Global Warming Thread

The media actually hardly talks about it compared to how big the problem really is. The media also completely ignores the ecological side and that makes the problem look not as bad

Another example
Myron ebell
Besides being a paid sociopath for big tobacco and the fossil fuels industry, that claims the endangered species act is tyrannical, he also lead Donald trumps EPA transition team.

>400 ppm

400 per 1,000,000

What is the LD50? 50,000ppm
cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html

The only people in favor of government intervention are those leftists and 3rd world pooNloo's like this fag who want to destroy your 1st world lifestyle.

Ice core data shows this is not dangerous unique or "harmful to the planet". These people are Ecoterrorists.

Quite funny to see how many people in Veeky Forums ignore the scientific comunnity and good evidence and trust "alternative facts"

Globalists and their alternative facts are scarey and not funny.
>warming
1 degree F warming +/- 3 F
>muh false equivalency
these are unrelated and also not as settled as you imply

This is why no one takes you seriously.

>Climate change is factual and humans are somewhat responsible
Climatologists agree that humans are mostly responsible for the warming trend since the industrial revolution. What information is telling you otherwise?

>but there are other factors at play and it's hard to isolate a single parameter to measure its effects.
That doesn't mean we don't know to a good level of certainty how much warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions and other forcings. We can measure that directly via radiative spectroscopy.

>It's a very normal thing that has been happening since the beginning of the earth and the rising sea levels and temperatures increases are not really worrying as "scientists" try to make everyone believe
No it's hardly normal. It's the fastest rate of warming in the paleo record. Consider that the fastest warming prior to this is interglacial warming over ten thousand years, and is an order of magnitude less than current warming. It's hardly normal for humans to pump record GHGs into the atmosphere this quickly.

>What is the LD50?
Wow I have never accused anyone of being a shill but the massive irrelevance and misdirection before your argument leads me to believe you are one.

Suppose the earth is warming! How is that a bad thing, this leads to more vegetation, sounds like a pretty good solution to population growth and deforestation

The community was overtaken by communists user. the community had a good reputation which leads to shills, just fucking shills everywhere

>climatologists
Post grad stem degree here, am i not allowed to read and interpret data like a big boy? This line of reasoning is offensive to Veeky Forums
>good level of certainty the temp increase
No you dont, the estimates are miniscule and within the margin of error for the testing instrumentation.
>Fastest warming ever
This is a lie. The 1-2 degree Fahrenheit increase over 100+ years isnt conclusively happening nor the biggest if it were

Overall you got a nice troll, but there is never raw data supporting your dire warnings to stop eating meat and driving an H2.

POO

>Suppose the earth is warming! How is that a bad thing, this leads to more vegetation, sounds like a pretty good solution to population growth and deforestation
Yes because everyone knows deserts have the most vegetation!

It's a bad thing because humans are adapted to live in a certain type of climate, and the ecology we rely on is adapted to live in a certain type of climate. If you rapidly change that climate, that ecology does not have time to adapt. This is why many of the major extinctions of the past are tied to rapid changes in the environment. Not to mention that rising sea levels will damage the infrastructure humans have built on the coast and having to shift agricultural infrastructure is costly. We know the effects will be negative, and we know that the benefits of mitigation far outweigh the costs.

oh bullshit, it's big oil using the same playbook that tobacco used earlier
Even some of the spin doctors that still are alive, are at it still, spewing shit to a new master

youtu.be/pRenGy0cg5s?t=4m

cheeky cunt, deserts can exist at any temperature, as long as their is no water, the increase in temperature would help it by accelerating the water cycle

I'm a pretty sceptical person but I think this is one of the very few topics where people, including those who work in media, are genuinely worried for the long term survival prospects of both our species and others, given we're not migrating to other planets any time soon, there already being plenty of wars and conflicts and CC is only set to make matters worse. I mean there's no shortage of corruption, greed, stupidity and whatnot in this world but even non-scientists must occasionally give thought to the distant future. Of course on the whole they keep pumping out CO2 and over consuming like there's no tomorrow but then there's every financial, social and cultural incentive to do so (Ie: how spending is massively encouraged) and somehow that just weighs more than any long term considerations, on the whole.

t. salesman who wants to sell you a farm in death valley

>Post grad stem degree here, am i not allowed to read and interpret data like a big boy?
I asked you what information is telling you otherwise. Instead of telling me you whine that I'm not allowing you to interpret it. Of course you are allowed to interpret anything you want, however if you won't share your reasoning I have no reason to believe anything you say. That's how Veeky Forums works.

>No you dont, the estimates are miniscule and within the margin of error for the testing instrumentation.
I don't know what you're even referring to. Which estimates? Which instruments?

>This is a lie. The 1-2 degree Fahrenheit increase over 100+ years isnt conclusively happening nor the biggest if it were
It is happening according to temperature record and it is the biggest according to the temperature record. Again what is telling you otherwise?

Since you won't share your data and reasoning, I'll have to assume you have none.

That's like asking why a forest fire near a village is a good thing. Yeah it clears the growth for new plants but also kill the people living there and burns down their homes.

>rising sea levels
7.3 billion fucking keks, the deserts and the soil will absorb all of the displaced water, essentially acting as dessicants.
also the water cycle will just run faster, more water in the atmosphere, more rain, said rain evaporates

death valley maybe not,
northern africa, and middle asia, hell yes

>cheeky cunt, deserts can exist at any temperature, as long as their is no water
Yes that's exactly my point. Global warming causes more water to evaporate from the soil and water sources and less regular precipitation in the world's agricultural centers. It doesn't "accelerate" the water cycle, it increases the severity of droughts and flooding in critical areas.

Forest fires occur due to sunlight not hot weather, muh activation energy faggot,
also CO2 will help with the sunlight

when did this

>7.3 billion fucking keks, the deserts and the soil will absorb all of the displaced water
Ah yes all those coastal deserts...

And yes the soil will eventually absorb the water after it floods coastal cities. That doesn't actually help at all. You have the reasoning abilities of a toddler.

>also the water cycle will just run faster, more water in the atmosphere, more rain, said rain evaporates
Yes, just look at California's ever increasing cycle of droughts and flooding to see how great it is.

turn into this

Is there a coherent point in there or are you having a stroke?

you idiot do you understand how circulation works, the increase in temperature just increases the amount of water in circulation

The point is that most of the water lies in muh oceans and that the increase in temperature just increases the distribution of rainfall

Deserts occur adjacent to mountain ranges that block water vapor from jet streams... NOT muh global warming.
>if you rapidly change the environment
You assume your theory is valid without supporting it.
>sea level
The rate of rise is less than the rate of of concrete degradation in marine environs. Literally not an argument.
This is a false equivalency logical fallacy. Conflation makes you appear dumb.
This is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.
Desert formation is actually understood. Youre wrong.
You are attempting to deny agency to anyone who's smart enough to read and interpret data. A "card carrying climatologist" would get the same fallacies and tricks thrown at him too, this can be easily observed in the media with underhanded attacks on any climatologist who doesn't say what you want. Reminds me of Google engineer who got fired for stating biological facts on gender. The left is insane and uses intellectually dishonest tactics to silence reason and truth.

No it doesn't "just" increase the amount of precipitation, it affects the timing and type of precipitation which in turn leads to droughts and floods. This was predicted by climatologists 30 years ago avid we are now living it:

news.stanford.edu/2017/03/21/heavy-california-rains-par-course-climate-change/

But it doesn't just do that. I've already explained this to you.

Entropy you nigger

>muh ice caps
Is this enough reason to abandon the 1st world and give all our food and resources to those poor african chilrrens? Is my 1st world lifestyle inherently evil? What's your end goal, to drop white nations 10 pegs down in order to raise africa and POO-istan just 1 peg?

I didnt believe them at first but /pol/ was right.

Not him but neither of you have provided sources I believe.

Pol is always right

>Deserts occur adjacent to mountain ranges that block water vapor from jet streams... NOT muh global warming.
That explains cold deserts. I'm talking about warm deserts, which cannot retain moisture due to heat. Try to keep up.

>The rate of rise is less than the rate of of concrete degradation in marine environs.
Yes because the rate of concrete degradation matters, not the actual cost of surrounding your coasts with ever increasing amounts of concrete, the production of which emits large amounts of CO2 which in turn exacerbates the problem which is being fixed.

>You are attempting to deny agency to anyone who's smart enough to read and interpret data.
You are illiterate, since I asked for the reasoning and data which led to these claims and all you retards do is whine about it Instead of telling me how the research is wrong.

You have no argument and you know it. You lose, scum.

Climatologists have not provided published data and research for their claims? I am simply asking for the reasoning and data which led him to the opposite conclusion of the published consensus.

Kill yourself.
The argument is that the heat will make water more fluid on the planet if all of the waters go to the fucking oceans then it results in massive precipitation over landmasses that don't get water and the land masses that do have water will lose water due to heat, the water will be distributed, for fucks sake please tell me you understand entropy

If that was you demonstrating your ignorance of desert formation you shouldnt pretend you are now an expert. Thanks for the laugh at your expense though.
>concrete
You keep pretending like sand and portland cement is expensive, or that inches of sea level rise is an issue, but the co2 comment made me chuckle at your naivety again..

>the earth is an isolated system.
What a moron.

What about lead gasoline?
>paradigm shifts in how diseases will spread
Last winter was mild, above average temperature and then in the spring the media was saying that insects like ticks and mosquitoes will be bad because the mild winter.

Unrelated question. what about carbon sequestration? I remember years ago seeing something in scientific american magazine like a carbon scrubber, but where is it?

It can be viewed as an isolated system being supplied with heat

>If that was you demonstrating your ignorance of desert formation
You're the moron who claimed all deserts are rainshadow deserts when in reality most deserts are not.

>You keep pretending like sand and portland cement is expensive
You keep making up strawmen. Cement and Saabs are not expensive, building barriers to prevent flooding over the entire coast is. Far more expensive than simply mitigating climate change.

>or that inches of sea level rise is an issue
Inches of sea level rise is huge, yes.

An isolated system being supplied with heart is not isolated you utter moron. And it destroys your argument that entropy on earth must increase.

The only difference between the earth and an isolated system is that the earth gets heat, fuck off with terminology, it is a system nonetheless

>The only difference between the earth and an isolated system is that it's not isolated
Wow, what an insight. You really helped your argument and convinced everyone tagging you know what you're talking about.

P.S. the earth also gives off infrared heat, you fucking dunce

>infrared
My dick also gives off infrared.
You're anal on the technical shit, you know the fucking argument you dunce entropy related, look at the earth as a whole.
The problem is that you don't want to explain to me why my reasoning is wrong

>You're anal on the technical shit
Your argument relies on the assumption that entropy on earth must increase. Clearly that is false. Your argument is not simply technically false, it's logically incoherent.

It's supposed to increase, prove that it wouldn't increase, thermodynamics nigga check em

>What do?
Produce less waste, recycle shit, etc.
Saving the planet starts at home©.

Kek

>It's supposed to increase
No it's not. Go back to high school you fucking moron. Only the entropy of the isolated system containing earth is supposed to increase, and it does, since the sun loses energy. This is elementary stuff.

>What is the LD50? 50,000ppm

What are you fucking retarded? I'd smash your head with a rock if you were anywhere near me

what fucking system containing the earth.
Earth is the system in question if the system is supplied with heat that it cannot lose according to you caggots, then entropy increases. If you say that the earth can lose the heat significantly to the universe then you don't need to worry about global warming, global warming is about trapping heat, heat Increase will go towards increasing entropy.
Go back to middle school retard

>If you say that the earth can lose the heat significantly to the universe then you don't need to worry about global warming

I guess that's why we're all frozen solid right now

The earth is being supplied with heat constantly by the sun, you caggots are saying the earth is going to have more heat than is usually supplied due to atmospheric change, what are you even on about. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling shill

>only the energy of the isolated system containing earth is supposed to increase, and it does, since the sun loses energy
jesus fucking mohammed in the benis you are retarded.

Δ S = Q ln ( T2 / T1 )

the earth is a good calorimeter, it can take in heat and keep it .

Droughts lead to famines
Famines lead to conflict
Conflict leads to displaced populations
Displaced populations lead to shitskins moving in next door to you

Well the thing is, it doesn't lead to droughts, it actually has the opposite effect I dare say

Well you're wrong about that

actually it leads to more rain, more flooding and more droughts.

Yes bb butt that's only initially, it reaches equilibrium eventually (equilibrium between dry and wet areas)

look, the heat increases the amount of water in circulation at any given instance, which may lead to a seesaw pic related is the disparity of hydration over time

The higher amount of CO2 has actually led to greening. The Earth is greener now than it has been in the past, and our CO2 level is not even particularly high compared to Earth's history. Plants love CO2.
The question is can we survive higher CO2 levels. To which I would say. Yeah. CO2 isn't harmful to humans except when there so much of it we can't get enough oxygen and we asphyxiate. And the levels of CO2 to do that are absolutely enormous. For that I point to two factor.

Greenhouses operate at 5000ppm CO2. Workers do not require breathing masks or breaks for fresh air.
Submariners. They frequently operate at 9000ppm CO2 levels. They are similarly fine.

The sea level has been steadily rising since before recorded history as well. There is no indication the rising sea levels are accelerating or increasing at anything but the same slow, steady trend under real world observation of the sea level. Computer models are not hard data and yet the models are frequently referenced in regards to rising sea levels.

This thread is just sad. I thought that the general Veeky Forums population was a little above average in terms of knowledge and common sense but god dammn i'm impressed of how bad this place is

And it's not even shitposting but people who believe they know about what they're talking like
It's just sad.

Citations
nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

climatedepot.com/2016/02/23/sea-level-expert-rips-study-claiming-fastest-rise-in-2800-years-study-full-of-very-bad-violations-of-observational-facts/

>ecoterrorists
I think that dude was shitposting

like others have said in this thread

read a fucking scientific paper. the evidence is overwhelming. 97% of scientists agree that it exists. dont buy into normy memes and get joked about by anyone with more IQ than they have chromosomes

>LD50
LD50 of inorganic lead is 70 mg/kg (using a rat model). Since it would take a whole 50 grams or so to kill you, I'm sure you won't mind if there's a few milligrams in the paint on your walls, the food you eat, and the dragon dildos you shove up your ass. after all, if it's way less than the LD50, surely nothing bad could happen as a result!

>Post grad stem degree here, am i not allowed to read and interpret data like a big boy?
post grad geoscience degree here. the problem is that you're not reading and interpreting data. you're hearing stuff that's been filtered through other sources. if you disagree, go ahead and post the primary sources from which you get your info.
>the estimates are miniscule and within the margin of error for the testing instrumentation
literally a lie. also, you don't know how MOE works with a large number of measurements.
>The 1-2 degree Fahrenheit increase over 100+ years isnt conclusively happening nor the biggest if it were
this is the fastest warming in the ice core record, to be certain.

you are both faggots. warming leads to Hadley cell expansion, which pushes subtropical deserts to higher latitudes, eating up what previously was arable land.

more evaporation != deserts suddenly getting more precipitation.

>an isolated system
>being supplied with heat
what part of the word "isolated" do you not comprehend?

>The only difference between the earth and an isolated system is that the earth gets heat
literally a lie. there is significant mass exchange between the Earth and its surroundings.

Disband the capitalist system.

Help China.

Save the planet.

Obey your leaders (not prumpf though).

Report any suspicious activity to the Authorities.

> literally a lie.
The intended idea is that it's getting a specific amount of heat and trapping it and releasing a specific amount of heat.
>significant mass exchange
is said mass exchange really significant or just minute.
>isolated
the idea is to put it in perspective, it was the wrong term to use
>muh evaporation
most of the water that will evaporate will evaporate from the oceans, and will precipitate on the deserts. resulting in the distribution of water favouring the fucking areas without water. muh water cycle

Hi lunatic

Just to elaborate on > literally a lie
the concept of a static transfer of energy being ignored in a model isn't new, it doesn't matter where the energy comes from retards, what matters are the energy levels

>400 ppm
So if that is such a bad comment, make me terrified of 400 ppm. Because when put into perspective it sounds like nothing and then none of you even bothered to rebutt. Why is this so bad when literally nothing changes. Make me swear off my sinful 1st world life and join antifa. I'll wait.

I am as well. I've read the papers, I understand the overall theory. Know very well what the machinery of nature overall can handle and what processes can occur to bring on a chain of ecological collapse. Ocean acidification relates, rising sea levels and their economic / social impacts (read: we're animals, and we cause structural problems when resources are scarce. Mad Max style, possibly.), global cooling, etc.

All that. The overarching mechanics however, I'm uncertain about. What if this is being done, through many other means, on purpose? What if it's being misrepresented to control populations and culture in various ways, UN Agenda 21 style. Is someone benefiting, is it strictly opportunistic? Are other things that are happening an attempt to purge humans before we do any more damage
(eg cell phones, wi-fi, etc, compromising brain function, fertility, and capacity to produce viable offspring)?

There are many questions. Its purported nature is likely incomplete and disingenuous. Just like the organic market. Organic food is almost inherently superior, but it became a thing, now it's corrupted and mostly just marketing bullshit for the masses. You really have to look, and even then you generally don't know.

>The higher amount of CO2 has actually led to greening.
Which has little relevance to humans since it doesn't help agricultural production. CO2 is not the limiting factor in agriculture, and it produces warming which negatively effects the limiting factors. More CO2 will harm agricultural production:

pnas.org/content/early/2016/08/30/1606734113.full.pdf

>The question is can we survive higher CO2 levels.
No, the question is whether more CO2 will be harmful, and whether mitigating that harm is cost effective. Survival is an idiotic straw man.

>To which I would say. Yeah. CO2 isn't harmful to humans except when there so much of it we can't get enough oxygen and we asphyxiate. And the levels of CO2 to do that are absolutely enormous.
This is so braindead stupid you must be a shill. Is your brain broken? The harm from CO2 emissions is from the warming it causes, not asphyxiation. Address that and stop spreading this puerile misinformation.

>The sea level has been steadily rising since before recorded history as well.
Yes and it's rising much faster now. Funny how all of your arguments are conveniently missing key facts such that they lead to an incorrect conclusion.

CO2 is bad because of warming? There is no warming.

Did you ignore the article purporting using hard measured evidence that the sea level's rise has not been acelerrating and how the scientist is calling all the models that show that bumpkis based on faulty data models and not observed change?

>hurr you can't make me scared because it doesn't sound scary
Yeah that's the point you utter buffoon. If you are too stupid and too delusional to understand what climatologists have already explained to you in very simple terms, you are not going to be scared. Your stupidity and delusional mind do not somehow reflect on the validity of scientific facts.

If you are going to ignore basic science and data I suggest you get the fuck off this board.

The article claims Mils Axel Morner is a sea level expert when he is just a delusional individual who has been spreading the sane debunked lies for over a decade: skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html

Please don't try to pass off fringe blogs as "hard data."

Hm alright. Sorry.

>What do?

Just because Al Gore wanted to make money off of fixing the problem doesn't mean it isn't a real problem.

This guy once again completely ignored an easy question. Whats so bad about 400ppm? Seems small and insignificant considering nothing changed.

There's nothing bad about 400ppm. It's the rapid rate of warming that is harmful, not the amount of CO2.

what if the papers were written by normies though

thats because youre mentally challenged, unless your body specifically evolved to live in different conditions than the rest of the 6bil people on earth

This. There are certain things that just disqualify a paper from any kind of consideration, and this is one of them.

More research is need to determine the percentage of a given paper that was in fact generated by a normie. Only above 80% non-normie will be considered, and even then it's on thin ice.

well if this thread is anything to go by we will still be arguing over the reality of climate change when the massive impact of india, china, and brazil turning into first world nations obliterates the ecology and our civilization ends