Does Veeky Forums believe that global warming is bad for the planet? Just curious

Does Veeky Forums believe that global warming is bad for the planet? Just curious.

Other urls found in this thread:

skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average
nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m50s
youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s
nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/climate-change-deemed-growing-security-threat-by-military-researchers.html
skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
xkcd.com/1732/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

i look forward to more canadian land becoming habitable

I don't, our ecosystems!

So everyone thinks global spearmint is beneficial on Veeky Forums?

You guys redpilled?

The Russians are looking forward to it. It will open Arctic sea passages and increase their arable land. That's one reason they supported Trump. They don't care that the US will dry up, and Trump hasn't a clue.

Global warming is bullshit, we are heading into an ice age

Global warming isn't real. Also, it's not even bad for the planet. It's just liberals are too stupid to think rationally for a second and realize that an increase in 1.5C over a 200 year period doesn't mean fuck all

At least Veeky Forums are rational people. Never really been here.

>biology graduate

>increase in 1.5C
That will cause drastic changes to the planet

Who cares about nonwhites swarming into increasingly warmer northern lattitudes that remind them of home haha
Dude I'm so redpilled bro

For the better.

Bluepilled by Russia, supporting Trump.

We're in an ice age already, moron.

skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

I live North so it's just going to be nicer weather and less frostbite

>Does Veeky Forums believe that global warming is bad for the planet? Just curious.
The hard evidence (despite the hysteria) does not support the idea that it really exists. What we are seeing are quite normal climate changes that happen with time.
In short, I'm not worried at all. I'm far more concerned about what will happen if the globalist leftists get total control of the world through their fear tactics.

...

greenland =/= global

If you go day by day its even better. It was 10 degrees hotter today than yesterday GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE REEEE

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

>hurr durr weather=climate

Oh no more plants and more habitable land. How will we survive?

See the white bits on that map, around North Africa, and the middle east? Billions of people live there. If you thought that a few million people trying to migrate more or less at once (due to fairly mild destabilisation in the middle east) was bad, you have no fucking idea what is coming next.

>more habitable land

Only Russia and Canada, everyone else gets assraped with a cactus.
Mostly because rain will drop by 50-75% in latitudes 23.5-40.
That's Miami to NY latitudes.

But hey, we already knew you are a cockholster for Putin.

>. If you thought that a few million people trying to migrate more or less at once (due to fairly mild destabilisation in the middle east) was bad, you have no fucking idea what is coming next.
>implying anyone has to let them in

Implying they don't have nuclear bombs

Is this map like the one in the 70s that said which countries will run out of oil by 1990? Or the one in the 80s that said the carribean will be uninhabitable by 2010? Or the one in the 90s that said that the northern states and canada will develop tundra by 2020?

>believing in fear mongering models and not empirical evidence
>2017

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

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

No it's the 2017 kind where everyone has more computing power in their phone than a supercomputer in the '90s.

The droughts will come and spoil that

How about we wait until 2040 where everyone will have more processing power in their phone than a supercomputer from today.

NOAA has been faking Temps though

>Disregarding empirical evidence to fit your spoon fed narrative of the world.

Get real. It won't be a question of "letting them in" like with semi-ambiguous refugees/economic migrants. There will come a point where they won't take "no" for an answer, or be happily herded around by the EU into the unlucky country that has to deal with them.

"Not letting them in" would mean gruesome, terrible war, against powerful states with seriously capable militaries (if incompetent but replaceable leadership such as in S.A.), punctuated by genocide and anarchy. Seriously, the potential for an apocalyptically bad world war is here.

Are there really people here on Veeky Forums that believe Putin hacked american elections?

>Earth is 70% water
>someone told me latitudes 23.5-40 will become deserts

Why are liberals so brainwashed?

nah, it's RSS that did that, and that's what every quack on the planet has been selling their snake oil with

youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m50s

Look at the map faggot, around lat30 there already are deserts

Because 450ppm/2C is a tipping point
At the current 3ppm/year increase rate we'll be there around 2030.
You're a fucking hillbilly if you think events will progress linearly.

youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

>thumbnail is some homeless looking cuck
WEAK

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer

Trump could break that faggot in half lmao

"Good to the last drop."
- Trump's Yelp review on Russian prostitutes

>Are there really people here on Veeky Forums that believe Putin hacked american elections?
this is one of the most bluepilled boards on Veeky Forums

I wonder why the dinosaurs were so big. Must be the deserts.

The blue pill is a scientifically proven remedy for electoral dysfunction.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell

Ever consider that the only way dinosaurs could consume enough calories to be so large is that there was much more plant matter on earth due to [CO2] being around 2000ppm.

CO2 + H2O = C6H12O6 + O2 + H2O

CO2 is plant food you fucking moron.

The planet isn't bothered by any of this.

So is water faggot

youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s

Earth is 70% water idiot.

The hotter it is the more water will evaporate from the oceans.

You learned all of your global warming propaganda from YouTube, cute.

>So is water faggot
Why the homophobia?

Every goddamn year I see more and more disgusting insects and other little shits that were previously never seen here. I thought I was safe from that bullshit up here. Fuck global warming.

In dry areas now the droughts will increase
In wet areas now the floods will increase

>deserts
>droughts
>now floods

You’re all over the place kiddo. Your lack of education in the sciences is really showing.

But you forgot: the Earth will become greener. Aren’t you people greentards?

That's why climate change is also used.
See, that is the one that isn't "global", it's local.
Globally, global warming marches on.

Who knew it would be so complicated, eh?

Just reference the picture from for empirical evidence, from NASA, of what’s actually happening to Earth in response to increased [CO2] and try to stop believing in hysterical propaganda.

It's almost as if we can see the plants growing.

Like I said before, the droughts haven't yet kicked in. As we approach 450ppm/2C things will get worst quickly - California has just seen a nibble of what's coming down the line.

The planet doesn't give a shit what the temperature is.

Why the hydrophobia?

OK Nostradamus.

In science as I learned it one is very careful about terminology. Iff you use terms like "global" it unambiguously means all over and with no exception. If there is an exception the correct term is "regional", never "global."

How you you relate this hypothesis with actual measurements in and findings like ?

The strange thing with warmers is that it is ALWAYS DOOM, DOOM and DOOOOM!

Wake up and smell the coffee
nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/climate-change-deemed-growing-security-threat-by-military-researchers.html

>Does Veeky Forums believe
No.
Veeky Forumsence is not about belief, it is about
data and explanatory theory.
Lrn2science fgt pls

If the world becomes warmer, wetter, and more carbon-available, will proliferating plantlife cause oxygen levels to rise, leading birds to get big and take over everything again?

>Veeky Forumsence is not about belief, it is about
>data and explanatory theory.
lrn2philosophy of science fgt pls

what's good for putin is good with me

>nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/climate-change-deemed-growing-security-threat-by-military-researchers.html
>2014
>The CNA Corporation Military Advisory Board found that
Dismissed

>Because 450ppm/2C is a tipping point
What do you mean by "tipping point"?

Also
>Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: A Scientific Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases was a 2005 international conference that examined the link between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration, and the 2 °C (3.6 °F) ceiling on global warming thought necessary to avoid the most serious effects of global warming. Previously this had generally been accepted as being 550 ppm.

In spite of all certainties of the declarations they still revise some number.

skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

Yes, oxygen levels should rise.

>skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
I just had a look. Not impressed. For instance:
>1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from?
Thing is, a lot of warmers tell us it will rain more. Typically we hear this after every major rainfall.

Also, rather than hypothesing the theory, why not look at the numbers and measurements, as in the image in the OP?

The article is merely semiarticulated whining which only succeeds in warmers sounding like spoiled brats.

Photosynthesis is the means by which plants create glucose and oxygen. There would be no plants without CO2.

i want to see this for the last 100.000years

There just might be a reason why you won't get that....

>Good or bad FOR THE PLANET

There are no such things

>For humankind
Bad.

He has rabies?

Yeah, because we don't have monthly measurements for the last 100.000 years, and it would be really boring because the circles move quite slowly for 99.999% of the time

But there are ways to measure temperatures that existed long ago, and here is an visualization (too big to be posted on Veeky Forums):
xkcd.com/1732/

>2005
...and next year Arctic's ice minimum crashed to half from previous years.

You must be new to Veeky Forums, faggot.

>What do you mean by "tipping point"?
youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

>While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
More severe weather events would ring a bell for anyone who has a memory span longer than 3 days

>The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
Oh, and the effects are diminishing, but I guess that doesn't matter

>all these people smugly asserting that this will be good for the plants and that the dinosaurs thrived in warmer conditions

I won't deny that that's true, but surely you realize that what's important for the coming few hundred years is the fact that rapid changes in climate patterns will be bad for geopolitical stability, right? The fact that some previously inhospitable tract of land is becoming arable while another area becomes flooded or desertified isn't good, in fact it's pretty much a recipe for war.

>never had floods before
>never had hurricanes before

Burgers blame global warming for their asinine construction practices.

>an illiterate making fun of others
"More severe" is not the some as "more", retard (though "more" is also a consequence of climate change")

>"More severe" is not the some as "more", retard (though "more" is also a consequence of climate change")
Not that guy but the idea that there has been a clear increase in severity of tropical storms is controversial within the climate science community. It's hardly settled science.

>17m45s
Care to be more specific?

watch it, it's a link

aww the snowflake melted

>greenland =/= global
Then you are admitting that we have no global temperature data from before the first global temperature satellites in the 70's. In that case, what's all the fear-mongering about.
You can't have it both ways, user. Either data like that from Greenland ice cores can be used as a proxy, or else we have no global temperature data from before the late seventies. Which is it?

Bad, obviously.

And of course we couldn't possibly say no to them. What's your address, user? Some people I know want to stay at your house and by your own rules, you can't refuse them.

I think everyone is missing OP's question. Bad for humans? Probably. Bad for the planet? No. Why would it be?. I don't think many things can be "bad" for the planet.

No, but there is a clear understanding that tropical storms are a consequence of water in an area being warmer than a certain threshold, and that the warmer it is, the stronger the storm becomes

>I don't think many things can be "bad" for the planet.
Then his whole point is moot, and has nothing to do with the link he provided here

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

nope, 1850 it is

>watch it, it's a link
I knew it was a link. What counts is that you are unable to answer the question.

That's all.