- This topic has 232 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
What are the positive effects of global warming?
-
The fact that it’s not real.
-
woke af
-
-
this
-
shut up conspiratard
-
Oh come on, it was windy/not windy, dry/wet, average hurricane season/hurricane drought, hot/cold. That proves climate change is real, anon, any observed meteorological event is proof of climate change.
-
fpbp
-
FPBP
-
>The fact that it’s not real.
all of the people dumb enough to believe it who use global warming as an excuse to not procreate.
confirmation bias leads a lot of ugly people into believing in global warming
>i was never gonna get laid anyway, global warming is my excuse for not having babies
>heh heh heh now i don’t have to admit how repulse i am is the real reason nobody will ever love me.
-
-
CO2 makes plants grow faster
-
Assuming it’s real, more places to live in the northern hemisphere.
-
…which is why they’ll let in climate change refugees.
-
-
less polar bears, fuck those poopyholes
>t.penguin-
kek
-
You are scrotebrained. Those are opposite poles.
-
https://i.imgur.com/eDnL6q3.gif
>call somebody scrotebrained
>while flexing knowledge about penguins and polar bears
shouldn’t you be playing with blocks bucko
-
-
-
no more Australians!
-
According to NASA landsat data, in the past 50 years we’ve seen an almost 20% increase in vegetation worldwide. This is roughly double the size of the continental US of new forest. This is mostly attributed to a warmer, wetter climate with longer growing seasons.
-
/poo/ go home
-
>nooo you can’t talk about potential positive benefits, it has to be bad bad bad
how scientific-
There aren’t any. Here, let’s go through it.
This is because of human actions, mostly China’s reforestation efforts. Nothing to do with climate change or CO2 like this scrotebrain thinks
Assuming it’s real, more places to live in the northern hemisphere.
This guy is scrotebrained because he doesn’t understand that all of that land is already habitable and we’ll lose a shitload of land at the equator, which will create tens of millions of climate refugees like this guy pointed out
Go away until you understand the difference between science and politics.
-
Would there be potential positive benefits to global cooling?
-
Yeah, if we cooled the Earth to pre-industrial levels then all the ocean life would stop dying off.
-
Maybe. I think the ocean is suffering moreso because of acidification than the temperature rise.
-
Are you stupid? That’s carbonic acid from the ocean absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. Guess what happens if we return the CO2 levels to what they were in 1850?
-
When you say "cool the Earth" I’m imagining dimming the sun. CO2 capture is much harder.
-
>Imagine being so scrotebrained that you thought ruining crop production was a good idea
-
>CO2 capture is soooo hard
go outside, touch some grass, plant a freaking tree, don’t die from overworking capturing CO2 you scrotebrained garden gnome
-
-
This freaking scrotebrain. You just mentioned
Yeah, if we cooled the Earth to pre-industrial levels then all the ocean life would stop dying off.
>if we cooled the Earth to pre-industrial levels then all the ocean life would stop dying off.
Then the other poster respondsMaybe. I think the ocean is suffering moreso because of acidification than the temperature rise.
>the ocean is suffering moreso because of acidification than the temperature rise
Which is correct, but then you call him stupid while contradicting your own original claim when you implied it was the temperature that is killing off marine wildlife rather the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which you then are forced to admit. Also, carbonic acid does not "absorb" CO2. Rather, much like the bicarbonate buffer system in humans that helps maintain homeostatic pH, carbon dioxide (CO2) reacts with water (H2O) to produce carbonic acid (H2CO3). Except in vivo the reaction is catalyzed by complex enzymes to increase efficiency. This is also related to Le Chatelier’s principle whereby increasing the concentration of CO2 in the air or in the bloodstream will also increase the product as the system tries to restore equilibrium. You can try this yourself if you hyperventilate, you will see higher blood pH because you are blowing off more CO2. The equilibrium tries to compensate by shifting the reaction to that side, or restoring the decreasing concentration of CO2 by converting bicarbonate ions. Lower bicarbonate concentration, more specifically fewer hydrogen ions, means higher pH.-
>Also, carbonic acid does not "absorb" CO2
Imagine being so scrotebrained that you didn’t understand that carbonic acid is dissolved CO2. Way to fail at being pedantic.-
>you didn’t understand that carbonic acid is dissolved CO2
No you idiot, dissolved CO2 is just CO2. It has to react with water to form carbonic acid you complete dumbass.
>Way to fail at being pedantic.
It’s not pedantic you scrotebrain because "carbonic acid absorbing CO2" does not make any freaking sense. Carbonic acid does not "absorb" shit. It either dissociates into water and carbon dioxide or bicarbonate and a hydrogen ion but it does not "absorb" anything. Please lurk moar and you might learn something instead. -
>He thinks dissolution doesn’t form an aqueous solution
>He doesn’t know the definition of absorption
Back to chem 1 -
-
Bold statement for someone who doesn’t understand aqueous solutions or that the ocean absorbs CO2
-
Oh so now you’re changing your answer from "carbonic acid absorbs CO2" to "ocean absorbs CO2"?
-
Are you illiterate? I never said that carbonic acid absorbs CO2.
-
>Are you illiterate? I never said that carbonic acid absorbs CO2.
>That’s carbonic acid from the ocean absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere
-
So you are illiterate. That sentence does not say that carbonic acid absorbs CO2. I hope English is your second language or you have some disability like dyslexia.
-
Uh-huh. I understand. Hush now, I’ll take your concession of defeat. I know you are playing dumb now because you are too embarrassed to admit your mistake but you have to realize sometimes it’s better to just admit it so you can start licking your wounds faster.
-
Are you trolling because you’re embarrassed? Let’s go over it.
>That’s carbonic acid from the ocean absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere
>from the ocean absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere
>from the ocean absorbing CO2
>the ocean absorbing CO2
>ocean
>absorbing
>CO2
Savvy? -
>The more I pretend to be stupid, the more it looks like I was initially pretending to be stupid instead of just being plain stupid
-
>Imagine being this illiterate
I don’t know how to help you anymore than I have. You should address your literacy issues so people take you seriously. -
You are a giga-scrotebrain.
-
-
-
-
-
>if we cooled the Earth to pre-industrial levels
how in fucks name are we gonna do that? by giving moar freaking money to the freaking government? by giving up luxuries while the elites continue to over-indulge and thumb their noses at us? fuck the earth, i want humanity to go extinct.-
By eliminating emissions and sequestering carbon. How else?
-
>vague bullshit answer devoid of an actual plan or sequence of events
like freaking clockwork-
That was a very specific answer. Did you want me to tell you how to eliminate emissions and sequester carbon? There’s many different ways to do either. Google is your friend.
-
You’re deliberately avoiding the main obstacle of world governments, class inequality, financial and lifestyle consequences and the obvious void between the peasants of the world being expected to give up comfort while those with power and influence get to continue to jerk themselves off in over-indulgence.
tl;dr you’re a scrotebrained scrote -
>You’re deliberately avoiding all of the political arguments I want to make because I think this is /poo/
This is why I told you to fuck off. -
>i dont want to talk about politics
>id rather just live in fantasyland where human nature isn’t standing in the way of what needs to be done
i dont blame you -
You’re clearly lost. Let me help you
[…]
-
no, you have to accept science has become a weapon for political agendas
-
>nooooo, you have to accept that anything I don’t agree with is wrong
[…]
-
what am i not agreeing with? you’re the one unwilling to face the difficult reality of obstacles standing in the way of progress.
-
No, you’re trying to bait me into a discussion about policy because you don’t want to acknowledge the facts. Go back to your containment board.
-
>because you don’t want to acknowledge the facts
says the guy unwilling to acknowledge the obstacles standing in the way of what needs to be done
>you’re trying to bait me into a discussion about policy
how the fuck else are you going to put a plan into action? -
You have to go back
[…]
-
so you don’t actually want to put a plan in motion then?
-
Oh, were you going to run our plan down to the president as soon as we had it all hammered out? Take your gay little LARP back to /poo/.
-
the fact that you don’t want to actually brainstorm about manipulating the fabric of society in favor of improving the health of the planet shows that you were never serious about it in the first place and only use this nonsense as a way to achieve a narcissistic high through virtue signaling
-
If you projected any harder I could put up a screen and watch a movie. You have to go back.
[…]
-
hey instead of arguing with that idiot, maybe you can help me. these are my posts:
https://i.4cdn.org/sci/1633807394367.webm
not sure if this is the best thread for this question or not.
i do NOT have a side in the global warming debate, i’m still doing my research.
from what i gather, most people agree the planet is getting warmer.
my question is, what scientific proof is there that this is being caused by humans? not correlation, but actual causation?
thank you in advance.https://i.imgur.com/55iZq5O.gif
i’m scrotebrained. can you walk me through it a bit? what do you mean by that?
ok, not that scrotebrained. i understand we’re releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
what proof is there that this added CO2 is the cause of increased temperatures?
again, not trying to argue sis, trying to learn
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
lol come on stud, act like an adult. we all know how greenhouse gasses work. a wikipedia article is not proof that we have released enough CO2 to be the prime drivers of climate change.
what i am asking you, posters in a LULZ thread, is where is the hard evidence that the increase in CO2 release from humans is driving climate change. hard, real, scientific data.
this should not be difficult to show. i’m assuming that most scientifically minded people on this board have seen the evidence for themselves and are not relying on wikipedia articles to prove their postulates. -
I’m the only one in this thread that doesn’t frequent /poo/. I’ve already addressed all of your posts.
-
you’re a midwit without any serious intentions of improving the health of the planet
-
Tell me, how exactly will debating policy with you improve the health of the planet?
-
not so much debating policy as much as figuring out how to eliminate emissions and pollution without causing people to revolt. the gigantic world population along with the allure of first world luxuries are the main problems.
-
Read the IPCC.
-
>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations
lmao the united nations is a rape cult
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/01/11/un-peacekeeping-has-sexual-abuse-problem
this is what i’m talking about. there are some serious obstacles standing in the way of the utopia we all crave, and we ourselves are the biggest obstacle and it’s just nature. i dont know what it would take to get everyone united around appreciating the simple beauty of the planet but nature is what it is, we are petty envious creatures that don’t want to see anyone else make it and sadly it shows that those in positions of power and influence are no different. ive always figured celebrities and politicians would get bored with greed hedonism and powerlust but it appears not. -
The UN is not the IPCC and your criticism has nothing to do with the policies they’ve recommended. Go read. Your ignorance isn’t cute.
-
i cant find anything on policy recommendations, just and endless stream of "we need to cool the planet by limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C" in order to "ensure a more sustainable and equitable society"
what actions are they recommending be taken and who do they recommend them to? -
Read the summary for policymakers
-
god freaking damnit i freaking hate sifting through worthless walls of freaking text just for a tiny bit of freaking information. brb
-
If you think recommendations for climate policy is "a tiny bit of information" then you definitely don’t understand the topic.
-
compared to the freaking novel it’s hidden in ya it is a tiny bit of freaking information, and the only bit of that information i could find was this vague bullshit
>The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.
which articulates nothing specific -
Try reading and understanding the whole thing. You could also read the Drawdown Report if you want something more comprehensive. It will not save you any reading.
-
too many freaking words to sift through, this shit needs to be simplified
-
You’re looking for science communicators. I think Bill Nye did a bit on climate change
-
climate change bullshit isn’t hard to understand you stupid scrote, finding out what is being recommended and what governments are proposing to do to combat it apparently is
-
It’s really not. Try reading a textbook on climate science. If you want something simpler than the science watch Bill Nye or something
-
why are you still trying to make me out to be ignorant of the science when i continuously try to pry the information of what climate organizations and governments are proposing to do about it? You are being an extremely disingenuous little scrote.
-
I’m not the one whining about how hard it is to understand.
-
>still claiming im ignorant of the science
>still avoiding discussion of what’s being proposed to help the planet
i’ll do this with you for as long as you want. -
I don’t want to do it at all. I want you to fuck off to /poo/ if you want to talk about politics and I want you to fuck off to a textbook if you want to actually learn about the science. Either way you should fuck off.
-
>I don’t want to do it at all.
it’s the most important part of this freaking problem though. it doesn’t matter how good the solutions you come up with are if you aren’t willing to figure out how to implement them. -
Shitposting on anonymous imageboards is the most important part of solving climate change? Are you delusional or just trolling?
-
srsly, where the fuck in my posts do you get this shit from? if you are unwilling to figure out how to get humanity as a whole to adjust accordingly to help the planet, nothing you come up with is relevant
-
Who are you? Are you a world leader, or just some rando with delusions of grandeur? How is arguing politics with your dumb ass going to do anything for anyone? You’ve come to the wrong room if you’re looking for an argument. This room is emotional abuse.
-
you’re the one arguing about having to figure out how to actually put a plan into motion. i’d love for natural ecosystems to be encouraged to flourish but that’s a tough thing to do with a planet of almost 8 billion humans to feed and keep civil.
-
It’s good to know that you’re illiterate as well as stupid. It’s no wonder you have such a hard time reading.
-
don’t get pissy with me because you don’t want to acknowledge the actual difficulty in this endeavor
-
Go back to /poo/. I don’t care about any of your opinions, but I care about your political opinions least of all.
-
i dont have any political opinions and havent tried to talk politics even once in this exchange.
-
Right, because I won’t engage with you on it. Unless you just came into the thread you’ve been demanding that I lay out policy for you to criticize since the start of the thread. It doesn’t matter. Fuck, let’s pretend we solve climate change 100% in this thread. Who cares? Who’s going to see it? Do you think this thread will be presented to all the world leaders and they’ll be so amazed that we came up with such an elegant policy that it will immediately be adopted globally?
-
>Do you think this thread will be presented to all the world leaders and they’ll be so amazed that we came up with such an elegant policy that it will immediately be adopted globally?
no, but it’s fun to brainstorm about how to possibly convince humanity to stop over indulging and appreciate the little things instead of constantly pursuing over indulgence, but that of course starts at the top. Celebrities and politicians would never go for this and they’re the most worthless parts of society yet have all the power and influence. They’re the ones that need to set the example but they, liek the majority of us, are too consumed with the power and dominance struggle and too consumed by their luxurious lifestyles. -
So in summary, you want me to jerk you off about politics. Go back to /poo/.
-
>i dont know what it would take to get everyone united around appreciating the simple beauty of the planet but nature is what it is, we are petty envious creatures that don’t want to see anyone else make
Make everyone relevant lose someone or something they cherish the most. Wait for life to force them to somehow endure the worst they never even imagined could happen. This kind of experience either brings out the best or the worst in people. Euthanise the latter. -
hell ya
-
>If you projected any harder
im the one unwilling to discuss how to manipulate the fabric of society to improve the health of the planet? -
Not quite, champ. Think it over on your home board
[…]
-
no im going to stay here and keep reminding you that you are not sincere in your claims to care about improving the health of the planet.
-
See
Tell me, how exactly will debating policy with you improve the health of the planet?
then go back to
[…]
-
Class inequality is fine, but elites that don’t do their jobs making the trains run on schedule are the issue.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>This is because of human actions, mostly China’s reforestation efforts. Nothing to do with climate change or CO2 like this scrotebrain thinks
the absolute levels of dunning kruger on this scrotebrain. do you know why greenhouses have 3-4x times higher concentrations of CO2? the public agriculture and companies literally pay money to have higher CO2 concentrations in greenhouses-
Go read the NASA article. It’s China. Not CO2.
-
who the fuck is talking about china? if you have two plants each in an isolated glass jar, the one with higher CO2 concentration grows faster.
CO2 makes plants grow faster, this is a well known fact and it’s evident when you look at CO2 and vegetation history of earth. whenever CO2 levels peaked they were followed by a slow decrease of CO2 and increase in vegetation. if humans didn’t interfere with plants the exact thing would happen but humans actively decrease and prevent vegetation-
I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but most plants are not grown in glass jars and outside of controlled conditions plant growth is much more complicated than "muh plant food"
-
if you look at earth’s history there is a direct relation between CO2 levels and vegetation. CO2 levels peaked to much higher levels before and always stabilized thanks to the same thing, plants. if we didn’t interfere with nature the same thing would happen.
>inb4 muh food
current human lifestyle is simply unsustainable, we were riding off a peak and now we are going down. the problem is that environment slacktivists never mention this and they keep seething about CO2 when it’s like the least harmful thing we are doing. we are polluting nature with organic molecules and forms of heavy metals it has no way to deal with and we are destroying niches and habitats among many other things-
>if you look at earth’s history there is a direct relation between CO2 levels and vegetation
Lol no. Do you have any evidence to support that claim?Do you remember when the rivers were catching fire regularly from all the chemicals we dumped in them? Guess why that doesn’t happen anymore.
-
>Lol no. Do you have any evidence to support that claim?
without carbon sequestration CO2 levels would be 10 000ppm today. it’s common knowledge that increased CO2 levels lead to increased capture of CO2, here is an easy to read source since you have the knowledge and the comprehension of a fetus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration .>Do you remember when the rivers were catching fire regularly from all the chemicals we dumped in them? Guess why that doesn’t happen anymore.
relevance? those "chemicals" are just oil which is just simple hydrocarbons. we dump worse things now -
Lol carbon sequestration has next to nothing to do with the amount of vegetation on Earth. You have not provided evidence for your claim.
>relevance? those "chemicals" are just oil which is just simple hydrocarbons. we dump worse things now
Lol no, they were all kinds of gnarly shit. Much worse than what we still dump today. The relevance is that the rivers stopped catching fire because of the environment regulations established and enforced by the EPA. Guess who demanded that agency be established? -
the wikipedia article for carbon sequestration and biosequestration specifically says that increased CO2 concentrations increases photosynthesis thus increasing carbon sequestration. the fact that plants in greenhouses do this too is conclusive evidence that higher CO2 leads to more vegetation. obviously there is other variables like mineral composition of soil and water and glacials, etc but historically the trend has always been that increased CO2 leads to increase in carbon sequestration, in fact one of the ways they look at historical CO2 levels is through organic matter, if a layer has more organic matter then CO2 levels were higher. i don’t know why you are unable to accept this fact. plants aren’t sequestrating faster in awe of Xi jinping’s brightness and china’s glory. it’s good that china is planting forests but it’s CO2 that’s making plants grow faster
-
You are silly. That’s a lot of conjecture and it’s not what we’ve been seeing. We’ve doubled the concentration of CO2 so where’s all the extra plant growth? That NASA article says that nearly all of the "greening" over the last few decades has been from China actively reforesting deserts.
-
>so where’s all the extra plant growth?
it’s right under your nose -
>This random picture disproves NASA’s statement
Wew, lad. Do you know which part of the map is China? -
Just so you know your image is from a 2016 study by Myneni from Boston University and the NASA article you’ve been trying to refute discusses the paper. I suspect you haven’t read it, so here’s a link.
-
Pents checked
-
-
The ocean is the mediator of carbon, vegetation does only a fraction and is clearly not mediating anthropogenic carbon
-
-
-
-
-
-
Your climate hustle check is in the mail.
-
>chinas reforestation efforts
Found the bugman
The reforestation efforts are the ones going by the logging companies because they are smart enough to know that paper needs time to grow and there is plenty of space where the other trees were just cut downCh-Ina only works on reforestation to combat the desertification of land from the asian deserts.
They do it out of necessity to not lose on their polluted land-
Read the NASA paper. They’ve been converting desert to farmland for decades now. The area they’ve deforested is huge. Logging companies have no positive effect since they reforest the same land over and over until it’s no longer productive
-
-
Mate you are bringing politics in to this. The question isn’t if there is a net benefit. It seems clear there won’t be. And while /poo/ may have a vested interest in this. It’s still interesting to look at what the upsides are to this. It’s happening either way. And there are silver linings to everything. Why not examine the good parts of global warming? The only political idealogue here is you.
-
>The question isn’t if there is a net benefit. It seems clear there won’t be.
>Why not examine the good parts of global warming?
Hmm….
-
-
You think that China has planted forests twice the size of the continental united States? In the face of freaking NASA’s explanation, that’s your dismissal?
It’s insane to think that global warming wouldn’t have both positive and negative effects. You don’t have to deny reality for politics.
-
Read the article. I linked it for you here
-
-
-
>Implying I haven’t read that paper
Now read the more recent one concerning why the Earth is "greening"spoiler alert: it’s humans.
-
>humans have an influence on the greening of earth = all greening is happening due to humans
it doesn’t matter that humans are planting more. CO2 makes plants grow more. this is an undeniable fact. this is observable in labs, in greenhouses and in archeological sediments where there is a direct correlation between organic matter and rock weathering that happens due to CO2-
You must be shills to continually parrot this bullshit. This is done in controlled greenhouses with CO2 as the only variable. Rainfall patterns and weather condition changes affects plants much more. Either way it’s not like the terrestrial biosphere is absorbing the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
-
-
-
-
The sahel is greening, anon.
-
>humans have an influence on the greening of earth = all greening is happening due to humans
it doesn’t matter that humans are planting more. CO2 makes plants grow more. this is an undeniable fact. this is observable in labs, in greenhouses and in archeological sediments where there is a direct correlation between organic matter and rock weathering that happens due to CO2>mostly China’s reforestation efforts
Is wumao camping it on 4ch?Read the paper. You can’t just say "nuh uh" and pretend the world is however you want it to be.
-
human activity dominates greening of earth != all greening on earth is happening due to humans
>pretend the world is however you want it to be.
says the guy denying the fact that plants grow more in presence of higher CO2 concentrations-
That’s exactly what it means. Plant growth is much more complicated than you seem to think.
-
>human activity dominates greening of earth != all greening on earth is happening due to humans
What?
-
-
-
-
>mostly China’s reforestation efforts
Is wumao camping it on 4ch?
-
-
-
-
Having more diversity in the West and fight racism more easily. As a French person of Algerien origins, I consider myself to be a citizen of the World <3
-
algerian*
-
>As a French person of Algerien origins, I consider myself to be a citizen of the World <3
lol no, if you were actually "a French person of Algerien origin" you’d consider yourself to be an Algerian.-
What do you mean?
I have the French citizenship and I prefer France for tons of reasons. But I still have acknowledge my origins, and I feel threatened by white people overall. There are white people who get mad at for speaking kabyle berber at home-
I have spent enough time on /int/ to know that 99% of North Africans in France see themselves as conquerors who are conquering France and Europe. That makes them Algerian/Moroccan/etc, not "citizens of the world".
>speaking kabyle berber at home
That’s cool. Do you know how to read and write it? Berber has a cool writing system.-
/int/ isn’t representative of the outside real world, I’m sure. The LULZ environnement really fucks your mind. Why would I desire to "conquer" France ?
I know the alphabet, I can read it since it’s mostly phonetical. But I am not sure that I could write in tifinagh without making some mistakes.
-
-
>I prefer France to Africa
Lmao wow really who would have guessed. You like the quality of life white people provide. If you were smart you’d close the door behind you and not support any more of your countrymen getting in, or they will turn it into the shithole you came from.
-
-
-
-
Climate change disproportionately hurts women and minorities per the Paris accords. That’s a positive in my book.
-
[…]
>All the shithole countries (and states) get flooded.
You scrotebrains do realize all of Africa will move to Europe when this happens, right?-
no
-
Europeans will just drop bombs and mass-exterminate the migrants.
That’s been the plan all along. Once there’s no other option, the justification will naturally follow.
The reason global warming isn’t being addressed is because it is the catalyst that will be used to exterminate the non-white races.-
https://i.imgur.com/NvlvI0u.gif
>The reason global warming isn’t being addressed is because it is the catalyst that will be used to exterminate the non-white races.
-
Europeans will just do what they’ve always been doing for thousands of years now.
-
-
>all of Africa will move to Europe
Why do you people always talk about this like there’s nothing Europe can do about it. Like
>oh they want to come here in such numbers it will ruin all our lives and destroy our country, oh well what can you do
First off, they absolutely have the ability to stop every single African from stepping foot on European soil. Will they do that? Quite clearly not, because they are stupid and life is good, too many weak men. But you watch, as the migrants make life worse and worse more and more men will get fed up and switch sides. Walls will be put up, insanely well armed walls. And you know what? Many of the guards on those walls will be earlier migrants trying to protect what little of Europe will be left saving. This all WILL happen. It’s only a matter of how bad Europe will let it get, and if there’s anything worth saving by the time they get a freaking clue. Every brown person that comes to your country rescues the quality of life in it. Apparently that’s “ok” to a point. But everyone has their limit, even as I said brown people themselves, even they will want to save their new home from turning into their old one at a point-
That is a fair point, but whites are complete scrotebrains and will let everyone in. If a Turk rules Germany or an Arab in France, that will change everything. Then Europe will survive. But with white leaders? Europe is finished.
-
-
Sounds like a problem for Europe, not me.
-
woke af
-
-
-
[…]
thanks for reiterating my point mongoloid
-
[…]
>we need to address how to approach unifying the whole of humanity around a single goal of preserving the natural beauty and sanctity of all life on earth
>STOP PANICKING ALARMIST
w0t -
increased shilling of stupid scrotes
-
[…]
the freaking post i quoted
-
[…]
it’s in the freaking post you replied to what the fuck is this
-
[…]
kek
-
https://i.4cdn.org/sci/1633807394367.webm
not sure if this is the best thread for this question or not.
i do NOT have a side in the global warming debate, i’m still doing my research.
from what i gather, most people agree the planet is getting warmer.
my question is, what scientific proof is there that this is being caused by humans? not correlation, but actual causation?
thank you in advance.-
The isotope concentrations prove it unequivocally
-
https://i.imgur.com/55iZq5O.gif
i’m scrotebrained. can you walk me through it a bit? what do you mean by that?
-
Sure. An isotope is an element with a different number of neutrons. The proportion of carbon isotopes in fossil fuels match the proportions of the isotopes in the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution which proves fossil fuels to be the source of that CO2.
-
ok, not that scrotebrained. i understand we’re releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
what proof is there that this added CO2 is the cause of increased temperatures?
again, not trying to argue sis, trying to learn-
You aren’t making a very good effort in your research if that’s where you’re stuck. Start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
-
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
lol come on stud, act like an adult. we all know how greenhouse gasses work. a wikipedia article is not proof that we have released enough CO2 to be the prime drivers of climate change.
what i am asking you, posters in a LULZ thread, is where is the hard evidence that the increase in CO2 release from humans is driving climate change. hard, real, scientific data.
this should not be difficult to show. i’m assuming that most scientifically minded people on this board have seen the evidence for themselves and are not relying on wikipedia articles to prove their postulates.-
Ah, I see. You’re a science denier and your "research" was just a pretext. Who could have guessed? Imagine how much you could learn if you spent your time reading instead of "researching" on LULZ.
-
https://i.imgur.com/vXAZ8na.gif
lol no one is denying science dudes, come on.
correlation is not causation. we all know that.
the idea that the planet is getting warmer because humans are releasing CO2 makes perfect sense. it’s a great theory.
now where is the evidence? surely, you guys have evidence for believing this, right?
or are you getting upset because you do not have evidence?
should i continue my search for intelligent people that can teach me about climate change?
just give me some evidence, dudes, please.-
I’m not going to hold your hand on something you should have learned in highschool. That wikipedia article has all the information you’re pretending to look for. Go read it.
-
son, that article has nothing in it.
again, we all know how greenhouse gases work.
do you understand the difference between correlation and causation?
>more mexican kids die when americans eat ice cream
>this is because both happen during the summer, not because one causes the other
definitive proof for anthropogenic CO2 release as the main driver of climate change would look something like a statistical analysis, not a high school geology textbook.
now how they would prove that, i don’t know. i know the famous "hockey-stick" graph has been ‘debunked’ time and again, but i imagine there is other, valid data out there that ties increasing temperatures with increasing CO2 release while also discrediting effects from the sun or other factors that might influence planetary temperatures. -
So if you know what a greenhouse gas is and how it works then your should know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that we’ve measured the change in albedo from CO2. Guess how I know that you haven’t read shit?
-
>albedo
how does the change in albedo prove that CO2 is the main driver of climate change? doesn’t that just prove that we have more CO2 in the atmosphere now, which we both agree on anyway? -
Why don’t you read and find out?
-
do you have a recommendation for a source? wikipedia is somewhat lacking:
>Climate and weather
>Albedo affects climate by determining how much radiation a planet absorbs.[36] The uneven heating of Earth from albedo variations between land, ice, or ocean surfaces can drive weather. -
Click the little [36] to see the source. If you want something more serious then I could find a textbook for you.
-
>Click the little [36] to see the source
alright, i did that. probably should have thought of doing that first, lol.
thanks for the albedo idea, i’ve never heard about it and will look into it more. but again, it’s just a description of the mechanism of greenhouse gas.
do you see how this is not proof? describing how greenhouse gases work does not prove that human release of CO2 is for sure driving global warming.
you wrote in:
>we’ve measured the change in albedo from CO2
which is great evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change; we’re releasing CO2, and we’ve measured how much this CO2 is influencing albedo.
now, my question is, how much is this albedo affecting global temperatures? THAT would be good proof, some data that shows that. but right now, we’re stuck in the middle: CO2 affects albedo (assuming the sources i read have valid data to back that up), but has this measured change in albedo created this measured change in temperature? again, causation is not correlation.
what do you think? -
We get our energy from the sun. Albedo determines how much we retain.
-
https://i.4cdn.org/sci/1633813443436.webm
yeah man, i dig that, i understand the concept.
but a concept that makes sense isn’t the same as scientific proof.
scientific proof would look something like:
>we’ve measured how much our CO2 release has affected albedo
>we’ve measured how much this change in albedo has affected global temperatures
i’m not saying this data does not exist, i’m asking if it does? there are always a lot of assumptions in complex topics like this, and things get smoothed over sometimes that could throw a wrench in a hypothesis. especially when it’s a politically charged issue like this has become. -
Yep. It’s called radiative forcing. There’s even an image at the top of that page I linked you on climate change that estimates the contributions if different sources.
-
great, i’ll look into it.
thanks for your help.
-
-
-
do you have a recommendation for a source? wikipedia is somewhat lacking:
>Climate and weather
>Albedo affects climate by determining how much radiation a planet absorbs.[36] The uneven heating of Earth from albedo variations between land, ice, or ocean surfaces can drive weather.>albedo
how does the change in albedo prove that CO2 is the main driver of climate change? doesn’t that just prove that we have more CO2 in the atmosphere now, which we both agree on anyway?Not that you’ll actually read it but here you go.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
There’s one but i wont name it, its easy but its overlooked and its awful for the environment, one of the reasons of why some lakes are drying
By humans?
-The jungle in my country has 300000 new motorbikes (CO), its gonna happen in every underdeveloped country.
-Marine life cant turn enough co2 into CaCO2
-People have a smartphone, 2 monitors and a lot of shitty gadgets, streaming, and leaving your pc or ps4 in standby consumes energy (it has been improved) the gadgets use energy aaand bitcoinminers
1000 yearly Intrauterine devices to Africa, Mexico and India can fix this problem but nooooo here you are making another useless thread.-
Aww yeah i forgot, fat people.
They eat as much as 2.5 people also without those millions of fatties chicken and cows wouldn’t need hormones
-
-
-
That in the off chance the catastrophic models are correct, mankind would be extinct, hopefully within our lifetimes.
-
I read somewhere that warmer seas has altered the migration patterns of some fish, making commercial fishing more lucrative off the coast of Greenland. So if you’re a Greenlandic fisherman, that’s probably pretty neat.
-
Thanks to warmer climate, vineyards in southern England can now produce sparkling wine that is better than Champagne.
-
No more holland
-
woke af
-
-
Global warming is old fake news.
The narrative was shifted to climate change to accomodate for snow storms and cold waves that could also be sold as crisis in the news.The entire thing is a farce being pushed by globohomo to reduce gas and oil consumption and fuck countries such as Russia and Venezuela.
-
>carbondioxide returns to jurasic levels
>except deforestation has means we have no plants to keep it in check
>"global warming isn’t real"-
>deforestation
You are forgeting the oceans and the sea plants.
-
-
Canada and Russia will both get a lot more arable land so that’s a plus for them.
-
For the last time, increase in temperature does not spontaneously create arable land. Most of the regions that are warming in northern Russia and Canada are not farmed because the soil is absolutely useless and has no nutrients or structure and is full of rocks.
See the Yukon and interior Alaska where all the agriculture is restricted to a few, narrow bands of landscape where river deposits have managed to create a tiny amount of topsoil in the 7000 years since the glaciers last bonked the landscape.-
Fair point, in that case the only positive is the north west passage opening.
-
-
-
No more africa
-
Uh anon, he’s asking for good things, that would imply Europe is the new Africa.
-
-
Massive insurance claims for some and massive property value increase for near water homes in coastal regions.
-
literally none
-
Colder winters so my local lakes freeze over in the winter and I can skate without paying the rink garden gnomes hundreds of dorra.
-
looks comfy
which country? -
>global warming
>its colder
doomtards really didn’t think this one through
-
-
The potential of seething coastscrotes having all their shit submerged.
-
>buys out your entire neighborhood with the payout from federally subsidized flood insurance
heh nothing personelle kid, this is our flyover state now.-
STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY RURAL PARADISE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
-
>RURAL PARADISE
more like our new suburb 😉-
https://i.imgur.com/FPI8izi.gif
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
-
-
-
-
Whole life heard the sea levels were going to rise in the next ’10 years’. Sea levels are exactly the same. It’s bogus lads
-
Mega corps are forced to change.
-
The warm weather will cause the ocean to evaporate.
Thus the sea level will fall and we’ll get more beachfront property.
Also it will rain more often.
I enjoy the rain. -
No more shoveling snow
-
I’ll play the devil’s advocate and assume that global warming is real.
>its warmer
who the fuck would think this is bad?
Who likes winter? kys -
A lot of people will die.
-
ironically technological progress even though it wasn’t intended
-
>deniers got btfo in the other thread so they had to make a new one
-
Siberia will become warmer and more fertile land available, Russia will have access to currently inaccessible mineral and energy resources, Vladivostok will no longer freeze during the winter so the port will be usable all year round, the United States will be hit by massive hurricanes and Louisiana will go underwater during our lifetime.
Global warming is literally a blessing from the heavens if you’re Russian.
-
Except all of that is rightful mongolian or chinese clay, historically. Plus Russian Federation is being soft-genocided by all kinds of asians for about 20 years now. Mostly via immigration, outbreeding and assimilation, but also cultural erasure.
-
-
Siberia, Iceland and Antarctica becomes habitable and can host all the GW refugees, US and EU and China will have all the arable land and being first world countries can min max it instead of brownoids banging rocks together. Australia and North Africa will get rivers.
-
China is not a First World country.
Nice try Zheng.-
>according to our measuring procedures made by us, we are better than you
>bottom text
ok bob-
It’s the United Nations Human Development Index, scrotebrain. It was created by an Indian economist, not an American, and it’s compiled by the UN.
China is a third world shithole with millions of poor destitute people, it has worse living standards than Mexico, and the only reason your economy matters is because there’s so freaking many of you.
Per capita you are trash, and the ghost cities Evergreen collapse will expose your "Muh 12% GDP growth" artificial house of cards.
-
*ok rajesh
there,corrected it.
-
-
-
Technically it’s a middle income nation and regional power.
-
-
-
>What are the positive effects of global warming
Humanity will wake up In some decades, see that things have gone very bad, and realize things can’t be done the same way they’ve been done for centuries. A global paradigm shift will bring unprecedented advance. -
accelerationism
-
youre so smart omg
-
-
living in Canada, near a great lake
-
should I take a boat across the border? Or maybe try to cross the lake when it freezes over… if it even does that anymore
-
-
Earth getting warmer will turn previously already hot places uninhabitable, causing a mass migration of Africans into Western European countries more than were seeing now, so more fertile, young white women will be getting railed by BBC in the future
-
The fact that it’s not real.
1. "Global average temperature with 0.1 degree centigrade accuracy" is cherrypicked pseudoscience, especially more than 60 years into the past
2. Increases in temperature follow increases in CO2 with a delay of at least a few centuries.
3. Talks of the Earth experiencing significant climate change within 30-80 years are asinine.I’m of the opinion that global warming is man-made, but won’t be a problem for at least the next 200 years.
-
Nice opinion. Do you have anything to support it?
-
-
It’s positively not my problem.
-
That mosquito eggs are melting in the tundra right now.
Less mosquitos in the next years, that is. -
More russian waifus hopefully
-
Adapt and evolve or die.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.