Climate change?

>It is impossible to prove anything to a man who has already made up his mind
Likewise, faggot. Instead of mindlessly believing and repeating what the clergy tells you, try thinking for yourself.

Also, it has been proven countless times. All you have to do is search in any search engine and actually read the fucking letters and charts. It also helps if you avoid blogs, youtube videos and other dumbfuck material from other internet "intelectuals" like you.

>It has been proven
>Just ignore the parts that prove it wrong
Contrary to what you might think; there isn't a scientific consensus. And as long as that's the case I'll rely on my own observations and make my own conclusions.

>conspiracy theories
water is the main greenhouse gas, 1kg of water vapor in the atmosphere = 2.000.000 J (0,5 kWh)

vapor condenses into rain = hurricanes, enormous release of energy into the atmosphere

CO2 captures very little energy, mainly as translation

and the wet atmosphere contains about 4% water vapor, but only 0,04% CO2

guess your IQ isn't 110 at least

Attached: energy absorption.jpg (900x887, 219K)

Fun Fact:
When illegals sneak into the US, their carbon footprint increases exponentially. Illegal immigration is bad for the environment

What is nuclear power, natural gas, alcohol, biodiesel, ...? There is also crazy suppressed shit by (((them))). Fuck off.

It's not real, anyone who says it is, is a jew or a retard.

>What is nuclear power
we don't have infinite uranium, there is even less nuclear than there is fossil fuels

>At the start of 2015, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 5.7 million tons.[9] At the rate of consumption in 2014, these reserves are sufficient for 135 years of supply.[9] The identified reserves as of 2015 recoverable at US$260/kg are 7.6 million tons.[9]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

>natural gas
nat gas is a fossil fuel

>alcohol, biodiesel
EROEI < 1, you get less energy than you invest to grow the crops, plants capture maybe up to 4% of solar energy that reaches earth per square meter, solar panels get 15%
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested

post carbon future is coming, I guess there will be a lot cannibalism in Brazil when food scarcity hits you

>post carbon future is coming
Not in a hundred years.

>Not in a hundred years.
it already happened in the North sea, we better start wars in the Middle East and get the energy before China does

Attached: north sea peak oil.png (678x432, 62K)

Oil is only being dug out where it REALLY plentiful and cheap to produce. Advancements in technology and increase in prices due to scarcity will make more countries start digging in otherwise untapped areas. The same goes for coal, but to a much greater degree.

>CO2 rising
YOU'RE BREATHING TOO MUCH YOU FILTHY GOY!

Coal is abundant enough to power the planet for some 400 years.
We're now on the verge of sustained fusion reactors.
Even if we had NONE of this and the energy were running out we could use the last we had to build orbital satellites to collect solar energy and beam it to earth as concetrated microwaves.

Energy doomers are like climate doomers:
They don't understand economics or technology

>Oil is only being dug out where it REALLY plentiful and cheap to produce
available fossil fuels predictions are made on discovered reserves, not on extracted oil

since the 60's we have discovered almost nothing

technological advancement does not help much if EROEI is < 1, if you invest more energy than you get from pumping the oil out

Norway has top technology, yet their production is failing

Attached: norway crude oil decline.png (960x540, 203K)

Pretty much, yeah. We'll see harsh energy rationing long before we'll see ourselves running out.

I've seen predictions saying "we'll run out of oil in 2000" "We'll run out of oil in 2010" "We'll run out of oil in 2020". All wrong. Norway's production is falling because of harmful regulations on the industry and because they can't compete with the penny-labour of the middle east.

>Coal is abundant enough to power the planet for some 400 years.
at current rate of consumption*

youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY

What do you think caused the enormous swings in temperature that occurred in the deep past?

>since the 60's we have discovered almost nothing

Hi, i'm just a Yank here but the USA has now surpassed the Saudis in extraction from this thing called the "shale revolution" and is energy independent.

Nice foreign flag you got there.. hope you have the navy to defend your trade because we yanks have zero reason to do it and it's all over but the crying in terms of our voluntary exit from the global stage.

Attached: smug_4.jpg (1280x720, 60K)

>I've seen predictions saying "we'll run out of oil in 2000" "We'll run out of oil in 2010" "We'll run out of oil in 2020".
not run out, reach the peak, and we did for conventional oil in 2006., predictions where accurate

>According to the International Energy Agency, conventional crude oil production peaked in 2006.
>iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/weo2010.pdf

pages 48, and 125

Attached: peak oil = climate change.png (200x196, 3K)

>not run out, reach the peak, and we did for conventional oil in 2006

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.jpg (662x504, 37K)

>muh oil peak in 2006

Apparently shortages cause price crashes now.

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.jpg (1033x596, 106K)

>Nice foreign flag
European, what's your race?

Attached: 1550845700761.jpg (1496x1998, 313K)

I can only guess, but probably something that has its origins not on this planet. Likely something sun-related. While technically possible to origin on Earth, if all volcanoes erupted at the same time or something like that, I find it to be very unlikely compared to the likelyhood of an imbalance in the sun or other extraterrestrial influences. Maybe a combination of the two? The video game Frostpunk features a great global cooling because of the sun weakening while at the same time a lot of volcanoes erupted at the same time, further blocking the sun's rays.

Atmospheric composition was supposedly also different back in the deep past, with more Carbon dioxide and Oxygen alike, leading to lusher plant life and larger beasts. Or so the theory goes. What caused these changes too? We don't know for sure, we can only guess.

croats are based

Shouldn't we ask Elon musk to save us. With his electric cars he will cut emissions particularly those emissions created by launching cars into space or for extra fuel for satellites that harpoon space junk
To be completely honest. Fuck the environment. If the world is going to be liberal, sjw and black who gives a shit if they breath soot.

WW3 or environment holocaust here we come

Attached: dont-care.png (605x224, 99K)

>how exactly are we suppose to stop it?
space umbrellas

m-mommy lagertha..

in 10-15 years we will have engineered a carbon capture system that's cheap enough for widespread use.

America is built for cars and this is a huge problem

that's US statistics, the IEA report is for world production

also the spike in USA production comes mainly from "unconventional" oil sources, while the peak was declared for conventional fields

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_oil

shale oil peak is predicted to occur around 2022, time is running out, you better invade Iran or else...

youtube.com/watch?v=PuZkWSxMx1s

we need to stop global warming,
there was no climate change before us
oh wait

Attached: o-humlum-et-al-global-and-planetary-change-79-2011(3).png (829x521, 231K)

>shale oil peak is predicted to occur around 2022, time is running out, you better invade Iran or else...
forgot pic

Attached: shale oil peak.png (601x453, 88K)

According to solar physicists, the sun brightened continually ever since its formation. That brightening was obviously an important forcing but it can't have been the single dominant factor as Earth history would in this case be one of progressive warming (which isn't the case).

If the temperature changes of the past were primarily caused by changes in the atmospheric concentration greenhouse gases, why is the geologic record brought up as if it discredits climate science in the meme image you posted?

>2014

We hit 12 million barrels a day this month. The Permian Basin has twice as much oil in it then we previously thought.

>If the temperature changes of the past were primarily caused by changes in the atmospheric concentration greenhouse gases
>if

>lagertha
Who?

no, that yellow thing that could fit more than a million earths can't be the main source of changes

Attached: main-qimg-9f46f86728e672d655a805e23ec822dd.jpg (540x374, 50K)

Climate change is a hoax made by (((them))) to make your life more miserable. Soon gas prices will be outstanding.

>First paragraph
As you say, the earths history is not one of progressive warming, so doesn't that disqualify the statement that the sun burns hotter and brighter as time goes on?

>Second paragraph
First of all the geologic records show that both sudden and large changes in both atmosphere and temperature has happened multiple times before industrialization, meaning that it's not for sure at all that humans have caused whatever minor changes we see right now. Second of all it also shows that doomers who think the world will end or turn to shit because it gets warmer are completely wrong, as it has already been that warm before.

>Atmospheric composition was supposedly also different back in the deep past, with more Carbon dioxide and Oxygen alike
H2O is the main greenhouse gas, CO2, O2, N2 absorb almost no sun radiation, water vapor captures most of the solar energy in the atmosphere, up to 90% or even more

Attached: power of H2O gas.jpg (838x555, 82K)

>Who?
Ukrainian female that is larping as a Viking

Riddle me this: Why does water in the atmosphere capture solar energy much better than water in the seas?

This croat gets it

Attached: Newsweek-April-28-1975-Cooling-World.jpg (600x805, 149K)

You don't you let CO2 rise to 800 ppm and then you better hope you get fusion. also we either wall or move our ities.

Carbon dioxide isn't even "pollution", it is plant food. When there is more C02 in the air, more plants grow: its a negative feedback. All the carbon we are emitting was once in the atmosphere anyway.

Marine housing is way past due. Be it underwater or floating. Think about it, housing and real estate is the most expensive thing there is, and this is a completely untapped market for luxury housing where one unit could sell for millions upon millions.

And that's why plastic bags make excellent toys for small children.

Also, it's a well known fact that most crop failures are caused by lack of CO2, and not water, as ((farmers)) would have you believe.

>Riddle me this: Why does water in the atmosphere capture solar energy much better than water in the seas?

liquid water has hydrogen bonds, when you apply sun radiation and destroy the hydrogen bond the freed H2O molecule has gained kinetic energy that is equivalent the energy that was stored in the hydrogen bond

so only for H2O gas you get 2.000.000 J of energy per 1kg of water vapor

add to that rotational and vibrational energy absorbed by the H-O-H bonds in the molecule

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization

the structure of H2O, covalent bonds at an angle, can easy absorb most wavelengths in the infrared spectrum, and other gases don't have that property, pic related

it's a good thing there is na "atmospheric window", or we wouldn't have wireless and cell phones, it wouldn't be possible to transmit signals, vapor would absorb everything

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_window

Attached: absorption bands.jpg (900x887, 218K)

It's difficult to imagine why anyone would not embrace our aquatic destiny.

I am evolving gills right not.

Attached: waterworld.jpg (277x182, 10K)

>If climate change is real how exactly are we suppose to stop it?

This is why the conversation is frustrating, because nobody addresses it. The fact is, if the idea is true that we NEED to cut carbon emissions before 2030 in order to stop a disaster, then we're already fucked. That disaster, if true, isn't preventable by any retarded green deal or carbon credits. The ONLY way to prevent a scenario where the worldwide average trends downwards for the entirety of the next 12 years is a complete GLOBAL economic collapse that sees billions of people to die. That's it. Or a global nuclear war with multiple countries accepting mutually assured destruction.

Nothing else will see Co2 go on a downwards trend in the next 12 years.

Both asian and european cities are better in terms of public transport and cycling

>doesn't that disqualify the statement that the sun burns hotter and brighter as time goes on
No it doesn't because the solar brightening is based on fairly well understood and uncontroversial stellar physics

As for the rest: There several things to point out about the extreme warm intervals of the past.
Firstly, these intervals were supported by CO2 concentrations that weren't that much higher than the preindustrial Holocene. For example, in the early 2000s it was thought that the early Eocene pCO2 was about 4000ppm or more while the emerging view today is that it was only around 1000ppm. In other words, the geologic record supports the view that the climate system is very sensitive and temperatures will rise significantly in response to relatively minor increases in CO2 concentration.

Secondly, most known warm intervals were quasi-steady states that established themselves over millions of years. It's true that there are instances of abrupt changes in CO2 and temperature but these are extremely rare in the geologic record - there were only a handful during the last half billion years. What you also forgot to mention is that these are commonly associated with global-scale restructuring of the biosphere and often with the mass extinctions and the disappearance of complex ecosystems.

All of this is quite inconsistent with the view that the pressures generated by humans aren't capable of forcing an abrupt response of the Earth system.

>>If climate change is real how exactly are we suppose to stop it?
>This is why the conversation is frustrating, because nobody addresses it

a post carbon future is real, and very near, you can't stop it, only delay it

the solution is to invade Iran and other Near Eastern countries that have oil

The United Nations has openly admitted to using Muh Global Warming as a scare tactic to take wealth from productive countries and give it to shitskins while simultaneously encouraging said shitskins to migrate to the productive countries.
It's all intended to precipitate a global collapse that will leave the Rothschilds and their minions with the only reliable tradable resources - precious metals - while the rest of us are slaves under the Islamic bootheel.
Meanwhile, the actual pollution killing our planet, being churned out by India, China and even Africa, is left unchecked. These sick fucks don't care that they're going to end up killing themselves, so long as they get their magical prophecy of living like kings with legions of slaves.

It's not 12 years near. Maybe 50 years from now the world will be carbon output free. But not 12. And that's why the conversation, and everything stemming from it, is retarded. The conversation should be "Ok, these scientists say if we don't move off carbon within 12 years, we're fucked. That's not happening. So we have 12 years to prepare our countries for what it projected to happen. Lets talk about how we can do that."

>All of this is quite inconsistent with the view that the pressures generated by humans aren't capable of forcing an abrupt response of the Earth system.
humans produce about 5% of CO2 annual emissions

>temperatures will rise significantly in response to relatively minor increases in CO2 concentration
what about H2O?
look at the absorption bands

>carbon output free
oh shit the earth is going to be a barren wasteland with no life on it?

>hurrr he said carbon output free and even though I clearly knew he meant in the form of burning fossil fuels, I'm going to be retarded and act like he doesn't know that life expels carbon naturally! Hurrrrr

>using EIA data Oct 2009
a prediction model before China put trash import banned from western countries.

youtube.com/watch?v=G1cjHbXdU0s

still it would be smart to burn less, save some for future generations, can't maintain that world domination or yours without fuel

Attached: fuel.jpg (640x426, 44K)

>humans produce about 5% of CO2 annual emissions

I know you're a HIGH IQ graduate of Prager U or whatever, but try and understand that 5% (and that's a made up figure) doesn't get removed each year, so it's like filling a bucket slowly.

>China put trash import banned from western countries
based Xhina, they only want raw, not used

>but try and understand that 5% (and that's a made up figure) doesn't get removed each year
why not?

when IPPC publishes their reports do they base them on measured CO2 levels, or on such predictions that the gas will stay there forever?

>Prager U
that's ad hominem, because you got no arguments

I haven't checked the number but I guess it makes sense that the human contribution makes up about 5% of the total flux in the carbon cycle. But at note that at steady-state all fluxes out of carbon sources would be matched by fluxes into carbon sinks to keep the atmospheric carbon reservoir (approximately) constant. Adding a human contribution of 5% represents an enormous imbalance in the carbon cycle and has already caused atmospheric CO2 concentration to rise to values not seen in ~4 million years.

>what about H2O?
It's true that water vapor is a crucial greenhouse gas but, again, note that it's a condensible gas and represents a feedback internal to the climate system. In other words, water vapor is different from CO2 in that it cannot change its concentration independent of climate.

>why not?
It's like you and your piss bottles. Everyday you only piss a little in your bottle. But because mommy doesn't remove your full bottles one day soon, you are going to be living in a world of piss.
>that's ad hominem, because you got no arguments
No, it's because you are a fucking idiot.

Attached: carboncycle_sm.jpg (360x360, 58K)

>I haven't checked the number
still we should prepare for a post carbon era

>'Peak Oil' and the German Government Military Study Warns of a Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis

>A study by a German military think tank has analyzed how "peak oil" might change the global economy. The internal draft document -- leaked on the Internet -- shows for the first time how carefully the German government has considered a potential energy crisis.

>spiegel.de/international/germany/peak-oil-and-the-german-government-military-study-warns-of-a-potentially-drastic-oil-crisis-a-715138.html

>permaculturenews.org/files/Peak Oil_Study EN.pdf

Attached: peak_oil_curve.jpg (550x337, 38K)

All taxes should be lowered first to lessen the impact, but the only solution is to put an excise tax on carbon and methane that goes towards carbon capture, say $50 per ton of CO2 emitted(a gallon of gas emits 20 pounds of CO2 so that's $0.50 per gallon). This would also apply to CO2 emitted from power stations or methane from cattle ranching. Subsidies for green energy and outright bans on certain things is just socialism though, a simple tax will let the market fix the issue in the best way possible.

Times up? Looks like there's another 100 years to me. So why should I give a fuck?

Nigger mentality.

thats the whole point, in order to stop it you would need a new world order and take national sovereignity away from nation states.Thats why the (((KRITARCHY))) invented this gibberish nonsense.
Anthropogenic Climate Change is a tool of an oligarchy who always is against general technological advancement for society because it takes its power away.Jews are natural oligarchs (12 judges).Hence a system run by jews will develop these tendencies.

cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3
We already figured out how to pull the C02 out of the air and the technology is rapidly developing. The only people who give a shit about the environment are Europeans and the same people screeching about the climate the most are also seemingly hell bent on replacing and getting rid of us and removing our ability to have any platform or power to continue even noticing the climate issues

China will eat you alive and your nation state will collapse.There will be no change to the climate.

The capture of CO2 from ambient air was commercialized in the 1950s as a pre-treatment for cryogenic air separation. In the 1960s, capture of CO2 from air was considered as a feedstock for production of hydrocarbon fuels using mobile nuclear power plants.1 In the 1990s, Klaus Lackner explored the large-scale capture of CO2 as a tool for managing climate risk,2 now commonly referred to as direct air capture (DAC).

I'm more interested in what you have to say about the points in my post

There is no steady state.This idea is so retarded.If it was a state state then CO2 wouldn´t naturally fluctuate which they did.
Within the preboreal era CO2 flucated around 50 ppm in a few decades.
So the value is above 4 million years ? Who cares.Its only shows that the current low CO2 levels are the exception and not the rule.
There is no danger form high CO2 levels.
Destroying your own economy results in a civilisation breakdown.

oil is cheaper than ever you brainlet.

>hurr durr the only solution is horrifically regressive taxes on the poor

Listen up fruitcakes:

Energy is the foundation of our civilization.
Everything that makes it more expensive raises the real poverty line for everyone, submerging more and more of the working class.

You fuckers are literally anti-poor and anti-human, trying to tax energy until everyone who is not in the upper 10% is living in third-world conditions.

I know this, because it's already happened in shitlib areas like California, where the real poverty line is quadruple the rest of the country.

Then start with yourself.Jump of a cliff to stop climate change.

there are...nuclear energy

>We already figured out how to pull the C02 out of the air and the technology is rapidly developing.
Do you not understand what a concentration of 400ppm means? Imagine the air flow rate for such a process to be feasible.

Attached: seagull wind.jpg (1400x1021, 155K)

There is nothing wrong or unnatural with earth getting warmer.

There is no proof human have an impact its just that you want it to be that way.

>It was only global cooliing in the eyes of dumbfucks

who cares about the narrative of yesterday that failed right...who cares about that there were predictions that there would never be snow again and cool winters.Just listen to the predictions we make now and if they are wrong we make new predictions.Just give us all your stuff and be a slave to a financial oligarchy.

how about no you fucking piece of shit.

Its always ten years.Short enough to have an impact on the human psyche ,long enough to let the NPCs forget the last failed model and prediction.

So what about more and larger plants due to more CO2? Is it really that bad?

because there is no proof Soros faggot and no we not going into this scam.

nothing has been proven countless times all your side has is to blackmail,extort,mass propaganda 24/7, moral shaming

the usual mo of what the oligarchy in west uses to "proof" its point

>Within the preboreal era CO2 flucated around 50 ppm in a few decades
Where do you get this from?

The most rapid CO2 fluctuation that is recognized in a highly resolved West Antarctic ice core had a magnitude of about 10ppm and took more than a century.
nature.com/articles/nature13799

I would have agreed with you if you said that a perfect steady-state is probably never fully achieved. However large imbalances like the one generated by humans can't be ordinary features of the carbon cycles because (besides being inconsistent with the marine carbon isotope record) maintaining these imbalances on even short geologic timescales would have already caused Earth to irreversibly transition towards a super-hot greenhouse state - which evidently isn't the case.

For the implications of high CO2 please see

>I'm more interested in what you have to say about the points in my post

if you look at the energy content the 400ppm hold in the atmosphere from infrared absorption, + kinetic energy from temperature, it's not that much, nothing catastrophic will happen because of CO2

but it's a good larp, useful to prepare for the post carbon future

we can act as if we are saving the climate and still achieve the same result as if we where preparing for a energy scarce future

*if there is not malinvestment in dubious projects, and currently the EU funds to some extend misallocate capital

Attached: under construction.jpg (2603x1713, 1.94M)

Attached: Rg0B7L9.jpg (800x1164, 135K)

>large imbalances like the one generated by humans

"climate change" is proof that in the absence of wide-spread religion, people will produce doomsday cults without the need for a "god"

Attached: global_warming_temperature_planet_earth.jpg (2048x1152, 200K)