If increased CO2 levels are trapping heat in the atmosphere, increasing global temperatures at an unprecedented rate, and causing the ice caps to melt, why is it that sea levels have been rising for the past 20000 years and have been rising in a predictable fashion over the last 7000 years?
Also, why do they always start their sea-level rising graphs in the middle of the Industrial Revolution?
Other urls found in this thread:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
woodfortrees.org
google.com
nasa.gov
avt.inl.gov
twitter.com
>globule warning meme
good job attracting all the /x/ shitstains on Veeky Forums retard
I made this on paint. These are real graphs I found
>Also, why do they always start their sea-level rising graphs in the middle of the Industrial Revolution?
because that's the start of the trustworthy record for sea level measurements
>and have been rising in a predictable fashion over the last 7000 years?
climate scientists don't pretend human influence is the only possible factor that could affect sea level, temperature, and ice extent/volume. the assertion is that we've been the dominant force on those things in recent history
Technology was a mistake read Theodore J. Kaczynski's* manifesto.
*Famous professor of mathematics
Sea levels also vary with the bulging up and down of plates. When there is more overall volcanic activity, especially on ocean ridges, the plates "rise" slightly. Enough to raise sea levels.
The highest sea levels ever are a combination of the rising plates and no polar ice, which allowed for things like the inland sea on north america.
But if sea levels have been rising predictably for the past 7000 years, how can we know the extent of human influence?
>Unabomber
>Famous professor of mathematics
Go back to /pol/ and worship your terrorists there
It's corollary. Higher temps means less ice. Climate change is beyond a doubt anthropogenic.
We better start taxing the oil companies then
Must be nice living a world of such ignorance where they only things in life that matter are money and an opinion of who deserves what.
But the sea levels have been on the rise since long before major human influence. If humans had gone extinct 1000 years ago, sea levels would still be higher today than they were 1000 years ago. Where is the measurable human influence on sea level?
learn what ignorance means retard. Oil companies need to be taxed for their products causing the excess CO2
You're either setting up a dumb strawman or you don't understand the nuances of economics.
Besides, in all likelihood it's already too late. We've put so many billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it made be too late to stop any serious changes.
Then why even talk about the global warming meme ?
>meme
I knew it.
It may not be too late, and we may be able to mitigate some of the effects. Also, what are the downsides of trying to improve technology, reduce pollution, etc?
Not exactly, we would need to do geoegineering to reverse the damage, but apparently those in charge don't want to solve apparently the most important issue fscing mankind. They do want your money though...
>you don't understand the nuances of economics.
>oil companies getting richer and people getting poorer is gonna stop global warming
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Are you going to stop trucking and people using cars?
"taxing oil companies" and pretending that research scientists are somehow making tons of money is the real meme.
let me know when you stop all the oil companies producing products that cause excess CO2, stop getting tax breaks and pay the price for CO2.
Then we can talk about improving.
Electric cars don't emit CO2 retardo. Burning oil does.
How obvious are you that you're defending oil companies extorting the people and not the people themselves. Who are you trying to fool exactly ?
>How obvious are you
Not obvious enough I guess.
Are you going to force people to use electric cars?
Nope. Electric cars are just better for the environment even though they're lacking the technology to be fully efficient for now.
But meanwhile we can take the proper taxation oil companies deserve and use it to fix the environment. You are against global warming right ?
There's no way you can stop China, India, and other developing nations from heavily polluting the environment. In their eyes, we went through our IR and now it's their turn
How do you charge the car?
use google sometimes
Let me rephrase.
Where do you get the electricity to charge the car?
here
That was a really mean thing to say. I'm sorry. I only talk down to people because I'm insecure. And when they bite back, I get even more insecure. It's a cycle, and it hurts, Veeky Forums. It really hurts.
From natural resources that aren't oil or emit CO2, a good example is picture related
>doesn't know how to check poster IDs
summerfag ?
here
I'm sorry I pretended to be you and called you a summerfag.
I was molested when I was a child. It has imbued me with hostility.
>doesn't know how to check poster IDs
summerfag alright
here
Sorry I pretended poster IDs exist. It's the syphilis in my brain
In terms of anthropogenic CO2 outputp, the industrial revolution didn't get going until 1945
And yet there was cooling for 37 years.
woodfortrees.org
What a fucking waste of a graph
>If you don't smoke you will still eventually die. Therefore smoking does not cause cancer.
This is how stupid you are.
>The western [sic] climate establishment says the green line causes the black line
So if I said that smoking causes cancer, that would mean that all smokers get cancer and all cancer patients are smokers?
You jumped a little ahead of yourself there, partner. Cancer isn't the only thing you can die of, and cigarettes aren't the only thing that causes cancer. You should try next time.
>From natural resources that aren't oil or emit CO2, a good example is picture related
Actually; Car engines are woefully inefficient, so electric vehicles powered by fossil-fuel electricity will still usually have lower emissions.
You've posted that graph in so many threads it's not funny, and I still haven't figured out what the fuck is going on in it.
Global warming isn't real, because short-term periods of warming exist?
>1940 to 1977
Wow, I wonder how no climatologist ever has noticed that.
Seriously, at least TRY to pick "flaws" that haven't been studied to hell with well-known explanations.
Looking at some current electric vehicles like the Roadster and Leaf, consumption is around 200 Wh for kilometer.
AP1000 nuclear reactor that has net output of 1117 MW produces around 9 TWh per year.
So a single AP1000 can power 45 billion kilometers of driving a year.
The average american driver drives 21 561 km per year. So the NPP can power the cars of around 2,1 million US drivers. With 210 million licenced drivers in the US, a 100 NPPs would be enough to power their vehicles.
Does sound a lot more than the case here in Finland, where a single NPP (EPR of 1600 MW) could easily power every vehicle and have half the capacity left-over.
Greetings everyone. I'm an Earth Science Student. I've taken courses in Hydrology, Meteorology, Oceanography, Climatology, Historical Geology, Astronomy, along with the standard Chemistry and Physics.
I am by no means an expert but I happen to know far more than almost anyone else here.
Sea levels rise because of two reasons, 1. Glacial melt and 2. Thermal expansion.
Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last glacial maximum and did so because of a natural cycle called the Milankovitch Cycle. The Milankovitch Cycle alters climate on the millennium scale. The three parts of the Milankovitch Cycle are Precesion, Orbital Eccentricity, and Axial Tilt. They force changes in the climate between 20,000 and 150,000 years.
At no point in time have modern climate scientists denied the importance of Milankovitch Cycles on modern climate, nor have they ever suggested that humans have caused changes in Earth's climate in the past which have been attributed to Milankovitch Cycles.
Just because nature can alter the climate does not mean that humans cannot cause significant measurable changes themselves through the addition of greenhouse gases. We know how and when to expect changes in the climate due to changes in Earth's orbit around the sun. None of the last century of climate changes can be attributed to Milankovitch Cycles alone. Additional forcing through the emissions of greenhouse gases must be accounted for.
It's about rate of change. We're seeing changes in sea level on a decadal scale that previously took much longer.
It takes more co2 emissions to make an electric car than it does to make and use a gas car over its lifetime.
It's like pretending to be vegetarian helps reduce carbon emissions, but the jobs created due to higher demand are even less efficient.
I wish you would think before stating your idiotic beliefs
>It takes more co2 emissions to make an electric car than it does to make and use a gas car over its lifetime.
That seems unlikely.
>Car engines are woefully inefficient
>>>>>>>batteries are efficient
U wot
That's true though. Off the top of my head, petrol engines get something like 15-20% efficient conversion, whereas batteries get more like 70-80%.
I don't think so, sounds plausible. "Green" technology is going to cause more environmental destruction that the entire green revolution did by spawning a couple billion dindus in the desert.
We live in the oil age and the majority of us will die as it declines because energy is life.
>It takes more co2 emissions to make an electric car than it does to make and use a gas car over its lifetime.
I call bullshit. Cite a source for this claim or fuck off.
Solidification of magma coupled with erosion would create a constant and consistent rise in water tables. The bigger picture could be whether more atoms escape or enter the earths atmosphere
All those rare earth metals have to mined to build those batteries which still need to be charged. All that lightweight plastic manufactured from oil. They still need rubber tires and who even knows what kind of servicing they need over a lifetime and I don't think I would want to work on that much potential energy so they probably need complete discharge before servicing. Besides, we will never replace the oil infrastructure with charging stations, they fill a niche market like the golf course or well to do elites trying to ease their conscience. It's a sick joke really, the electric car. I ain't even an oil shill. And if you think oil companies shaft their customers, take a look at privatized grids which are already aging and at full capacity in most places. Rates are going up every day, electric car is a misplaced meme.
Also, CO2 is good for the planet and living things in general. Holy shit they have really dumbed down the latest generation of consumers.
>I don't think so, sounds plausible.
It seems highly unlikely to me that batteries would cost more energy to make than a car uses in it's life. Driving uses fucktons of energy per year.
>"Green" technology is going to cause more environmental destruction that the entire green revolution did
You can't just assert shit like that and expect everyone to believe you.
>We live in the oil age and the majority of us will die as it declines because energy is life.
???
>All those rare earth metals have to mined to build those batteries
You're comparing kilogrammes of Lanthanum to hundreds of tonnes of crude oil.
And no, Lanthanum's not rare: it's more common than lead.
>All that lightweight plastic manufactured from oil.
>They still need rubber tires and who even knows what kind of servicing they need over a lifetime
All of which is true of petrol cars too, and therefore irrelevant here.
>Besides, we will never replace the oil infrastructure with charging stations, they fill a niche market like the golf course or well to do elites trying to ease their conscience. It's a sick joke really, the electric car.
That's not an argument at all.
>Also, CO2 is good for the planet and living things in general.
Jesus fuck no.
At least read the most basic information available on the subject.
Not user but,
The main problem is that batteries are very inefficient. The electricity used to charge them comes from coal mainly.
It's very easy to see that converting from a co2 source to electricity is always going to be less efficient than just using the coal.
Less dependence on oil will drastically raise the cost of production for petrol products, so it isn't a wash like you suggest.
There is literally nothing about electric cars that is viable in any way.
The only way out is to improve battery storage, which is not likely any time soon.
Don't take my word for it though, look it up. The whole idea is as laughable as carbon credits; just an attempt at moral justification by hiding the problem.
>The main problem is that batteries are very inefficient.
They're not though.
>The electricity used to charge them comes from coal mainly
That depends on the country. It's also something that can be changed (and is already changing in many places).
>It's very easy to see that converting from a co2 source to electricity is always going to be less efficient than just using the coal.
It IS very easy to see. It's also wrong.
First of all, large thermal powerstations get vastly better efficiency than small high-density ICEs. Secondly, both the batteries and the electric motors in an electric vehicle waste very little power. Thirdly, the conversion of crude oil to automotive petrol is actually very wasteful.
Given all that, 100% coal EVs are actually very similar in emissions to petrol cars. And most countries aren't 100% coal.
>Less dependence on oil will drastically raise the cost of production for petrol products, so it isn't a wash like you suggest.
I'm talking about CO2 emissions, not cost.
Also, I don't follow that logic at all: Using less oil to make petrol will make petrol more expensive, which will make cars that don't use petrol unaffordable to run? What the fuck?
>There is literally nothing about electric cars that is viable in any way.
They're already on the market, so your prediction kinda sucks.
>The only way out is to improve battery storage, which is not likely any time soon.
It's happening all the time. Not at the absurd pace of some other technologies, but it's definitely improving.
>Don't take my word for it though, look it up.
Look it up from who? Electric vehicles are a pretty widely accepted idea.
>The whole idea is as laughable as carbon credits; just an attempt at moral justification by hiding the problem.
Hiding what? And how?
>sea levels have been rising
>for the past 20000 years
[citation needed]
Batteries don't have the capacity to be commercially viable. Where we're at now, an electric car could never go cross country in a reasonable amount of time.
The fact that they're 60-70% efficient means nothing if you have to charge them every 300 miles for 4 hours.
It takes as much energy to produce a gallon of gas as it does to power an electric car for 20 miles. Since most cars get 30+ mpg, gas is more efficient.
When I talked about petrol prices increasing, I'm talking about the cost to make non fuel derivatives, so in a situation where gas is supplanted by electric, cost to make plastic and rubber increases, therfore you can't say that cost of production for similar parts between cars is equivalent.
Electric cars are on the market but they cost 50% more to buy than a hybrid or fuel efficient gas car. They can only drive about 300 miles before waiting 4-8 hours. This is why they'll never be a significant part of the market, unless battery tech improves, like I stated.
When I say hiding, I mean obfuscation of a carbon footprint to make it seem like there's a net change in co2 emissions, when there's not.
>Batteries don't have the capacity to be commercially viable.
Sure they do.
> Where we're at now, an electric car could never go cross country in a reasonable amount of time.
What is "a reasonable amount of time"? Also, rapid cross-country trips is definitely not something every car does.
>It takes as much energy to produce a gallon of gas as it does to power an electric car for 20 miles. Since most cars get 30+ mpg, gas is more efficient.
Utter Bullshit.
>When I talked about petrol prices increasing, I'm talking about the cost to make non fuel derivatives, so in a situation where gas is supplanted by electric, cost to make plastic and rubber increases,
Why would decreasing demand increase costs?
And even if it did, the plastic materials cost of a car is laughably small compared to things like fuel consumption.
>This is why they'll never be a significant part of the market, unless battery tech improves, like I stated.
Battery tech is improving.
>When I say hiding, I mean obfuscation of a carbon footprint to make it seem like there's a net change in co2 emissions, when there's not.
Electric cars don't do that though; Measuring CO2 associated with electrical demand is already common.
>
>1940 to 1977
>Wow, I wonder how no climatologist ever has noticed that.
>Seriously, at least TRY to pick "flaws" that haven't been studied to hell explained away with ad hoc, after-the-fact excuses.
FTFY
>> Look mommy! I marked up a graph. They should know that only certified Climate Change Believers can define what a trend is.
What's this? >> When we say a 'multi-decadal' pause in warming would disprove climate change, we were just joking.
Warmist definition of cherry-picking. "Any data set that would falsify Climate Change."
>If increased CO2 levels are trapping heat in the atmosphere, increasing global temperatures at an unprecedented rate, and causing the ice caps to melt, why is it that sea levels have been rising for the past 20000 years and have been rising in a predictable fashion over the last 7000 years?
lol Americans and their run-ons....
please leave Veeky Forums
Problem is that (speaking from America's point of view) backing out or down grading the reliance on oil will end up fucking up not only the transportation means but the currency of the US and EU. Before rapidly transitioning into green energy, solving the commodity backing problem of the dollar and euro should become a priority.
>climate science
>real science
pick 1
I'm just saying, if the earth was flat, why do boomerangs return when you throw them?
Please leave Veeky Forums
>run-on sentence
Stay in school.
Interesting. If I may offer a counterpoint, have you considered leaving Veeky Forums?
>sure they do
Because you say so?
>reasonable amount of time
From Chicago to Minneapolis in 6 hours
>utter bullshit
Its a fact, look it up like I did
>battery tech is improving
It hasn't improved for 20 years, that's why we're still using shit batteries in cars.
Company a buys carbon credits from b, b from c, c from a. By the time the money went full circle, nothing was saved. Electric cars are the same. They feel green but aren't.
Post some real information instead of your misinformed opinion or the discussion cannot move forward.
>Sure they do.
They don't. If they did the Tesla wouldn't weigh a billion pounds.
>What is "a reasonable amount of time"? Also, rapid cross-country trips is definitely not something every car does.
One hours tops. That would be the amount of time it takes to enjoy something to eat while waiting for the car to charge.
Proof that climate change isn't science:
>you can't falsify my cherry picked data with real data. In fact, you can't falsify my data ever because it's always on going.
You'd be better suited for /pol where you can strawman all day.
>Its a fact, look it up like I did
Any yet you posted none of the info you found.
>graph ends at 2005
... after which, guess what happens.
>woodfortrees.org
L0Lno
Lrn2astroturf fgt pls
going from bad ...
... to worse
batteries are WAY THE FUCK
more efficient that car engines, retard
Lrn2batteries fgt pls
>rare earth metals have to
>mined to build those batteries
L0Lno retard
Lrn2batteries fgt pls
>If increased CO2 levels are trapping heat
What do you mean by "if", Peasant?
>That's not an argument at all.
It IS the argument. We will not be replacing 1 billion internal combustion engines with 1 billion electric vehicles, like evar! Like I said, EV fill a niche and are actually just more Jevons paradox.
Do you think car batteries are just going to materialize because muh warmings? Do you comprehend how much oil goes into the manufacture of a single 12 volt car batter let alone some huge battery array to run and EV?
You people got your heads in the sand. At most we will see maybe 5% EV and in cities only before things really start to fall apart this century. Too many people is the problem, not CO2. That's a problem no one addresses but is really the elephant in the kitchen.
Literally takes 2 seconds to Google.
google.com
This graph assumes an average of 22 mpg, which is low desu.
Even then, gas still ties the most efficient electric cars.
Other articles present the data differently, but it all comes out the same.
You realize that the graph you linked to shows the opposite of what you're arguing, right? Learn how to read a graph.
>Contact
Increase of CO2 caused glaciers of North&South melt
>Cancer isn't the only thing you can die of, and cigarettes aren't the only thing that causes cancer. You should try next time.
Warming is not the only thing that can occur, and CO2 emmission is not the only thing that causes warming. Yet we can still measure the influence of CO2 emission on warming, just as we can measure the influence of smoking on cancer. That just proves my point you idiot.
Actually, the Antarctic ice sheets are increasing.
>What's this?
An arbitrarily chosen stage of time. You apparently are incapable of understanding the point of the post you're replying to, which is why you failed to respond to it and instead doubled down on your mistake. You can make any trend you want if you selectively ignore parts of the data. But if you look at all the data the trend is clear.
For example, if you start at 1940 and end in 1980 then you are using the prolonged El Nino of 1940 to make the data start off unusually warm. Even though most of this period was warming, the El Nino peak throws overpowers the trend and makes it seem as if this period was cooling. This is obvious slight of hand that anyone with half a brain could disprove. Yet you employ it willingly. This is the sign of a delusional psyche.
The antarctic ice sheets are not the same thing as its glaciers.
nasa.gov
>
CO2 isn't the limiting factor in plant growth around the world. You're an idiot
No it doesn't.
Slope of lines of electric and gas should be compared.
When gas is 2.60 a gallon, a 22mpg car uses the same energy as an elrctric car being powered for .10/kwh.
Right now, gas is about 2.00/gal which means an electric car would need to be supplied with power at about .7/kwh.
Since most cars do better than 22 mpg, the fuel to electricity cost is even more drastic. Gas would have to be 3.70 before electric broke even, let alone performed better.
I think it is you who can't read a graph.
lol Americans....
>Literally takes 2 seconds to Google.
>avt.inl.gov
Uh, that graph clearly shows that electric vehicles kick the ass of petrol vesicles in fuel costs.
>Slope of lines of electric and gas should be compared.
The slope of the lines should definitely NOT be compared, because they use different fucking vertical axes.
Going with the least efficient EVs, at 2mi/kWh, and a moderately efficient car, at 22mpg:
>When gas is 2.60 a gallon, a 22mpg car uses the same energy as an elrctric car being powered for .10/kwh.
Petrol: $2.60/gal / 22mpg = 12c/mi
Electric: 10c/kWh / 2mi/kWh = 5c/mi
12c/mi > 5c/mi
>Right now, gas is about 2.00/gal which means an electric car would need to be supplied with power at about .7/kwh.
Petrol: $2.00/gal / 22mpg = 9c/mi
Electric: 7c/kWh / 2mi/kWh = 3.5c/mi
9c/mi > 3.5c/mi
>Since most cars do better than 22 mpg, [...] Gas would have to be 3.70 before electric broke even, let alone performed better.
And most electric cars do better than 2mi./kWh. But even still:
Petrol: $3.70/gal / 30mpg = 12.3c/mi
Electric: 12.3c/mi * 2mi/kWh = 24.6c/kWh
Which is still nearly double the average US residential rate of 12.8c/kWh.
They gave you a pretty graph in case you were too dumb to do basic division, and you STILL FUCKED UP.
Get off Veeky Forums. Don't come back.
