https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar d/2016/climate-trends-co

>world is hotter than "normal"
>how do we fix it

Change the definition of normal.
Global warming is cured!

>>8481765
>How did we get here?

Decades of science denialism.

>What can we do about this?

Probably too late to do anything meaningful.

>>8481779
/thread

I'd still argue that we should try even if it means ecoterrorism

>>8481779
>>8481780
if we can't change it what are the alternatives

File: SeedBombs.jpg (77KB, 465x310px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 465x310px

>>8481780
>ecoterrorism

>>8481785
Increase funding for studies on carbon cycle, wetlands, land-atmosphere interactions etc. such that we can at least constrain future scenarios and not be suddenly surprised when a significant portion of the land we use to feed ourselves stops being viable for agriculture.

>>8481785
Ensuring an environment habitable for the human race for a few more centuries.

Thus we may survive until we have the technology to travel to another planet, terraform it, and never commit the same mistake again

>>8481779
>>8481780
>>8481785

What is geoengineering?

>>8481785
I think we need to make a DNA database to preserve as many forms of life as possible. There's not telling which one of them holds the cure to cancer or something. Once they're gone that's it, no more medical breakthroughs.

>>8481811
Any proof it works? Why isn't it being used

>>8481820
>Any proof it works?
It isn't rocket science, really
>Why isn't it being used
No funds and no political support

>>8481801
>>8481802
why not just change how we approach agriculture? There's such an unneeded emphasis on engineering the plants when the farms themselves are what need to be innovated. High density greenhouse farming is the way to go IMO, but of course nothing is really being done about any of this

>>8481765

We are fucked. Hundreds of millions of people, are going to be hit with famine, displacement, war, and of course all of this will result in increased poverty. We don't even know how well the US will do. What happens when the US' agricultural land isn't viable anymore, and major port cities are under water?

Maybe we can make do with new agricultural paradigms, but the shit is going to hit the fan like a slow moving industrial press just crushing civilization. Slowly but obviously it will start destroying everything with increasingly alarming damage to the foundations of modern civilization while everybody scrambles to get a hold on the situation and push back. Even now there is evidence it is effecting the geopolitical landscape with droughts and extreme weather, but that evidence will be irrefutable eventually.

I don't know what is going to happen. I imagine the world is going to look nightmarishly unstable by the time I'm in my mid to late 40s.

>>8481875
is there any hope?

ITT: Loonies who are overshooting the effects of global warming

>>8482049
>Sean hannity and muh pastor says it dun be a satanic plot hatched by the UN and a hoax therefore it is

>>8482054
Who are you quoting?

Post yfw you don't live in the developing world or California. Feels good man.

>>8481765
>tfw live in one of the white parts

Just kill me already.

File: UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection-2-550x330.gif (48KB, 550x330px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 550x330px

>>8481765
Not yet.

>>8481765
Why is it getting colder in Russia?

Just start planting trees, a lot of them, and move to wood as replacement for the hydrocarbons we use now.

>>8481785

Get ready for the new realities. Much of Europe and America will flood, but places like Siberia and Northern Canada will become inhabitable, not to mention Antarctica, so it's not an unmitigated disaster.

>>8481811

If you think any known technology can prevent 20 meter sea level increases, then you're wrong.

>>8481816
Like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault?

>>8482097
>developing world
>California
what's the difference

>>8482171
Because NASA has to get friendly with Russia and get ready for when Trump is in office, and show him global warming is 10x worse than what it really is.

>>8482097

California is extremely mountainous and won't be much effected by the sea level increase. Meanwhile Turd World shitholes like Bangledesh are 90% below the new sea levels, and home to hundreds of millions of future refugees. No part of the world won't be devastated by the changes to come.

>>8482191
Yes.

>>8481802
> travel to another planet, terraform it
Even the absolute worst-case scenario doesn't make Earth less habitable than another planet.

>>8482189
> but places like Siberia and Northern Canada will become inhabitable, not to mention Antarctica, so it's not an unmitigated disaster.
It's not as straightforward as the temperate zones just moving away from the equator a bit. Entire ecosystems aren't going to just up sticks and follow the climate pole-ward.

And much (most?) of the warming isn't manifested as temperature increases, but as latent heat (turning ice into liquid water or liquid water into vapour). So more rain and more snow. And also an overall increase in the amount of energy driving weather systems; so more hurricanes.

It's not going to be Armageddon. Mankind has survived at least one ice age already. But it is going to be massively disruptive. To the degree that when the full extent becomes obvious, any scientific resources not spent on dealing with it will probably be spent on creating a time machine so we can go back in time, seek out the twats who thing that getting criticised for driving a 10 mpg SUV is persecution, and beat the absolute crap out of them with nail bats.

dumping fuck tons of limestone into the sea will increase acidity and increase the oceans capacity for CO2 dissolution, but this wont be good for the 'wildlife' baka

>>8482227

Oh for sure the actual transition will be monumentally awful to live thru, but it's not close to being a "civilization-ending" disaster, we will survive and adapt and in 500 years it will be seen as a blessing.

>>8482198
I'm referring to drought and water shortages which are certainly an aspect of climate change.

>>8482235

Only in the short term, in the long term melting the icecaps means more water in the weather means generally milder climates. California will benefit from the flooding of it's Central valley as well as from the increased rainfall, it will be a new eden.

File: Figure6bm.png (104KB, 603x227px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 603x227px

>>8482171

"I have tried to emphasize in my scientific research the inability of current global climate models (GCMs) to simulate the large scale climate impacts of snow cover variability and this November is a great illustration of the models’ shortcomings. The GCMs are on track to experience a profound forecast miss this November with their Eurasian and North Pacific temperature forecast, even at the shortest lead time. I do believe that this miss will propagate further in time and impact the accuracy of the winter forecast."

"Snow cover advance across Eurasia continued consistently above normal for the entire month of October. Also because much of the advance has occurred at latitudes south of 60°N, the snow advance index is also well above normal. Above normal snow cover extent, especially south of 60°N, favors a strengthened Siberian high, cold temperatures across northern Eurasia and a weakened polar vortex/negative AO this upcoming winter followed by cold temperatures across the continents of the NH."

Atmospheric and Environmental Research
www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation

>>8481875
>Hundreds of millions of people
Too many people yet no war on fornication yet? What about some birth control and sex education? Won't that do more to fix the climate than computer simulations?

I wish one of those atmospheric CO2 removal machines actually worked. Then again, if you could take the carbon out of the atmosphere, where would you store it?

File: grow-room.jpg (55KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x600px

>>8482396
>where would you store it?
Give it to the growers, for free.
1400 ppm requires supplementation.

>>8482396
They do "actually work," or at least some of them do, the trouble is that we'd need a massive number of them and they'd all need to be powered by something, probably nuclear reactors.

That said, we may wind up having to use them anyway.

>>8482616

As a creationist that believes in time travel....

Yea. Anything is possible.

I believe death, poverty, disease, etc was cured millennia ago.

>>8481765
>How did we get here?
Coal and gas industry
Petrol industry
Meat industry

>What can we do about this?
Buy solar panels, support clean electrivity sources like nuclear and wind, stop eating meat, use the bike instead of the car for short trips

>>8482233
The worst consequences won't have even begun in 500 years. Burning all known fossil fuels will lead to the inevitable collapse of the antarctic ice sheet in a few thousand years.

>>8482639
>Buy solar panels
Pretty sure way more resources go into building Chinese sand panels than you get out of them over their lifetime. Nuclear is an enormous investment and the monkeys do still like nuke bombs. Wind is good for supplemental or niche areas with a good steady wind but they must very tall to get out of the turbulence.

I admire your feelings but no matter what you do or an entire nation does realize fossil fuels will be burnt until they are gone or at least up to and proably past a negative EROEI. The sooner we reach that point the sooner we face the reality of the end of cheap energy and the sooner we get back to a sustainable human population. The idea of conservation is just making more people and the cliff taller when the day of reckoning comes and its not going to be a climate problem.

>>8482242
>more water in the weather

Water vapour is itself a greenhouse gas

>>8482726
>Pretty sure way more resources go into building Chinese sand panels than you get out of them over their lifetime.
Would love a citation on that. Seeing as the price of a solar panel breaks even in like a year, if this is true, then those must be exceptionally cheap materials - what are they, exactly?

>I admire your feelings
Feeling don't factor into it, I just gave OP a rational answer to their questions

>The sooner we reach that point the sooner we face the reality of the end of cheap energy and the sooner we get back to a sustainable human population. The idea of conservation is just making more people and the cliff taller when the day of reckoning comes and its not going to be a climate problem.
Looking at things from a different perspective, become independent of a resource now and you will no longer need to fear its exhaustion. Why not let others take the hit

File: 220px-Ash_Tree_-_geograph.org.uk_-_590710.jpg (21KB, 220x293px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 220x293px

>>8482396
>Then again, if you could take the carbon out of the atmosphere, where would you store it?

shit I dunno

>>8482742
>>I admire your feelings
>Feeling don't factor into it, I just gave OP a rational answer to their questions
Incidentally, I find it amusing that people seem to automatically assume vegetarians etc. are vegetarian out of irrational or emotional reasons, rather than due to having simply prioritized different consequences when making a rational decision (long-term vs hort-term)

>>8482197
He got Ebell in charge of the EPA

I don't subscribe to the "we are fucked" ideology. Things are going to get worse for a lot of people, but we can still put in the effort to improve the situation for people 100 or 200 years down the road.

Invest in carbon clean energy, reduce meat consumption etc. What we should do is sort of obvious, but currently the people of the developed nations aren't willing yet.

>>8482742
> Would love a citation on that.
It's just typical anti-reason, i.e. start from the desired conclusion then invent whatever "facts" are necessary to substantiate it.

>>8484261
Pretty much.

>>8481765
It's going to be like jumping over a cliff with a flying gadget never tested, and even then it buys us only a few decades - and in the end we have to cut our CO2 emissions to practically zero anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering#Solar_radiation_management

>>8481820
No point in even trying if people will just use it as a crutch to pollute even more.
Same as when idiots' safety belt usage went down when airbags first were invented.

File: 1475184589289.png (118KB, 852x1031px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 852x1031px

Any day now, boys...

You need to understand that earth's temperature fluctuates thanks to natural processes. That's why our planet had a much warmer climate during the time of the dinosaurs than it has now. Pollution does have an effect on the atmosphere because it trashes the Ozone layer but it is not the only candidate to blame. "How did we get here?" Its called living in an unpredictable environment dumbass.

>>8485418
>not a single climatologist
>popular press and a weird biologist
huh.......

File: seinfeld_jerry.jpg (38KB, 240x260px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 240x260px

If there's nothing we can do about it, what's all the fuss about?

Pollute more I say. Mine coal and burn it non stop for fun. Make three steak dinners a day mandatory for all school children. Make SUVs even LESS efficient.

>>8482049
Prove us wrong

>>8485418
Cherry picking, easiest way to show bias and nust how uneducated you are