Climate change

>man-made climate change
>undeniably true
FTFY

The Netherlands has spent the entirety of its existence under sea level, not getting flooded. Nothing we can do will ever put them under water.

Climate change is caused by change in the solar magnetic field which effects how many cosmic rays enter our atmosphere which heavily influences the rate of cloud formation and you're a filthy chink trying to steal our jobs

What's causing global warming?

the Sun

No.

Next.

It's undeniably true according to isotopic analysis that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily due to human activities.

>not wanting to live in rapture

but you guys own greenland

I'm not sure you know how this whole thing works. There's nothing sibstantial happening in the arctic. From any populated area, you can measure the levels of emissions in the air and compare them to temperature and they're exact almost 100% correlated. Carbon Dioxide retains heat very well and I do hope you're not trying to refute that fact with your graph of a minimally impacted zone.

I'm just waiting for New York or something to flood or a turbo hurricane to damage some important buildings and watch everyone go like "Why didn't the scientists warn us?".

Wasn't that Hurricane Sandy?

Sandy was only the beginning!

>smoking cigarettes not completely sure its why you got lung cancer and died

this propaganda brought to you by financial interests who are threatened by the truth.

Might as well sell a kidney for a pack of smokes. You only need one to live after all.

When shit goes down, like a volcanic eruption or one of those CO2 lakes pop, I'd prefer it if our atmosphere wasn't already teetering on the edge of ruin for literally not a single valid reason.

>Implying humanity is worth saving

At this point, I hope global warming is real. I am willing to head to Greenland with several generators and space heaters just so I can make the ice caps there melt even faster.

>Oy vey goy, force companies to buy carbon credits.
>Also buy inefficient solar panels, and buy an electric car. Never mind that the resources it takes to build the car and battery generate more CO2 than what they save, you're saving the planet.

This propaganda brought to you by financial interests who want the government to get them easy cash.

We could start an international project to use nuclear energy to filter CO2 out of the atmosphere, seperate the Carbon from the Oxygen and put the carbon back in the ground.
This way we sort of 'pay off' the energy we didn't generate from the start of the industrial revolution and bring the level back to ~300 ppm.

That would cost billions if not trillions but so would the damage of leaving CO2 in the atmosphere so we're fucked either way. Will it cost money? Or will it cost lives AND money?

If someone really wanted to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, they'd have to develop an algae that fixes CO2 from the oceans without producing toxic byproducts.

The ocean is essentially a gigantic CO2 sink and is one of the main CO2 scubbers of the atmosphere.

Theoretically, let's say we need 10 TW, running for many decades. Say 3000 USD capital costs per KW of capacity. Then triple that just for all other costs. Ballpark estimate.
= 3.0e13 USD = 300 trillion USD.

It's not going to be cheap.

Err, that's an extra "0". Should be 30 trillion USD. Sorry.

Trouble is that when the algae dies, the carbon breaks down and goes right back into the ocean. You'd have to remove it from the carbon cycle entirely by burying it and never digging it back up.

The most promising, and only realistic, option that I've seen is pressurized water laden with CO2, pumped into basalt deposits, where it forms chemical bonds that are stable over geologic timescales.

Then, instead of trying to pull CO2 out of the air or water, which might be really hard and annoying (but maybe possible), an alternative is to dig up limestone, heat it to released concentrated CO2 (which is much more easily captured and put into basalt compared to CO2 just in the air or oceans), and take the resulting quicklime, and dump it in the ocean, where it absorbs CO2.

Or you use the algae as biomatter to produce biofuel.

Slight relief... still nobody is going to buy that even with a collective effort.

Is this the total cost? Because then spreading it over 60 years brings the annual cost to 500 billion USD, wich could be done if it's an international effort.
And would also be remarkably fast even.

That's a lot of asspull numbers, for tech that should be described as "barely demonstrated at lab scale". Still, it seems promising enough that we should be going full bore with lots of research money.

I'm pretty sure that I can't do math either. (Dropped the misc x3 multiplier.)
(10 TW) (3000 USD / KW) (3x misc multipler)
= (10e12) (3 USD) (3)
= (9e13)
= 90 trillion USD.

But again, this is incredibly, incredibly rough. Could be off by a factor of 100x. Well, it probably won't be 100x cheaper, but it might be 100x costlier.

>planet is covered in buildings and structures
Not really, is just in very concentrated areas. Most of the planet doesn't have man made structures

Is this true
youtube.com/watch?v=8akSfOIsU2Y

How close are we to collecting carbon back?

From the circle jerk in this thread about how much it would cost I'd say we're pretty far.

Is the IPCC really conservative in its estimates?

What do you gain from saying it isn't a big deal? You should realise that even if you don't personally believe in it helping the planet is important.

The fossil fuels industry?
Who gets more annual subsides than the EPA has for a budget? (Under president Obama)

I accept climate change is real but since I have no free will, according to atheists, I can't control my actions and will continue ignoring it and saying I don't believe in it. My decisions have already been determined by the causal currents. You can't blame me because I have no free will.

No. The very existence of the IPCC depends on this alarmism science narrative. Why would they put themselves out of business? Do you think they want to lose their job? And their career? Of course not, that is why they will defend it to the bitter end. The plot at then end is telling. It is clearly meant to mislead you into thinking that todays levels of Co2 are immensely out of whack. Zooming out and placing it in a larger context demonstrates how nasty these people are and how abject their modus operandi really is.

They failed to predict the rapid rates of arctic melting as well as the FACT that Greenland is melting and the west antarctic warming up. That's how conservative and cautious they were.

The question isn't whether global warming is real, it's whether we can avoid going above a 2 degrees increase (can only happen if we get carbon back).

better start building dams, or maybe a great, great wall along your border?

>Is the IPCC really conservative in its estimates?
Quite a bit, though a lot of that is just from the long lag between research and the IPPC reports.

>How close are we to collecting carbon back?
AFAIK, it's still in the "wouldn't it be nice?" basket.

>No. The very existence of the IPCC depends on this alarmism science narrative. Why would they put themselves out of business?
The IPPC isn't a business.

>The plot at then end is telling. It is clearly meant to mislead you into thinking that todays levels of Co2 are immensely out of whack.
They ARE out of whack.

>Zooming out and placing it in a larger context demonstrates how nasty these people are and how abject their modus operandi really is.
Pic related is what the current vs historical temperatures look like. Your graph is on an absurd timescale.

Man made climate change is almost certain.

The operative question is a question of degrees, how much of the current trend is artificial and how much of it is natural?

In the end the point is rather moot simply because the climate is changing regardless and we must instead look for solutions to the problem instead of endlessly debating on what portion of the blame goes to us and what portion goes to nature.

...

Hey user, we're on the same side but I've seen you posted the modern HadCRU temperature composite spliced on Shaun Marcott's multi-proxy temperature reconstruction multiple times.

While both datasets are absolutely true, splicing them together can be construed as dishonest. This is because Shaun's data is a running 120 years average. You're comparing apples to oranges when comparing 120 years running average paleoclimate reconstruction dataset to an annual resolution modern measurements. Because of the different resolution, your figure implies that the current rate of warming is an order of magnitude unprecedented compared to the holocene (well it is unprecedented, but not by an order of magnitude).

I'm sure that whoever made the graphs has his heart in the right place, but we have to be very careful and fair these days, and splicing two datasets with different temporal resolution while implying the current rate of warming is an order magnitude higher is misleading. If you want to be super fair, you need to apply 120 years smoothing onto the HadCRU data too, which would reduce the size of the hockey stick significantly

>brainlet's brain got shilled so hard that is now doing shilling itself for free

What's it like being a pawn of the elite, OP?

Strawman

>The operative question is a question of degrees, how much of the current trend is artificial and how much of it is natural?

Its not even a question anymore. There were several papers that answer this exact question. Unfortunately Bill Nye the TV performer ""science guy"" flubbed this question when he was on Tucker Carlson's show.

The very recent number is close to 100% actually.

researchgate.net/publication/300374461_A_new_statistical_approach_to_climate_change_detection_and_attribution

>Consistent with the last IPCC assessment report, we find that most of the observed warming over this period (+0.65 K) is attributable to anthropogenic forcings (+0.67 ±± 0.12 K, 90 % confidence range), with a very limited contribution from natural forcings (−0.01±0.02−0.01±0.02 K).

We had +0.67C contribution from anthropogenic forcing and 0.01 (negligible) contribution from natural variations.