Climate Change

Lol is Brian Cox a literal retard? He makes himself look like a child in this video and commits so many scientific fallacies

"L-l-look at my graph!!"

youtube.com/watch?v=LxEGHW6Lbu8

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration
climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockStratAerosolGeo.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yes.

anyone worried about global warming

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

I bet he blows the cox

There is a problem with climate nuts. Which is the fact they blame any environmental problem on "climate change". A tornado rips a town apart? Global warming. A hurricane hits? Global Warming. A predictable drought occurs? Global Warming.

So in their calculations of damage they attribute pretty much 100% of weather problems on global warming.

The next big error they make is basically ignoring any system besides carbon concentrations in the atmosphere and fossil fuel usage.

So they widen the scope of damages to extreme measures. They also narrow the scope of variables down to fossil fuel usage.

This is typically how a climate nut's brain patterns behave. "Attribute all negative weather to climate change and the only variable we can change is fossil fuel usage."

They don't even spend a few minutes to look into geoengineering solutions or really anything besides what reinforces their "Mayan Doomsday" predictions.

The reality is climate change is literally nothing. Carbon concentrations have been 30x higher in Earth's history and still there was no runaway greenhouse effect. Not to mention there are a multitude of cheap geo-engineering solutions to the problem.

It's literally a problem that is kept around as convenience for multiple political aims.

The natural and anthropogenic pressures negatively impacting ecosystems around the world are often exacerbated by climate change (irrespective of the magnitude of human contribution to the issue).

see latitude and altitudinal shifts in species distribution for a biotic response to changing climatic conditions.

>muh Domain-specific language to hide that I'm a piece of low IQ shit

fuck off.

No one gives a fuck about "ecosystems"

I didn't know technical terms are discouraged on Veeky Forums, google does exist m8.

(kys)

And i'm not denying that layman misinterpret things, but the same occurs for all science...

Who gives a shit whether or not humans are the main cause. Every single climate scientist will agree that the raise in temperature is a serious issue which we need to fix, regardless of cause.

Does it matter if we are causing climate change or not? Reducing pollution and finding more efficient means are worthwhile and beneficial

I'll explain.

Your post is shit. It doesn't address anything I wrote. You just stuck in big words and said jack shit.

It shows your low IQ, low intellect, and utter retarded and brainwashed way of thinking. I'll restructure your shit post even though it brings 0 to the table.

>"harm" to the environment is made worse by climate change
>to prove this go look at the changes in species distribution, which shows climate change is having bad effects

Again. Mostly nonsense and a completely LOW IQ response to my post.

I am not arguing in favor of conservation of species diversity or even of protecting "natural life". I am saying there are geoengineering methods to reduce or negate all impact of climate change. I am also saying current climate change costs are INCONSEQUENTIAL in comparison to the benefits of fossil fuel usage.

SEE:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

Climate nuts want to cause untold amounts of harm on humans justified by a doomsday view of climate change.

It's important to realize the enormous economic benefits and human health benefits we get from using fossil fuels.

It should be clear that we can not "go back" in productivity to fix this issue. Which is what majority of climate nuts want, aka mass starvation, mass poverty, and switching to technologies which are not currently able to compete with fossil fuels.

That's pretty standard ecological terminology, not my fault you haven't been exposed to it before.

I agree that how the issue is being addressed currently is missing the mark.

When I say "climate nut" I am talking about people who if we went back in time would not allow New York to be a city because of "environmental factors".

These people want to drag humanity down, reverse technological advancement, and worship low technology solutions. They somehow live a much improved life due to fossil fuels and technology but want it all ended.

It is a self-destructive impetus that drives most people in favor of extreme responses to a "climate change doomsday" scenario. Which is not good for humanity or anyone on Earth.

Electric Vehicles are NOT READY to replace internal combustion engines. Similar to most sources of power.

There is this like IQ scale. You have 70 IQ people saying Carbon concentrations in atmosphere don't do anything. 100 IQ people absolutely convinced of a doomsday scenario and feeling superior to the 70 IQ deniers. Then anyone with intelligence who can rationally see that global warming is being used as a political tool for various aims.

Fuck off back to pol.

God dammit it's so easy to spot these fucks.

Yes it's being used as a tool for profit by some, and by the genuinely ignorant too, but climate change is a very serious issue regardless of short term attempts by either side of politics trying to find an angle to manipulate to maintain power. If you want to make this your manic crusade then don't try to deny climate change when you're talking to people who's ignorance may match what you're claiming.

Just tell me all about how the climate change people are embracing geoengineering to fix the problem.

They aren't.

They actually hate the idea of technology being used to counteract carbon emissions. They only want to grandstand about how bad humans are for the environment.

There are multiple ways to cheaply solve climate change that don't effect current fossil fuel usage.

What is the very serious issue about it?

2100 sea level rises a few inches if humanity makes 0 corrective Geo-engineering measures by then?

All the mechanisms to counteract climate change exist. You can go look at any tree, 50% of it's mass is carbon. Or just look at solutions like

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)

There is no real threat from climate change.

>Doomsday scenario

>global climate becomes highly volatile
>famine, war, etc in over populated third world shit holes
>1st world countries survive because we aren't retards
>become more self-reliant resulting in a decline in globalisation (no third world to exploit)
>reduction of power of the wealthy few who benefit from globalisation
>better wealth equality throughout society due to more efficient, self-reliant systems.

Short term a lot of people will die, long term the world will be better off desu senpai.

Not to mention that a warmer earth has more available energy. Every climate with a cold winter experiences GDP losses during that season.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)
Not him but did you actually read that article? Specifically the bits about it depleting the ozone layer and having other fun consequences. That is not a solution.

Then again, you know all that. Everything about this thread is made with one thing in mind. The logical fallacies, the baseless accusations against the anons who come with real responses, the insults. 10/10, solid troll. Veeky Forums is apparently incapable of spotting such things.

>Veeky Forums is apparently incapable of spotting such things

It's good practice for getting thoughts in order though.

>possibly

A loss of biodiversity is Terible for the environment
Take for example a disaster that effects herring, in a NW Pacific Ocean ecosystem. Normally not a problem because you have other spicies that eat the krill and other small organisms but if loss of biodiversity causes the other organisms that eat krill to die, you then lose all organisms that eat krill the krill population skyrockets because there natural predators are dead. The phytoplankton that the krill eat then goes into volitility for the next couple of years because the krill population eats all phytoplankton, next year all krill starve phytoplankton go up, Ect. But all animals that eat the herring die of starvation then all animals that eat that animal die, so on and so forth. So the ecosystem collapses. You need homeostasis in an ecosystem to thrive. Also, great point.
Never seen a better argument

The ozone problem is temporary.

climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockStratAerosolGeo.pdf

The size of aerosol particles not only affects their lifetimes and effective-
ness at reflecting sunlight, but it also affects their chemical interactions that
destroy ozone. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs UV radiation from the Sun,
protecting life at the surface. Anthropogenic chlorine in the stratosphere, a
result of chlorofluorocarbon use in the troposphere (which is now severely
limited by the Montreal Protocol and subsequent treaties), is typically found
as chlorine nitrate and hydrochloric acid. However, when polar stratospheric
clouds form every spring over Antarctica, heterogeneous reactions on the
surface of cloud droplets liberate chlorine gas from the reaction between
chlorine nitrate and hydrochloric acid, and it catalytically destroys ozone,
producing the annual Ozone Hole. Ozone depletion by the same mechanism
occurs at the North Pole, but because stratospheric winds are more variable,
the vortex does not get as cold, and ozone depletion is more episodic and not
as large. As the chlorine concentration in the stratosphere gradually de-
clines, the Ozone Hole is expected to stop forming in 2050 or 2060. The
presence of an anthropogenic aerosol cloud as the result of geoengineering,
however, would allow ozone depletion to go on even without polar strato-
spheric clouds. Calculations show that the Ozone Hole would persist for two
Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering
or three decades more in the presence of geoengineering, and would even
start forming in the Northern Hemisphere in cold winters.This effect has been observed after large volcanic eruptions.

Life Adapts

Climate change isn't worse than most natural disasters.

A: Well higher carbon dioxide content could be to the fact that at one point earth didn't have photosynthetic bacteria or plants.
B: Weather patterns can be attributed to Atmospheric change
C: How does less fossil fuels set forward a political agenda

Climate Change is used as a big impetus for global government and cooperation. It creates some "problem" for the UN and other globalist agencies to work on.

See Paris/Kyoto.

>Life Adapts
Not in 100-200 years

2100-2200 we can literally just engineer whatever adaptation we want them to have.

Tell me how important "extinction" is when we can literally create any synthetic life we want.

If you are worried about extinction and lack of life diversity should synthetic biology create as many different life forms as possible?

There is nothing special about having 5 species of beetles vs 30 species of beetles in some shithole jungle.

>Let's destroy the entire planet!
>Doing otherwise would cut into profits!
>Animals? Fuck 'em, we could probably make more one day. Maybe.
How are people still falling for this troll?

>2100-2200 we can literally just engineer whatever adaptation we want them to have.

wew lad

Friendly reminder that anyone who knows anything about graphs or statistics knows that anything can be made to look more dramatic by maximizing the scale on the y-axis.

>basically ignoring any system besides carbon concentrations in the atmosphere and fossil fuel usage.
wew lad you didn't read any of the litterature

>middle east becomes uninhabitable
wait a minute...