Is global warming a meme? Why do people say climate change now instead of global warming?
the planet's temperature is always changing, that's a natural cyclebut the rising CO2 levels are caused by humans burning shit on an industrial scaleand CO2 is a greenhouse gas that helps warming up the planet fasteri'm more concerned about the CO2 as a gas rather than the weather impactit's at 400 ppm now but should get nowhere near 1000 ppmaround 1000 ppm is when it starts to affect your concentration
>>16511869>CO2 is a greenhouse gasno it isn't. mars would be extremely warm if co2 was a greenhouse gas since mars has over 30 times more atmospheric co2 per unit surface area than earth does. mars has no measurable greenhouse effect and this proved that co2 is not a greenhouse gas
>>16511874mars is cold because it barely has any atmosphere and is further from the sun than earthvenus is the extreme example of CO2 greenhouse effect making a planet hot
>>16511874Mars has a thin and less pressurized atmospheres, meaning its less of a heat trap than Earth. This is the same reason why it's so hard to land a probe on Mars. Also it's further away from the Sun which means it receives less solar radiation.
>>16511892how come the co2 on mars doesn't produce a greenhouse effect? is co2 magically only a greenhouse gas on earth? does physics work differently on earth than it does on mars for some reason?
>>16512190>how come the co2 on mars doesn't produce a greenhouse effect?It does: the effect of CO2 on outgoing radiation has been clearly observed on Mars and Venus (see pic)Why the overall temperature change is small: 1) Mars is further from the Sun, so the surface is cooler due to lower solar input, and emits less outgoing radiation; 2) thin atmosphere leads to low pressure broadening and lower absorptivity of CO2; there's no water vapour to enhance the greenhouse effect; and so on, and so forth.If you still disagree then, by all means - show quantitatively that the modern greenhouse theory doesn't predict Mars temperatures after taking the above points into account.
>>16512557Mars how zero measurable greenhouse effect yet it has massive amounts of atmospheric CO2, so CO2 is clearly not a greenhouse gas
>>16511874> CO2 isnt a greenhouse gasCan you analyse the absorption spectrum to check something?
>>16511245Definitely overblown even if humans are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Given that there are such huge variations in global temperature in the past >>16511865, there's no way to objectively determine "normal" global temperature over the last 2 centuries. Without a control, you're basically guessing.Those temperature/year/CO2 graphs are very deceptive as you can easily adjust the scale of any axes to show a strong, weak, or no correlation.Scientists have never done any serious experiments to test the climate change theory. That alone should tell you that their arguments are specious at best.
>>16513506mars doesn't have a measurable greenhouse effect, that proves that co2 is not a greenhouse gas
>>16513451Are you a parrot by any chance?
>>16511245>Why do people say climate change now instead of global warming?Because the Bush administration ran a very successful psyop and climate change sounds less threatening than global warming. Change can be a good thing, right? Things are always changing, right? So we can ignore it and keep burning fossil fuels, leaving Bush and his cronies rich.I wish, I was a schizo for typing this.>In 2002, a memo was written by Frank Luntz for the Republican Party on how to address environmental issues (Luntz, 2002). Luntz suggested that Republicans should update their terminology when discussing the environment, by describing themselves as conservationists, rather than preservationists or environmentalists, as the former had more positive connotations. Secondly, he suggested that Republicans use the term climate change instead of global warming, as the latter was deemed less controllable, more catastrophic, and more emotionally challenging. It was suggested that these simple changes in terminology would assist the Republicans in winning the environmental debate.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494419307376
>>16514312>mars doesn't have a measurable greenhouse effectBut it does. So does Venus by the way. >that proves that co2 is not a greenhouse gasThe fact that both planets have measurable greenhouse effects consistent with their respective atmospheric pressures proves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
>>16515168>VenusIt doesn't, you're just too ignorant of physics to account for the ideal gas laws' impact on Venusian surface temperature.
>>16515574Huh, the very definition of Dunning-Kruger in action. Takes a couple chem and physics classes and thinks he understands the universe.
>>16511869CO2 is an isolator for very few wave lengths. As a trace gas it has nearly no heat transport capability. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (wich has all this) is 100 times greater and has way more greenhouse properties than everything else in the atmosphere. Further is the concentration rise a lie. i know because people calibrating smoke detectors have the equipment. Measuring station on an active volcano on Hawaii and in city traffic prove the utterly evil of scammers and liars calling them self "experts" while living in the ass of goberment for gibs.
>>16514312What is Mars' atmosphere density compared to Earth?
>is it the CO2 from oil and gas in our atmosphere?
>is climate change really man-made?
>I heard its just the sun spots >I heard co2 is mostly from volcanoeshttps://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter01.pdf#page=35
>they are still unsure if its really co2 that drives temperaturehttps://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691.pdf
>the rise in this temperature actually is a good thing
and if thats not enough, simply check for if climate chage is real with reinsurance companies worldwide.
>>16516242Guter Pfost da
>>16511245Climate change is a local phenomena, while global warming is global. For instance rainforests likely wont change their climate at the world warms, it'll remain a tropical climate, while other parts of the world, will have their climates change. An example is that a larger proportion of the US has a humid subtropical climate now than 100 years ago.
>>16516267>volcanoes holy shit the scum bags are really runnin the same disinfo campaigns 50 years later
>>16516267ipcc is a UN political propaganda outlet, not a scientific body
>>16516387Global warming and climate change are a right wing conspiracy theory. They literally adopt these words to make scientists out to be kooky/crazy/deranged/woman-like/etc. Picture Jim Jones or some other suicide cult like J6. The only official narrative is not some doomer-tier end of the world non-sense. The non-sensational version is undetermined intermittently unseasonable environmental variance.It is crucial to unpack this statement, but if you aren't apart of the scientific community, then you are going to lead yourself astray here. I will give you some breadcrumbs. >environmental varianceWhy isn't this temperature variation? Well, there are many variables that are affected. By limiting the scope to temperature, the precision excludes knock-on unseasonability.
>>16511869>and CO2 is a greenhouse gas that helps warming up the planet fasterSo why isn't CO2 used in double glazing?
>>16515166Funny if that's the reason, because climate change serves the environmentalist agenda better than global warming. Talking about global warming when it's extremely cold outside or there's a particularly snowy winter makes people scoff. Climate change can be applied to virtually anything.
>>16511245Why warm global when you could burn local?
>>16519511thats why they changed it
>>16511245
>>16516267
>>16513608Enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is good for nature, it might be the smartest thing humanity has ever done
>>16511245>Why do people say climate change now instead of global warming?It was an attempt at 'better' Science Communication and public marketing. When people heard "Global Warming" the average person thought of palm trees growing in the UK, dramatic increases in arable land in Canada & Russia, and so forth. They changed it to "Climate Change" in an effort to better communicate the fact that when the planet heats up due to increases in greenhouse gases what you actually get is more extreme weather systems: worse droughts, worse rain, worse winds, worse winters, etc.. >Is global warming a memeNot completely, no. Is Anthropomorphic climate change fake and gay? No, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04&t=40s&ab_channel=NASAGoddard Without any frills what's basically happening is Northern Hemisphere countries (like America and China) create seasonal spikes in emissions during the winter months when energy demands are at their highest and this creates atmospheric discrepancies & disturbances the planet finds "yucky" (The planet craves homeostasis: if we released the exact amount of emissions, every year, for a hundred years, it would be better than sporadic amounts) which result in storms, droughts, climate change, etc. Emission levels then lower during the summer when the plants come out and engorge themselves, but every year there's a little bit more excess that doesn't get ate up - that's what climate scientists are worried about and what actually contribute to the planet getting warmer. With all that said: everything negative we commonly attribute to global warming can be alleviated with better environmental stewardship. Carbon credits are a scam, net zero is a scam, the only thing that *actually* makes a differences is sequestering and preserving habitat for plants and animals. Which isn't hard, nor does it actually cost money, but it doesn't *make* money, so it may as well be satanic.
>>16511869/thread
>>16522480Hello fellow esteemed traveler, I also spread red paint on youtube to convince people to eat bugs.
climate change due to humans filling out the biosphere was always inevitable, and we will adapt. No, globo homo scientists are not able to reasonably predict climate, but it may get disasterous (and 2 billion dead south east asians will be a good thing)
>>16522480>environmental stewardshipThis has always been a conservative buzzword
>>16523247I've always been confused by the term "wilderness management". If a region is under management then it isn't wilderness, wilderness is unmanaged by definition
>>16511874Those CO2 studies on concentration are flawed.
>>16515574this venus has 93 bar pressurethats 93 times more than earth
>>16524647>Twitter meme with no source
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCadcBR95oU
>>16519511>Talking about global warming when it's extremely cold outside or there's a particularly snowy winter makes people scoff.Only if those ESLs don't understand the concept of "global"
Emission nimbyist liberals when they discover we lost more coastal land 10,000 years ago than we did for the prior 44 million There's nothing we can do to stop the change except reduce population size ( ideally clearing India and Africa would be a great start! )
>>16525459>the global warming institute this must be an objective impartial source of scientific information and not a massively partisan political propaganda outlet shilling fake statistics
>>16525498good job.but now off to /pol/ with you.
>>16511245Its just marketing term.
>>16525978wrong board.>>16525953and here you find data that isnt faked:>>16516278whoopsyI can reassure you, after all, you only ever have the truth in mind.even with targeted disinformation, you can still see exactly which source of information is genuine and which is a lie.always.incidentally, this is due to the necessary comprehensibility that science requires.always.
>>16511245>Is global warming a meme?A trace gas at 0.04% will destroy the planet if it goes to 0.08%. despite having been there before. It's by pure chance the main thermostat of the planet and at the same time a gas that human activity produces.Only a small priesthood of people with a stake in its promotion can do the calculations that show how it works and they are aggressively hostile to all outsiders.Yeah it's a meme
>>16511245>Why do people say climate change now instead of global warming?because, in the wintertime, when you say, "global warming is bad," they reply, "yeah, but i'm freezing right now so, fuck off, i'll take it."it's just re-branding to avoid an inaccurate connotation.
>>16516238...>>16516291
>>16516291>trust the insurance companies!!!!>you gotta trust the insurance companies!!!!
>>16511245>Why do people say climate change now instead of global warming?you are a fucking retardglobal warming leads to climate change you retard
>>16530724>semanticsthe climate isn't changing significantly and the globe isn't warming
>>16513451>but I didn't eat breakfast this morning
>>16511245Because an unfalsifiable theory needs a moveable goalpost.
>>16530336its amazing how things have changed so dramatically over the past couple decades, can't have happened organically
>>16511869>Muh CO2Why do you people never talk about rising GDP, rising population, rising living standards? CO2 does jackshit to the environment and that's why people don't believe it. The problem is the people themselves, tell them to fuck off.
>>16532526/thread>>16532616Not an argument.
>>16525503You're on the wrong website. You need to take your shit and fuck off back to r.eddit with the rest of the sheep herd.
>Why do people say climate change now instead of global warming?>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz>He advocated use of vocabulary crafted to produce a desired effect, including use of the term death tax instead of estate tax, and climate change instead of global warming.>In a confidential memo to the Republican party,[30] Luntz is credited with advising the Bush administration that the phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", which he called a "less frightening" phrase than the former.[31]Because right wingers are sheep.
>>16533668>>16533675>>16533684retarded af
Its an overrated threat and the best response is reforestation efforts, investment in nuclear, and more recycling of agricultural and sewage waste.>use petrochem to make fertilizer>runs off into the ocean>instead of recycling that waste back into the environment and increasing soil fertility it creates oceanic dead zonesThere is a stupid amount of waste that could be recycled back into the system. The technology exists in the form of biogasification and supercavitation supercritical water oxidization. Can sink a ton of carbon into the soil and make very fertile soil that last for centuries.
>>16534066One issue is flood mitigation bc the most likely outcome is increased high rainfall events. Desertification is a bullshit lie outcome. Global warming leads to warm wet climates, not desertification. Floods are the primary threat. Current hydro projects might have to be expanded to handle high level rainflow events. I would not buy property on a 1000 year flood plain, bc those will become 100 year flood plains, and 10 year flood plains.
>>16534074Thus the best use of flood plains is flood plain agriculture, rice and fish aquaculture. Chinampas are a historical solution as well.
>>16534078Rising sea levels are not a big deal.Look at the Netherlands.They literally built land into the ocean, this method can be reproduced globally. Big barrier island projects to protect from hurricanes.
>>16514627>>16518366>>16524945>>16515168>>16525335
>>16534081>Look at the Netherlands.Look at New Orleans
>>16534081The rise will not be the same for every country. Countries close to the equator will experience a higher rise, countries close to Greenland will see next to zero effective rise, and Greenland itself will rise once freed from all that ice mass.
>>16534230LMAO, that is a bonus.
>>16525503Anon, /pol/ is filled with trash like you.
>>16534230NO was terribly mismanaged. NO should be converted to chinampas. That would suck up all the agricultural waste effluent that runs off the mississippi and creates the big dead zone in the gulf.They blame that dead zone on global warming but the real problem is ag runoff sends a shitton of nitrogen into the ocean there, creates algal blooms which suck up all the oxygen and kills the ecosystem. All that nitrogen instead could be sucked up by a chinampas agricultural zone and used for food. In a natural system, swamps would suck up all that runoff, uptake the nutrients, and prevent algal blooms.
>>16534247This is also the case in the various bays. All the ag runoff carries excess nitrogen waste which comes from petrochem fertilizer. It just gets wasted and creates algal bloom dead zones, but if it was used for either chinampas or aquaculture projects, that nitrogen runoff could be used to grow more food instead of fucking up the ecosystem. There have been at least some programs to promote planting trees and plants along the rivers in ag zones to suck up some of the nutrient runoff but its not a 100% solution. Theres no reason not to recapture waste nutrients. There is no such thing as waste, only untapped resources due to ignorance of the potential.
>>16534250>>16534247People like to claim food is abundant, but look at the prices and the waste. Its abundant until some system fails. And it all relies on pumping massive amounts of petrochem imported from overseas, and then it gets dumped into the ocean. It is stupid and wasteful. Bad engineering.
>>16534255Basically modern petrochem based agriculture is degenerative, it leaches nutrients and natural microbial diversity from the soil in exchange for external inputs. In the long run it is not sustainable even *if* we had infinity fossil fuels.
>>16534259you have no idea what you're talking about, you've never grown a plant in your life
>>16534259Consider the CHON cycle rn:>pump and mine CHON>spread CHON on the soil>poop it out into sewage system>rest of it runs off into the riverine system and drains into the oceanThis is stupid. Instead:>grow food>eat food>poop waste into sewage system>sewage system pumps liquid slurry waste through high pressure supercavitation nozzles into supercritical state, reducing all contaminants including PFAS, microplastics, etc to basic elements useful as fertilizer source>localized circular nutrient cycle
>>16534262Thanks for the completely non constructive and worthless criticism, big ag shillbot retard
>>16534262Lets look at net biomass productivity, if we want to really discuss carbon sequestration.As you'll see, rainforests and temperate forests, wetlands, and estuaries, are all the greatest carbon sequestration environments, thus if you really care about carbon sequestration, you want to convert as much of the ecosystem into these kinds of environments. Your stupid ass machines that are using electricity to suck carbon out of the air are never going to match converting entire ecosystems into carbon sinks, unless you run them off of nuclear plants, which the west refuses to build. >durrr use carbon based electricity sources to suck carbon out the airStupid. Fucking. Retards.
>>16534273Also, with the right sort of agriculture, you can get more food from a forest environment than from a field system. You can have cattle and bison in a forest ecosystem, theres trees that provide forage instead of growing grain. Forests also clean the atmosphere of pollutants better than fields do, and are water sponges, and also provide for moisture transport from the ocean inland, reducing drought conditions. Theres also ways of landscaping the forest terrain to prevent forest fires (grazing animals to prevent excess underbrush, microponds and subsurface swale water retention keeping the trees retaining moisture, etc).Ive researched this stuff extensively. You could create nearly self managing long term ecosystems that provide both food and energy to billions of people scattered in small villages instead of clustered in miserable hive cities.
>>16523219
>>16513451>mars>massive amounts of atmosphereanon...
>>16511245Scientists downgrading global warming to climate change was a tacit admission that they have no idea what's going on. They're just collecting random data and throwing shit theories on the wall, hoping something sticks. If they don't keep pushing a cataclysmic narrative, they would out of their jobs. None of theories they've proposed have been tested in a laboratory. Believing in anthropogenic climate change is like believing in dark matter.
>>16511245‘You are a slow learner, Winston,’ said O’Brien gently.‘How can I help it?’ he blubbered. ‘How can I help seeingwhat is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.’Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once.You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.’
>>16536802>The global warming institutestop spamming this board with that political activist propaganda, it has nothing to do with science
https://science.nasa.gov/resource/video-climate-spiral-1880-2022/
