation because of its early support by clean coal lobbyists.

this is also ignoring the need for more food and water past our current levels while our current levels of both are currently starting to diminish. that's not even factoring in climate denying lobbyists and the like.

you're making it sound easier than it is. I'm not a doomist declaring it impossible or too late, but let's not get too optimistic either.

[Anonymous No.9895911]

>>9889880
Yes you are

[Anonymous No.9895913]

>>9893832
No I saw the attempts to try and push the nonsense.

[Anonymous No.9895915]

>>9893833
The point at hand is based on pseudo science.

[Anonymous No.9895916]

>>9893934
Not really

[Anonymous No.9895962]

>>9895915
>it's a pseudo science because personal incredulity episode

[Anonymous No.9895968]

>>9895916
https://youtu.be/b_l4zi4p9WI?t=1m35s

[Anonymous No.9895980]

Kill all amerifats in revenge.

[Anonymous No.9896031]

>>9895661
>unfortunately carbon capture has a bad reputation because of its early support by clean coal lobbyists
Why does that matter? As long as it's carbon neutral there shouldn't be a problem right? Then again, that technology is pretty expensive at $100/ton of CO2. Planting trees seems like a better idea considering they can sequester 1 ton of CO2 each and probably cost less than $100!

[Anonymous No.9896082]

>>9896031
>Then again, that technology is pretty expensive at $100/ton of CO2
Originally it was estimated at closer to $600 a ton so that;s a big drop. It's a whole lot more competitive than initially thought.

>Planting trees seems like a better idea considering they can sequester 1 ton of CO2 each and probably cost less than $100!
Planting trees is a good idea, but there are a couple of reasons its not the sole solution. First is that trees are environmentally sensitive and making sure they grow to an appreciable size is an investment in energy and water. You need to match trees to their environment and manage them in dry seasons to avoid out of control wild fires. You need to make up for tree cover lost in land clearance. And not all trees are as good at capturing carbon. It's definitely necessary to reforest as much of the planet as we can and try to limit future land clearance. It's part of the answer but not the only one.

The solutions to climate change are going to be multifaceted and they need to be dynamic, able to meet changing environments. A combination of reforestation and direct carbon capture would be more effective than just one or the other.

[Anonymous No.9896124]

>>9893936
>>9893784
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/new-study-blaming-warming-on-disrupted-atlantic-flow-has-scientists-grumpy/

Leading climate scientists strongly disagree with the findings of that study

>They say the idea that slowing circulation would accelerate warming rather than cool the North Atlantic runs counter to so many studies that it enters “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” territory. But, they argue, there's a complete absence of key evidence: “Chen and Tung do not show any models simulations either to provide evidence that their mechanism can actually work, neither do they discuss the various published model results that have come to the opposite conclusion.”

Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf are the furthest thing from global warming skeptics in existence, and if they're calling bullshit, its most likely bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9896134]

>>9893891
>That theory isn't widely agreed upon
Behold a true climate "scientist" wielding his most favourite tool - consensus. While consensus holds no weight in science, it is among the most powerful tools in climate "science", apart from conveniently ignoring empiric evidence that doesn't agree with consensus, relying on ensembles without understanding them, and other tools of deception.
See, the argument against the theory is this: it produced no model to test its predictions and is contradictory to some models currently being used.
Not some bullshit about consensus.

[Anonymous No.9896143]

>>9896082
$100 per ton is the cost of capturing it and then selling it as fuel. This does not reduce carbon in the atmosphere at all. It's just an expensive way of producing fuel.

[Anonymous No.9896167]

>>9896134
>While consensus holds no weight in science
I'm curious what makes you think this is true. If the conclusion of the vast majority of studies holds no weight, how can the conclusion of any study hold weight?

[Anonymous No.9896207]

>>9895491
> The greatest irony is that India and China, the biggest polluters right now, are taking this shit more seriously than the US.

Do you have any confirmation to that? The last thing I heard, is that china's farmers using a lot of last-resort antibiotics on cattle which causes the last-resort antibiotics resistance in bacteria.

[Anonymous No.9896212]

>>9896167
What makes me think this is true is the progress we've made so far as humanity. There once was a consensus that the sun orbits the earth even though there was evidence for the contrary.
If your theory yields models that all fail unless you rape statistics so that your ensemble somewhat agrees with carefully picked evidence, you fuck right off and find a new theory to test. Alarmists or deniers, both utterly failed so far - it doesn't matter in the slightest who is a bigger failure. Climate science is the only field where you see people desperately clinging to their favourite theory despite its obvious failures. It's a cult, not a science, on both sides.

[Anonymous No.9896229]

>>9889689
>another Permian Great Extinction will happen in your lifetime

Would be amazing just to see all the retards completely destroyed.

[Anonymous No.9896314]

>>9896134
>apart from conveniently ignoring empiric evidence that doesn't agree with consensus
What evidence has been ignored?

>relying on ensembles without understanding them
What are you referring to?

>it produced no model to test its predictions and is contradictory to some models currently being used.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Many models based on our current understanding of radiative forcings have been created and are very accurate. Pic related is CMIP3.

[Anonymous No.9896317]

>>9896229
>Would be amazing just to see all the retards completely destroyed.

And this is a Good thing!
Here's why:
Brainlet Genocide

[Anonymous No.9896327]

>>9896212
>There once was a consensus that the sun orbits the earth even though there was evidence for the contrary.
I don't think comparing medieval astronomy to modern science is a fair comparison. But even if it was, this argument fails since it demands that we reject the current consensus that the earth revolves around the sun. If you have any evidence against the current consensus, I suggest you present it. Otherwise you're just tilting at windmills.

>If your theory yields models that all fail unless you rape statistics so that your ensemble somewhat agrees with carefully picked evidence, you fuck right off and find a new theory to test.
I don't understand what you're referring to. Can you be more specific?

>Climate science is the only field where you see people desperately clinging to their favourite theory despite its obvious failures.
The theory hasn't failed though. It's currently our best understanding of the climate and produces activate projections.

[Anonymous No.9896329]

>>9896314
Earth was warmer during Viking Age

[Anonymous No.9896340]

>>9896329
ooooooh
europe is whole world !

[Anonymous No.9896362]

>>9889866
kikes gonna kike

>>9893288
colonization

[Anonymous No.9896395]

>>9896362
>colonization
how about killing climate change deniers instead? Some crazy alt right nigger mentioned killing people as a realistic alternative. Should be held to their own standards

[Anonymous No.9896414]

>>9896329
Wrong. Your graph appears to be from a single ice core from a single location and the time axis is wrong. The actual data ends before the 20th century. The medieval warm period was barely noticeable globally and is dwarfed by modern temperatures.

[Anonymous No.9896422]

>>9896414
Ask people in Leningrad during blockage (1941-1944) what are they thinking about temperature. Also ask German soldiers, who froze to death.

[Anonymous No.9896425]

>>9896422
>it's snowing outside my window, global warming BTFO
Just stop.

[Anonymous No.9896451]

>>9896395
IF WE ARE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE WE MUST SECURE THE USE OF THE PROVISIONS.
IF WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE FATHER TO THEIR NATIONS THEN THEY SHOULD FOLLOW THE ORDERS.
what standards: the one you are pushing on me based on a label you cooked up on your head?
kek.
kys instead.

[Anonymous No.9896456]

>>9896451
>being a sack of shit
just treating you how you treat others, friend :-)

[Anonymous No.9896656]

>>9896134
Consensus is literally all that matters in science you absolute dolt. Nothing can be truly proved so weight of evidence is king.

[Anonymous No.9896664]

>>9896656
The brainlet is committing an equivocation fallacy anyway

[Anonymous No.9896669]

>>9896422
This has nothing to do with the data. Congrats on being a retard.

[Anonymous No.9896675]

>>9896664
Using words properly is not an equivocation.

[Anonymous No.9896677]

>>9896669
whataboutery is all they have

[Anonymous No.9896686]

>>9896677
You literally just "whatabouted" when I said that consensus is king by deflecting to semantics about the use of the word prove. I see you arent interested in an unambiguous, genuine, intellectually honest discussion.

[Anonymous No.9896692]

>>9896656
so earth isn't a globe because there's the 3% of idiots?
>hurr durr

[Anonymous No.9896714]

>>9896692
I dont recall saying 100% consensus was all that mattered. Check your reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.9896720]

>>9896134
>>9896656
>>9896314
>>9896167


>Physicist Richard Feynman Discredits Greenhouse Gas Theory

http://principia-scientific.org/physicist-richard-feynman-discredits-greenhouse-gas-theory/

[Anonymous No.9896752]

>>9896714
>Consensus is literally all that matters

try some writing comprehension next time

[Anonymous No.9896756]

>>9896686
I was talking about the person you were replying to, you absolute dolt

[Anonymous No.9896762]

>>9896675
>equivocation fallacy
>revising history
toppest kekles

[Anonymous No.9896794]

>>9896752
>tfw when you are illiterate
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

[Anonymous No.9896799]

>>9896756
Sorry just based on where your post comes up chronologically I thought you were another anon

[Anonymous No.9896835]

>>9896794
do your own homework

[Anonymous No.9896836]

>>9896720
Link to the actual cal tech record next time. Because the authour of that article has an agenda to push in the very first line
>"The great physicist Richard Feynman adds to three other giants of physics, Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot,..." Feynman died in 1988 and the rest of then in the 19th century. So to say he is joining them as if its some kind of supportive evidence of a social discussion 30 to 100+ years later is retarded, keep in mind this article was published in 2017.

To the actual lecture though. Its an alternative modelling demonstrating problems with applying classical mechanics to semi black body radiation in particular to explain the green house effect. Having more models is generally good but because there isnt any way to test climate models going into the future without rendering the discussion meaningless save as an academic curiosity it doesnt address the core problem. That being there is enough evidence to suggest that AGW may be the principal cause of global warming, and so you end up with a choice of roll the dice and hope you are right its not us or take the precautions anyways in the event it is us.

[Anonymous No.9896839]

>>9896835
Definition of consensus
...
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned the consensus was to go ahead
...
>most
At this point you are arguing black is white

[Anonymous No.9896861]

>>9896839
>you
most of you?

[Anonymous No.9896863]

>>9896839
here is your (most of You)

[Anonymous No.9896893]

>>9896863
Thanks, maybe in the future you wont start pointless off topic arguments with people that can be fact checked in less than 20 seconds.

[Anonymous No.9896899]

>>9896893
>fact checked
kek

[Anonymous No.9896921]

>>9890042
I'm in the comfy green part, get fucked

[Anonymous No.9897274]

>>9896720
>Physicist Richard Feynman Discusses a Toy Model
Fixed that for you.

[Anonymous No.9897462]

>>9889689

The ozone layer is kill

I swear, i dont remember the fucking sun being so fucking bright when i was younger...

Fuck, i used to sell door to door cable subscriptions IN THE FUCKING BLAZING SUN back when i was living in beaner land (the city's fucking slogan being we beat the dessert...) and I dont remember it being this fucking unbreable.

Walking for more than 2 miles in the texan heat feels like a fucking penance (more if you arent wearing long sleave), i use to walk for 8 fucking hours offing shitty internet and cable packages, and i could bear it back then, now i cant bear this fucking sun light.

[Anonymous No.9897469]

>>9897462
Anecdotal but I feel this too. The Texas heat is impossibly punishing. I feel like I'm in a fucking oven.

[Anonymous No.9897493]

>>9897462
Its coming back slowly, the hole is over Antarctica. So a bunch of penguins are getting melanoma.

[Anonymous No.9897533]

>>9890042
I'm not even on this future map, cool

[Anonymous No.9897716]

>>9897462
>>9897469
>>9897493
The ozone layer doesn't make you feel less heat, dullards

[Anonymous No.9897749]

>>9889689
Stop believing its real

[Anonymous No.9897823]

>>9889689
Here in murica the public doesn't believe in your marxist teachings, therefore it doesn't exist
>>9897749
Perhaps if we pray to god, he will collectively remove the idea from your minds, then it'll stop, and you can be as comfy as us.

[Anonymous No.9897836]

>>9897716
No, ozone does absorb the sun's radiation, but destruction of the ozone layer(not in Antarctica) hasn't been a problem since the 80s, for the most part it's repaired itself since then. In fact people are having problems with ground level ozone due to increased uv radiation.

[Anonymous No.9897976]

>>9897836
no

[Anonymous No.9898017]

>>9897716
>i cant bear this fucking sun light

[Anonymous No.9898043]

>>9889689
>What now?
Party like it's 1999

[Anonymous No.9898384]

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/cruise-ships-polluters-ocean-sewage-particulates/

Daily reminder to ban cruise ships

[Anonymous No.9898401]

>>9895565
Your entire post verbal diarrhea without an ounce of critical thinking put behind it.

[Anonymous No.9898406]

>>9890476
A solar shade is a feasible solution.

[Anonymous No.9898419]

>>9889689
Wireless devices and other measures will ensure sub- or infertility for most of the current generation. Rapid depopulation is the only feasible solution, anyone who thinks the ultra-rich aren't aware and willing to do this is a fool. Population is the root cause of climate change, and always has been. eg Bill Gates a while back said "if we do a real good job on new vaccines, we can soon reduce population by at least 15%". It is unclear what he meant.

The cattle have completed the infrastructure needed for this depopulation period, and what comes after. They are no longer needed. Like pieces on a board they are sacrificed. This is the likely outcomes. Whether methane etc release from polar melt has truly reached the point where it is self sustaining, I don't know. Whether climate change is actually a large scale plot to bring about a new order of social control, I don't know, though it seems unlikely.

Anyway. That's what's going on right now. Toxicity of the average person's everyday environment has reached an all time high. No matter what you were taught or where you think you are.

[Anonymous No.9898423]

>>9898419
>tfw been nutting in gf every night for over a year unprotected and she still isn't pregnant
>both of us are on some sort of electronic device 70% of the time

You may be on to something desu.

[Anonymous No.9898429]

>>9898419
>It is unclear what he meant.
It's perfectly clear what he meant. Fertility rate and the number of children born in a country drops as a country develops and becomes healthier. There is a direct link between lowering infant mortality and stabilizing population growth. Once families realize their children are likely to survive into adulthood, they start having less children in general. Even our biology recognizes it, and both men and women experience a fertility drop.


> Whether methane etc release from polar melt has truly reached the point where it is self sustaining, I don't know

The clathrate gun hypothesis is a fringe theory.

[Anonymous No.9898466]

>>9898423
It's been well researched. Sperm are messed up in various ways by wireless devices, with reduced motility and DNA damage being the most common observed effects. The testicles themselves are also altered. Short term it's largely reversible, long term it is not. DNA damage in germ line cells and various degenerative features remain.

The US generally knew this back in the late 50's (witht he formation of the Tri-Service Program). It was known in Russia in the 40's, and maybe earlier. They became aware low intensity RF altered biological systems shortly after sparkgap oscillators came into existence, and they accepted and researched it widely. Which is why their exposure limit for microwave fields is quite literally 1000x lower than ours, with 10uW/cm2 peak limit for occupational exposure. The WHO vaguely mocked the Russians in their Environmental Health Criteria 16 release on the matter, stating "it would appear that the Russian and eastern european standards are meant to prevent any health effects". Like, the others are meant for something else. Like, what are you even doing Russia. It's absurd and wrong, because it's Russian. Like their mechanistic and occupational research conducted for several decades, worthless because it's foreign, weird, and Russian. That was and is the attitude, despite our own research producing the same results amidst a barrage of industry supported "research".

What are you going to believe, research from every inhabited continent of this planet over the last few decades, or propaganda from an industry calling the upcoming 5G the "12.3T opportunity". T as in "Trillion". People who can't wrap their mind around it deserve what they get. It's about time.

[Anonymous No.9898469]

>>9898429
The fertility drop is likely from industrialization and many of the aspects of "modern living", including electrification. Our history recognizes no such biologically originated fertility drop in response to crowding, but rather a natural tendency to spread out. Structural organization of society, including the notion of a family unit, naturally controls number of children.

[Anonymous No.9898471]

>>9898429
Also, being fringe is irrelevant. The mainstream is almost always net wrong and far behind the actual state of human observation and understanding. In modern times, often indefinitely. It never properly catches up.

[Anonymous No.9898475]

>>9898466
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=RFR-11_28-research-summary.pdf

[Anonymous No.9898491]

>>9898475
Yep. Nothing mysterious. Well researched and quite predictable, as are idiopathic failures of the thyroid gland, autonomic disruptions, altered brain function, and brain damage.

[Anonymous No.9898514]

>>9898466
So getting everyone in the world to adopt 1st world levels of consumption is essentially dealing with population growth and climate change at the same time?!?! Splendid! and super convenient for multinational corporations looking for new markets to sell stuff in too. I'm happy that you have everything figured out and that we will all be ok.

[Anonymous No.9898521]

>>9898514
One of us is not understanding the other's post. Maybe both.

[Anonymous No.9898535]

>>9889935

Crush em for margaritas?

[Anonymous No.9899234]

>>9889689
I don't know, but if there is something we could do there isn't much time left before it's too late.