Why is global warming a problem? Hasn't the climate of

rate of change

Shut up brainlet

>>8787001
Why is asteroid impact a problem?

Hasn't the planet been bombarded by asteroid trough it's history? Haven't we always have had mass extinction, with species come and go due to asteroid impacts?

Why are naturalist so concerned about this? Shouldn't they be the ones letting the planet go trough with it's natural cycles, getting bombarded with asteroids rather than doing everything they can to keep it in an unnaturally static state?

>>8787001
China will sink
It's fine, we'll survive

>>8787001
hard times are necessary

>>8787012
Most of the US population lives on the coasts and in the flood plain you genius.

>>8787015
What kind of retarded statement is that?

If it's true what the hell are you doing shitposting on 4chan? Why aren't you going to live in the woods with no electricity, running water, or food like a caveman?

>>8787008
It's been like 200 years, tho, the cooling down of the planet around the middle ages took more or less that time I think.

>>8787011
I mean, If we are talking from a purely egoistic point of view, global warming is still a lot less deadly for us than a big asteroid impact.

The former is a lot less likely to wipe us out or even make a significant dent in our society and structures, at least on the long run.

>>8787016
They can move, they'll have to eventually anyway, it's not like the continents are going to stay put forever.

>>8787022
>200
>not 20000

>>8787022
>They can move, they'll have to eventually anyway, it's not like the continents are going to stay put forever.
Sure but it's about how fast things are changing, and no one wants to move. We are still paying for Katrina and Sandy, and every inch higher sea level gets, that's an inch higher the flood waters are when those storms hit, and millions more dollars in damages. And we are paying for it.

>>8787023
There have been significant changes in climate in small periods of time, like during the middle ages like I said.

>>8787025
How fast are we talking about exactly?
Also kind of unrelated but isn't construction pretty much the only industry making the US any money these days? I've heard Florida is actually kind of hoping a Hurricane hits them because they're a bit stale.

>>8787030
>There have been significant changes in climate in small periods of time, like during the middle ages like I said.
then those were bad too

>>8787001
Changing climate is not a problem, fossil fuel depletion is a problem. You will notice that the solutions offered up so far address the real problem and the make believe problem. It's a win win situation. Well, unless you are a typical civilian consumer of copious quantities of fossil fuels living in the first world, then you also have a problem with no real solution in sight so keep your eye on the weather! It's less painful that way!

File: Untitled.png (60KB, 875x437px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 875x437px

>>8787022
>the cooling down of the planet around the middle ages took more or less that time I think.

Dude absolutely not true. The little ice age the best we can tell was ~0.3 degree C cooling of global T over 400 years. Current measured rate of warming is 0.8 degree total since the preindustrial, so 0.8 degree C in 120 years

Figure source
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051260/pdf

its not a problem

>>8787032
Annoying, but hardly critical.

>>8787036
I tough it was more significant than that.
Funny, tho, the industrial revolution brought us back to the regular levels.

Isn't there a theory/hypothesis (i'm not sure if there's evidence to back it up since I've only heard of it) that we're actually delaying a major ice age with our activities?

>>8787033
That much I agree, we need to stop being dependent on oil like right now. Kind of hard tho, since even solving the problem of fuel for vehicles, we then have all the other things we make with oil.

File: F3.medium.gif (63KB, 424x440px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 424x440px

>>8787036
Here's another figure from Mann 2008, again showing that the rate of cooling over LIA (Little Ice Age) was ~0.3 degree C over 400-500 years, and our current rate of warming is unprecedented

>>8787045
>Annoying, but hardly critical.
no
global warming bad
much death everywhere
no food more disaster more disease

File: interglacial-warm-period-comparison.gif (51KB, 723x513px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 723x513px

>>8787045
>Isn't there a theory/hypothesis (i'm not sure if there's evidence to back it up since I've only heard of it) that we're actually delaying a major ice age with our activities?

Yes. We're skitting past the average length of interglacial (our interglacial period, e.g. the Holocene started about 10ka ago) but not so much as it is beyond the natural variability.

The yellow line is MIS (marine isotope stage)5E/Eemian period, the last interglacial period where the Earth was possibly a tad warmer than today, and the Holocene was following that trajectory.

Interglacial 2/MIS7 and interglacial3/MIS9 was short in comparison while Interglacial4/MIS11 was the longest interglacial ever recorded in Earth's history

File: 12341611_1534757763514703_7280484798692506172_n.jpg (61KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x600px

>>8787050
Is it inside the margin of error that there was a drop during the 80s? Or what happened during that time? Was it because of the oil crisis?

Then again, i'm not arguing that the climate change happening right now is natural, rather, i'm arguing that changes in the planet's climate are not unheard of.

>>8787067
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the graph, what are the numbers at the bottom?

File: Untitled.png (601KB, 676x588px) Image search: [Google]

601KB, 676x588px

>>8787055
>global warming bad
>much death everywhere
>no food more disaster more disease

I believe in manmade climate change too, and overall I think it's shown beyond doubt that it has negative impact on us but this is an overly simplistic argument. For example, here's a local news article from the town where my parents live. It's the 7th record lobster catch in Maine and New England area. The yield was so large that lobster price tanks locally.

Where I live now in Upstate NY, the consequence of global warming is that we have less miserable winter, more enjoyable summer, and the ideal wine belt would shift northwards to upstate new york area, so more local wine. Also overall a positive impact.

People in sub saharan Africa, Middle East, and Pacific Islands are fucked though. However as a scientist I find it hard to convince local people where I live, and people from my hometown on how climate change is bad, because honestly the projection is not so bad for them and I don't want to lie through my teeth and be an AGW alarmist

File: Interglacials.jpg (239KB, 1656x576px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1656x576px

>>8787078
>I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the graph, what are the numbers at the bottom?
They are the classic ice core records glacial interglacial cycles like pic related, but they're all squished and plotted together on the onset of rise coming out of the ice age to compare one interglacial to another. You can see interglacial1,2,3,and 4 there with Holocene (current) being interglacial 0

The real problem is that the ocean is absorbing a ton of CO2 for some reason that we can't figure out, and this could lead to a catastrophic dieoff of certain marine life that can't cope with higher concentrations of carbonic acid in the water.

>>8787078
>Is it inside the margin of error that there was a drop during the 80s? Or what happened during that time?
No it's not. That's exactly where the global cooling articles start to pop up. The reason for the cooling was probably because peak aerosol pollution. Smog and dust actually cools down the climate as it increases the reflectivity of the Earth, via their capability of seeding more clouds.

Clean air act passed in the 80's reigned down on particulate aerosol pollution, which is directly detrimental to public health but as a result it also removes the anthropogenic cooling forcing onto the planet.

>>8787104
>the ocean is absorbing a ton of CO2 for some reason that we can't figure out

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law
You increase partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, more CO2 would dissolve into the ocean. It's literally grade school chemistry.

>>8787098
Ok I get it, who cares if a bunch of niggers and chinks get fucked? The problem I have is that pure, innocent white children are going to suffer in the long run too.

>>8787131
Displacement of people can cause serious problem. There will be refugee crisis beyond what's happening in Syria when the Middle East that contains a lot of young population become close to inhabitable without massive terraforming, just like inland Australia.

It's not a direct problem for us who live in high latitudes, but the refugees are gonna be knocking louder on the borders of Western Europe and America. The pacific islanders climate refugee are gonna be knocking the doors on the borders of Australia and New Zealand. It is undeniable that these countries will have to accept more refugees in, become more multicultural. If you don't want your pure innocent white daughteru get BLACKED or AHMED'd then better do something about climate change

Yes there have always been changes in the Earths climate and all have been associated with mass extinctions. The difference is this time it' our choice.

File: 10353191_1604714393134217_8657467494376761425_n.jpg (71KB, 600x804px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x804px

>>8787098
Wouldn't the middle east and the Saharan regions actually benefit from this? Wouldn't bringing the temperature to the levels it had 5000 years ago make their region relatively humid and good for agriculture again?

I mean it wouldn't solve all their ethical and political issues, but it could help some of them right?

>>8787103
That one is a lot more clear, thank you anon. Seems like this last period since humanity appeared has been shaky as a whole.

>>8787158
What would the consequences of a glaciar age be, in comparison? Or of a natural spike in the overall warmth of the planet?
The climate is going to change one way or the other, wouldn't the only difference be that we'll have to deal with this rather than our grand-grand children?
I mean sure, having more time to plan things out is nice, but we're only accelerating the inevitable, or delaying a different type of crisis, aren't we?

>>8787045
>we need to stop being dependent on oil like right now. Kind of hard tho
We needed a plausible alternative a generation ago. This is why the powers that be are resorting to religion and calling it science. If there is a scary problem with no solution in sight what does anybody do? Pretend to have a solution, to maintain some sense of control, it's only natural.

>>8787233
Absolutely, facing an issue on this scale requires a change in human thinking on a grand scale. It's a difficult process, but it is occurring all the time.

when I see threads like this a part of me hopes there is actually enough methane gas trapped in the permafrost to kill us off.

>>8787178
>Wouldn't bringing the temperature to the levels it had 5000 years ago make their region relatively humid and good for agriculture again?
We are already beyond 5000 years ago. You would bring the Middle East closer to what it was 400,000 years ago during MIS11, or even 3 million years ago back when the Earth was absolutely beyond reasonable doubt warmer than today. Civilization didn't exist back then, so we're plunging into the unknown.

>What would the consequences of a glaciar age be, in comparison? Or of a natural spike in the overall warmth of the planet?
Plunging back into glacier would mean that probably part of Alaska, Canada and Scandinavia becomes more miserable and near inhospitable. The tropics and subtropics however wouldn't cool that much, as the temperature swing between glacial interglacial is only amplified in polar regions. Colder ocean can hold more oxygen, so it is almost assured that fisheries from all over the world, especially the tropics would have higher yield and the ocean would be more productive. Practically we're would be the one who's knocking on Mexico's border if the Earth plunges back into glacial period.

File: table-12.4-v2.gif (47KB, 713x437px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 713x437px

>>8787260
Not gonna happen.

Actually the consensus has been shifting away from the clathrate gun hypothesis. Just last month, a review study was published by Carolyn Ruppel the Chief Scientist of USGS (United States Geological Survey) Gas Hydrate Project. Here is the press release for the study
https://www.usgs.gov/news/gas-hydrate-breakdown-unlikely-cause-massive-greenhouse-gas-release

Before this review, which is kind of a nail in the coffin, several other studies like analyses of CH4 isotopes in ice cores,
>http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.6061&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/emorhardt/159/pdfs/2007/Sowers%202006.pdf
>http://science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5790/1109
have shown that there was no trace of clathrate release in the past, so it is unlikely that this will happen in the near future. Moreover, study from the latest catastrophic clathrate explosion we had, the deepwater oil spill shows that all of the methane got eaten by bacteria in the water column and none of it made it to the atmosphere
>https://9bb9afe9-a-017ed1b7-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/uw.edu/ess-418-geoscience-communication/Science-2011-Kessler-312-5.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coTSjSfBv_XVogThgRCYYwFVgYiVkWE8KW-cJsCcHixN0viZTivh76-LBNirCpw-cpp97TaBIEsrvl62Zs79Cf4Wo1FYjt0bcOsvaCLi-GORlL6O9Vfiv6ulD2sWM9b5ZMQ7JFGjRKK1Ie8yNe6xmOc8pcsW4DaP11iZKJHYCFgGABtC_DKeZnqSARqf7LqgXA4stKhrTIUa7ReCq4FCcysm33-8cwnJq2siKzT0MWjeL45K9sr5x809P5EAZKuqb7hKGZK&attredirects=0

As a result of these series of recent studies, the IPCC AR5 synthesis shifted the prediction on catastrophic methane hydrate dissociation to UNLIKELY which means less than <1% chance of it happening in the near future (defined as 100yr from now)

>>8787293
>Bait

I think we've reached the limit of human progress. Great job much effort. Try again tomorrow, and everything just might be okay.

We're not going to WW3, super technology isn't going to blow everything up, we're aware of what has to be done and we're moving in that direction.

>b-but we won't be affected right, chinks, indians and niggers can get fucked
not true

>>8787306
People in Florida and Netherlands can also fuck themselves though.

Name one negative thing that would happen to Orono, Maine

File: jej.png (279KB, 1024x550px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1024x550px

>>8787320
Disease is gonna spread, floods will happen more often, how about not being able to get shit you used to be able to get (like bananas)? Also, everywhere is eventually going to get too hot.

>>8787349
If we just practice better sanitation and have pandemic management we can avoid pandemics

If only someone had connections to the healthcare industry

File: Capture.png (117KB, 1304x809px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1304x809px

Hey guys, if you're up early tomorrow you might be interested, hearing on climate science with the usual suspects.

Of course, look who they invited again, fucking Curry the cunt, Christy the clown and Pielke the Pussy. An endless revolving door of the same contrarians over and over again in a lame attempt to add credibility to their unfounded arguments. Of course, they also invite Michael Mann to be the sole representative of climate science.

Should be interesting with the past conflicts between Mann and Pielke though. For once I wish they would invite more than the same shits over and over again.

>>8787360
Oy vey a social life? WHAT WOULD MOM AND DAD THINK?!

File: file.png (523KB, 421x720px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 421x720px

>>8787001
ayy

>>8787001
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

>>8787364
I literally meme full time

>>8787367
Is that a science?

Memetics? Richard Dawkins thinks so

>>8787363
What the hell are you talking about?

>>8787360
>studies
fgt

Is this streaming anywhere? I'd have to start driving from now if I want to make it on time.

>>8787296
well this is good
in a way

File: x.jpg (51KB, 800x445px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 800x445px

>>8787296
clathrate gun hypothesis =/= gas trapped in the permafrost

the first is in the seas, the second is on land

>>8787382
Yes mr trump... thank you mr trump....

>>8787320
> Name one negative thing that would happen to Orono, Maine
The whole of the US is going to be destabilized by tens of millions of refugees streaming up out of Latin America because of the decline of agricultural output in the tropics. That will lead to rising food prices, causing civil unrest, then starvation, and finally civil war. Those conflicts will drive huge waves of migrants north to escape the violence and to get to a place where they can afford food. You think it's bad now? Right now the numbers crossing the border each year are measured in the thousands. No wall is going to be able to stop ten million a year, not for long anyway.

>>8787178
> Wouldn't the middle east and the Saharan regions actually benefit from this? Wouldn't bringing the temperature to the levels it had 5000 years ago make their region relatively humid and good for agriculture again?
The Sahara is already too hot for agriculture. Most staple crops have a maximum temperatures above which they will not grow. The yield of rice, for example, follows a curve with a peak at around 28 degrees celsius. Any increase beyond that results in a sharp reduction in yield. At 40 degrees celsius, rice simply cannot grow at all. The Sahara's average temperature is already 40 degrees, with highs pushing up to 47 degrees. At that temperature practically nothing can grow, and certainly not anything edible. Making it even hotter won't help agriculture.

File: Orono.png (310KB, 1025x576px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1025x576px

>>8787388
Orono Maine is very north, I doubt it'd be affect significantly by immgration from the south.

Damn that's a small town.

>>8787401
No it will not. But only %1 I think of America even engages in agriculture anymore. We could realistically feed the whole world like 5 times over if we really put our mind to it.

>>8787382
>the first is in the seas, the second is on land
Methane in permafrost are pretty much clathrate. They are in clathrate form, have mineral structure of methane clathrate. See pic related. Currently the Arctic overall is a net sink of GHG, due to intense growing of vegetation and expanding tree lines.

Check out the IPCC chapter on Biogeochemistry
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf

They had special subchapter addressing your questions

File: image014.jpg (34KB, 466x377px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 466x377px

>>8787408
Whoops forgot pic. See those dots on land? They're clathrates. By definition clathrate is CH4 enclosed in frozen water crystal structure

>>8787410
wow much science, you should be a science journalist! ;)

>>8787406
That's not the problem, the problem is the location of the food production. Sure, humanity in total produces more food than humanity's total consumption. But food price depends hugely on the distance it needs to be transported. You think a nation like India can afford to import enough food to feed more than a billion people? Food prices in countries closer to the equator will rise sharply as their domestic food production drops, which will lead to large swaths of the population no longer being able to afford food. This is one of the things that contributed to the civil war in Syria. Food prices rose, which made a lot of people very unhappy with the government. A nation that cannot feed its people cannot survive for long. It will become a failed state, and people will flee the ensuing violence as refugees.

>>8787416
Yeah I saw that episode of CPG Grey too, it was great

File: gas_hydrate_Courtesy_Natural_Research_Council-Canada1.jpg (8KB, 208x306px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 208x306px

>>8787410
clathrates are cool
you can light them on fire so you have burning ice!

>>8787404
Rural America is heavily dependent on federal infrastructure to remain connected to the world. What do you think will happen when the federal government buckles under the weight of tens of millions of refugees?

>>8787425
>War nerves

yes goyim... we are invesing in,, uhhh, space... Yes... Do not worry about the man behind the barbed curton, nor the creator beneath the free flag, those hoods are there for your protection and the media these days is the size of corpses

there is a war going on for your mind

>>8787426
Not Orono, Maine. The largest employer by far is University of Maine which is a private institution, funded through overpriced college tuition with very little support from government.

>>8787413
>you should be a science journalist! ;)
I'm actually already a climate scientist. This is what I do for a living

>>8787429
I'm not talking about employers. I'm talking about the roads, the mail, the power lines, etc. Orono doesn't actually make most of the things it needs, practically everything that is required for modern life has to be imported. That means needing transportation and communication links to the rest of the country. Lose those, and Orono can't maintain anything.

>>8787451
Never really thought of that, always just lived in a world where there wasn't all out total war.

I mean there was constant small wars with "Rogue States" and all of that bullshit can of worms, but nothing like WW3

>>8787451
I was gonna say that too, climate change will likely cause resource disruptions and shortages globally, especially food and water shortages. An extended drought or severe monsoon in one part of the world disrupting agriculture can have global impacts. Most of our crops are grown in regions that are vulnerable to climate change. I think a lot of people misjudge how fragile our society / civilization actually is. There's so many people out there and when shit hits the fan in the future, I just hope human civilization doesn't completely break down.

>>8787451
If you think the whole US government structure gonna collapse due to climate change then you're just fearmongering.

There are winners and losers for climate change. Overall, the losers outweigh the winner. However the losses, even in the most dire prediction is not sufficient enough to topple a country with 20 trillion USD annual GDP, and like 5 trillion USD operating budget for the government. There's enough money in the US to build wall along the seashore to mitigate sea level rise. There's certainly enough money in Manhattan island, NYC to do so.

Climate change is an ethics problem for people who are least impacted. Are we content that there will be massive suffering happening down South while we do nothing to help? The answer is probably that we should care about those people, because it is moral, ethical and just to do so, but there's no reason to fearmonger beyond that into the collapse of modern civilization. Rich people are gonna be fine, and all of us in the US are top 5% rich people globally, all of us

>>8787474
It caused panic. That's what it has done. It hasn't done really much else too drastic. First world countries need to get their long term stability plan in order before they can focus on other countries. Hard to help someone else when you're drowning

>>8787480
In the long run everyone loses (even the USA), if we do nothing it'll get to a point where it's out of our hands.

>>8787480
Never said the whole US government would collapse, but priorities get messed up when you're in a crisis. Infrastructure spending in the US is already abysmal, and that's completely self inflicted, no actual crisis required. A refugee crisis coming out of the global south will put a lot of strain on the entire rest of the world, including the US.

The US isn't going to remain unaffected just because it's in the top 5% globally. Its geographic location north of regions that are going to be hammered by the decline of agricultural output in the tropics means that it will have to deal with a lot more than just sea level rise. It's already a destination for people fleeing violence in places like Honduras. The problems with rising sea level will be fairly minor compared to the rising number of refugees from Latin America.

>>8787410
Yeah but the chlathrate **GUN** is about the seas killing us in 10 years.(**)

A lot of people don't believe it, they say some feedback will prevent it from happening anytime soon.

The permafrost melting on the other hand is uncontroversial.(***)

It doesn't help public understanding at all to confuse the two,
all that it does is cast doubt on the permafrost melting.


(**) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqIt93dDG1M


(***) https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

>>8787508
Here's what I love about the refugee crisis. That's not my decision to make, and really, not my problem.

Can't be everywhere at once...

>>8787509
it might be worth mentioning there's methane trapped in permafrost too

>>8787511
> not my problem
Considering the amount of resources that are going to have to go into dealing with it, one way or another, it's going to be everyone's problem.

>>8787512
Oh u environmental scientists... when will politicians learn they can't fool people with "Global wamring isn't reel!!" forever....

They don't even believe it, they're just lying.... They have to either address the issues people care about, or be voted out of office and lose their job.

You're fired ;)

>>8787515
I mean, it's not my job. I've gave my spiel, I want to get out from under my parents and have a life and have fun. For reasons not everyone on this board would understand.

Stem kids.... join a frat, I know they're stupid but you'll be the smart cool guy, and here's the secret about frats

They're just a way to be able to do drugs and party and have sex and not get in trouble

>>8787517
yeah this is a real issue
NIMBY: "not in my backyard"
NIMTOO: "not in my term of office"
people often want to help but not when it affect them directly

>>8787512
Nobody is disputing that, but the permafrost won't kill us in 10 years - it isn't a wild-eyed crazy professor theory.
It will however seriously damage the world's bread baskets in 20 years, by drying up of the subtropical zones.

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

File: Untitled.png (47KB, 251x385px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 251x385px

>most people from /pol/ do not like coalburners
>but the very same people also want to burn coal

An impetus for reflection...

>>8787078
omg a doggo

>>8787022
>I mean, If we are talking from a purely egoistic point of view, global warming is still a lot less deadly for us than a big asteroid impact.
Nigga u dumb.

>>8787560
See >>8787296

Currently there's still low confidence on slow permafrost carbon release. The reason for this as I mentioned before is that trees are growing so fast in the permafrost region, the sedimentation rate goes through the roof, so you bury the old permafrost with layers and layers of organic material. Currently, and still for the forseeable future the Arctic will still be a NET SINK in GHG emission. The slow release would be detectable, and defined as not an "abrupt" one.

Not being an elitist or anything, people like >>8787560 guy on the video, who's a historian and has no relevant background in either atmospheric chemistry, or permafrost dynamics shouldn't give a talk like that to scare the public, because it undermines the whole other very serious climate change argument.

Couldn't we just stick to stuff that is virtually certain? Sea level rise for example, affecting Florida and the Netherlands, or massive droughts in sub saharan africa, reduced rice yield in south/southeast asia, and more heat waves in the middle east. All these are already pretty bad repercussion without adding the scary boogeyman of plausible scientific hypothesis, where the science is literally not settled yet, or it is settled towards the non alarmist side of things

>>8787001
I need that dog's hat

>>8787404
Are you a retard? What are you going to do if 10,000 spics move there and take over?

Beg the government to help you?

>>8788151
The AGW religion is open to everyone and anyone can read the prophecies and scripture, stop being a disgusting elitist. How popular do you think Christianity or Islam would be without an End of Days scenario?

>>8787001
But like aliens.. Politics and aliens.

>>8787001
>>>8787306
>Name one negative thing that would happen to Orono, Maine

It's only 100 or so feet above sea level, once the continental ice starts melting there won't be an Orono, Maine.

>>8788154
I need that hat's dog.

>>8788521
>once the continental ice starts melting there won't be an Orono, Maine.

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is predicted to be stable, even growing slightly in size. The West Antarctic Ice sheet could collapse, and there is a nasty positive feedback loop called the marine ice sheet instability because the ice sheet is sloped inwards and grounded below sea level. A complete collapse of WAIS could take as short as 100 year and will yield 3.3m / 11 feet worth of sea level rise without thermal expansion. This is the "scary" worst case scenario projection Al Gore showed when he had the World Trade Center memorial in Manhattan to be underwater.

Even a disastrous collapse of WAIS still won't touch Orono, Maine which is 100 ft above sea level. Disastrous collapse of EAIS is incredibly unlikely, as the ice sheet is grounded above sea level. Not that there's anyone living down south in the salt marshes and maine tidal flats. In fact turning Orono into a semi seaside beach town would create a boon in tourism.

File: 1908090_10203100055857332_5407085819137318004_n.jpg (85KB, 624x586px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 624x586px

>>8787306
>>8787388
>>8787401
>>8787416
>>8787451
>>8787474
>>8787508
>>8787492
>>8787515
>>8788159

Anyway, a lot of people talking about crop production, but can't we cultivate food on artificial climates already? There's a lot of chemicals and genetic engineering for letting us cultivate in bad climates.

We definitely have the technology to deal with situations like this. Central america is a shithole, sure, so is Central-Africa, but south america isn't that bad, neither is North Africa, or South Europe for that matter, and those countries (at least the ones with an important crop and livestock industry) invest a lot in agricultural technology, and they're definitely at least aware of the risks that might arise in the future due to the climate change. Especially because a lot of these changes are already occurring gradually, so they get enough of a headsup to at least prepare.

The areas of the world that are filled with actual fucking monkeys that wouldn't be able to at least figure out how to at least survive or adapt to the new conditions is actually a lot smaller than you guys are making it out to be. Not all third world countries are babies that need babysitting.

Syria, Irak and the middle east in general are an exception because they have many conflicts going on at all times, and that gets in the way of their technological development, and it drains them of funds to improve their infrastructure, or invest in new better equipment or master new techniques, so they're definitely going to be fucked with yet another layer of problems to deal with, but considering they're already escaping in mass from their homes, I'm not sure if a climate crisis would change the situation a lot, it would be the same old discussion with the same old arguments that you all know and love.

>>8788614
> can't we cultivate food on artificial climates already
For a lot of money, sure. Money that people in places like India don't have. The problem isn't that we as a species will not be producing enough total food. The problem is that much of the population is living in areas where the domestic food production is going to decline, leading to a rise in local food prices, and people in those particular areas not being able to afford it. The result is widespread unrest in those areas and mass migration out of those areas, which is never a pretty thing.

> Syria, Irak and the middle east in general are an exception because they have many conflicts going on at all times, and that gets in the way of their technological development
India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are going to be in the middle of a big conflict as their food production declines. Bangladesh is going to be underwater, since in addition to being an extremely low lying country as sea levels are rising, the country is also physically sinking for reasons of its own. That's going to displace many millions of its primarily muslim population into primarily hindu India, which has a history of conflict along those exact lines. At the same time, Pakistan and India are hugely reliant on meltwater from glaciers in the Himalayas, glaciers that are quickly disappearing. Conflict over the shrinking supply of water in general and the Kashmir region in particular will further destabilize the area.

>>8788631
So it sounds to me like the areas around India are going to be the ones primarily affected by this.

Good, now we know where to focus.

>>8788614
> The areas of the world that are filled with actual fucking monkeys that wouldn't be able to at least figure out how to at least survive or adapt to the new conditions is actually a lot smaller than you guys are making it out to be. Not all third world countries are babies that need babysitting.

No one is saying that they're too stupid, the problem is that they're looking down the barrel of some pretty nasty reductions in crop yield. India is looking at a 25% drop from 2 degrees C. China is looking at a 38% drop. That's a civil war right there.

You're looking at what is theoretically available if cost is no object. That isn't something you can apply to feeding billions of people. The problem isn't that they're stupid. The problem is that they need to make food affordable for massive populations who don't necessarily have much money.

>>8788646
It's not just India, though India will be very hard hit. Southeast Asia and China are also going to get hammered, as temperature rises and rice yields plummet. All of Africa above South Africa is going to end up with very little agricultural output. Central America and South America aside from Chile and Argentina are similarly going to have serious problems feeding their people. Most of the human species lives in a country that is going to see significant direct harm as a result of increased temperature.

>>8787022
It's not the sun. The sun is currently going down in total output yet we keep rising in temperature, that much is certain.

The Milankovitch Cycle takes 22,000 years to complete a full circuit. Since we have risen in temperature about 1.5 degree in 100 years that means after 11,000 years, a full circuit the oceans, rivers, and lakes of the world will LITERALLY BOIL as temperatures rise above 212 degrees

So it can't be Milancovitch Cycles.

The rate of rising temperature closely matches the rate of human CO2 emissions, a well understood greenhouse gas.

Guess which one it is.

>>8788675
i meant after 11,000, years a half circuit. Sigh.

>>8787018
Hes right though. Things have been to easy for too long. Thats why we have an abundance of morons and SJWs. Hard times are necessary because the developed world doesnt need anything anymore. Its all wants. You dont go live out in the woods because the option to live with the luxuries of modern society is there. Humanity would benifit greatly if that option was taken away for a little while.

>>8788675
Temperatures are changing either way though. Im sure humans are partly to blame for that but shouldnt we be more focused on what we do WHEN temperatures rise instead of trying to stop the unstoppable? Those people living on the coast are going to lose to the ocean no matter how much CO2 we are pumping out.

>>8788675
>The rate of rising temperature closely matches the rate of human CO2 emissions, a well understood greenhouse gas.

It also matches solar output far better, since CO2 completely fails to explain the cooling in the 50s and 60s, when CO2 was rising but solar output was falling.

>>8788151
>guy on the video
He isn't talking out of his ass, what he said is based on interviewing military, scientists, policy makers.

>>8788671
If you can't cut the fear mongering and be rational about this for five seconds, you don't belong here. This is a science board, hysterics have no place here. No one is going to fight a civil war over a few degrees of temperature. Sure, the middle east and africa will see more conflict, but that isn't anything new and it has little to do with global warming and much more to do with the fact that they never developed beyond tribal squabbling.

File: TvsTSI.png (396KB, 2889x2209px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 2889x2209px

>>8788692
Ignorance
>>8788694
and stupidity

>>8788694
>since CO2 completely fails to explain the cooling in the 50s and 60s, when CO2 was rising but solar output was falling.

See >>8787114. Mid 20th century pause in warming/cooling was due to aerosol cooling and industrialization

File: HumansGraphic_EDF.jpg (664KB, 799x1532px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 799x1532px

>>8787001
Yes, there have been warming and cooling periods, but the rate at which it is occurring is faster than it has ever been historically, so organisms cannot evolve fast enough to cope with changing conditions.

>>8787001
It's a problem now because we have to survive it, you moron. That's like asking why we'd be worried about another Chicxulub, it would mean the end of civilization (and probably humanity) as we know it.

>>8788905
> the rate at which it is occurring is faster than it has ever been historically
No it isn't. We've warmed only a single degree in 200 years. That's well within normal changes in temperature. Sure, some organisms won't survive, but that's how evolution works. The weak die out to make room for the strong.

>>8787001
to quote George Carlin: "The planet is fine, the people are fucked". The earth's natural temperature fluctuations, while natural, arent gonna be good for human civilisation. We're not "saving da planet, dude", we're ensuring the survival of our own species, and some other species while we're at it.

Besides, the temperature itself is the least of our worries, its the weather disasters that result from it that we need to worry about.

>>8788968
Then why the hell are we going on some stupid crusade against fossil fuels, when those are critical to our economy? It stifles the very economic activity that we need to develop new technologies to deal with the naturally changing climate. No fossil fuels means no energy, which means no new technology, and that means we're fucked.

>>8788905
>CO2
co2 causes more plant growth. even methane is absorbed by composting bacteria in the sea and atmosphere

why do infomemes always focus in irrelevant shit? "hurr co2 is why greenhouses r hot"
maybe its because they are made out of clear fucking panels to allow sunlight to get in, and then they fill them with plants that respirate? "hurr its hot in humid places because of co2"

dont get me wrong i think we should be doing more for the environment, but pushing pseudo like this is harmful because it gets people who are quick-witted to dismiss your cause before digging deeper.

also fuck china

>>8788980
Because fossil fuels aren't critical to society? Sure they make up a significant portion of the energy sector, but that's changing. As of 2016 in Scotland (where i live), there are no coal fired power plants still in operation, and we're fine (anecdotal i know but w/e).
If fossil fuels are so critical to the economy, and if countries are rapidly phasing out fossil fuel power, why isnt the economy imploding?
And the new tech that you mentioned? That's exactly what's replacing fossil fuel energy.

Also:
>no fossil fuels means no energy
i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're trolling.

>>8787001
Because it will create conditions problematic for human life, especially in the global south and in India and China. You will have many more people from backward countries demanding entry to rich countries.

>>8789004
>also fuck china
hey atleast they're not pulling out of the paris agreement like the US. shows they care somewhat

>>8789010
>>no fossil fuels means no energy
>i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're trolling.

to quote the madman who must be stopped:

"third worlders living in a disaster area dont need a fucking solar panel contraption to give them a tiny bit of electricity just so that they can be eco friendly. they want a diesel generator with a gallon of oil. you are a money burner."

>>8789010
> As of 2016 in Scotland (where i live)
You mean the same Scotland that basically has nothing going for it without oil, a fossil fuel? Your country is a perfect argument for how vital fossil fuels are, without them no one would care about your backwards leftist shithole.

>>8789019
>shows they care somewhat

>saying china and cares about environmentalism in the same sentence without "doesnt"
why would china care about the environment while they dump industrial waste into the ocean, overfish their seas to near-excinction, calcify the water, raise crops with heavy metal pollutants, and make their air so poisoned that everybody has to wear pseudo gas masks just to go outside

what the fuck is wrong with academia, where people are too scared to call people out on bullshit just because they are a protected coloured class. "oh they signed a piece of paper that means they are good now!" are you fucking real, it's china. they paint toys with lead paint, and you give them any credit for anything

>>8789019
No, they're just going full speed ahead because the Paris agreement is a fucking awful deal that lets China do whatever the fuck it wants. The US is better off ditching it instead of fucking over our own industry when its third world shitholes like China that are the real problem.

File: model.png (121KB, 1123x927px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1123x927px

>>8789004
The greenhouse effect is not literal you dimwitted moron. Yes, on a literal greenhouse, it is warm because of the glass ceiling allowing visible light to come in and the glass behave like a blackbody absorbing and re-emiting radiation.

It is a methaphor for the role of CO2, CH4, and other gases with same properties, allowing visible light to pass (hence they're invisible to our eye) but absorb and re-emit infrared radiation due to the vibrational properties of their chemical bonds. Read more here
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html

If you don't understand literally 1st day of class lecture 101 on the greenhouse effect, feel free to educate yourself first before starting to spout misinformed opinions

>>8789010
>scotland
oh, you mean a largely irrelevant subsector of a windy island? come back when you have something that can work someplace that actually requires power for heavy industry and dense urban jungles. Places like russia, america, china, india, japan, etc. Places that matter.

I swear to fucking god it's like this every time, some random islandnigger makes a claim that their beet farm can run purely on mule-powered energy and uses that as a basis for everything to go back to feudalism.

File: bill clinton in a salmon coloured shirt and pink tie.jpg (22KB, 456x456px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 456x456px

>>8789042
>5. Basic physics
>This explains why: 1. a greenhouse is hot
are you feeling well?

>>8789022
literally who? sounds like a twat. also your "fucking solar panel contraption" is more likely to be a solar farm or hydroelectric dam or nuclear station that can produce enough energy to power a city while burning nothing

>>8789028
there are other industries, and nobody cares about scotland right now anyway :(

>>8789032
hey I'm not advocating china's bullshit. I agree they are among the most irresponsible, but they've made a statement that theyre gonna """try""" to improve, which is better than nothing

File: sam hyde.png (45KB, 173x231px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 173x231px

>>8789054
>literally who
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36o0oh4rMJc

nobody here gonna talk about nuclear energy or hydro? even though the largest hydroelectric dam in the world produces 4 times more power than the largest coal fired station? no? ok.

also src https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations

>>8787431
Thanks for this by the way. It may seem like /pol/ is unending but I'm sure that every post you make counts.

>>8789032
>calcify the water

Are you the same denier anon who got BTFO in the last thread? You both keep using the wrong and dumb term like calcify the water. Do you mean ocean acidification? To calcify water, well you need to add Calcium. Noone is adding calcium to the ocean.

You might be thinking of ocean acidification due to increase in partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. In that case, through Henry's Law you dissolve more carbon into the ocean and shift the bicarbonate chemistry equlibrium as pic related, essentially reducing the pH of the ocean and hence the term ocean acidification.

With ocean acidification, calcite will be more soluble, if anything you will decalcify the ocean further through pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. This is why the coral reefs are in danger, because the decreased pH of the ocean threaten to decalcify them.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Go take Earth System 101 from your local community college, or just buy freshman level textbook and start reading it before you shitpost here

>>8789069
>not calcifying your water after activating your almonds
never gonna make it

>>8788952
>200
120
>That's well within normal changes in temperature
It literally isn't

File: 1310429820535.jpg (13KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x300px

>>8789059
sounds like a real visionary
really speaks to me

>>8789074
he did a TED talk too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yFhR1fKWG0

File: speciationall25croppedsm.png (47KB, 561x480px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 561x480px

>>8789069
forgot pic

>>8789048
It is basic physics that greenhouse is hot. It is the same exact physics (Stephan Boltzman blackbody radiation) that governs why the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere behave like glass ceiling in literal greenhouse.

Are you one of those autists who take everything literally?

>>8789065
Shitlibs oppose both of those things too. Hydro floods places and they think that nuclear will destroy everything, so neither of those are acceptable to liberal elites who sit in the comfort of cities that run on coal power, but pretend that because 5% of their energy comes from some solar panels and wind turbines it's totally different.

>>8789082
are you never fucking satisfied? nobody is talking about a world completely free of fossil fuels, it's just replacing them with something more sustainable so we're not building civilisation on top of something that won't be around very soon

>>8789087
> nobody is talking about a world completely free of fossil fuels
Except that is exactly what liberals are demanding from other people. Not from themselves, of course. They reserve the right to jet around the globe burning huge amounts of fuel, but for the rest of us it's back to living like savages without electricity because that would hurt "mother gaia" and unlike them we haven't paid our carbon tax indulgences to wash away the sin.

>>8789065
There's not enough river in the world to dam. Once you dam a river you displace many people, just like the Three Gorges dam in china, and you're basically teraforming the landscape.

Tidal is a decent alternative potentially to the same hydroelectric concept. But nobody lives in the middle of the ocean where currents are the strongest, and there's no grid/infrastructure so tidal kind of fall out of favor instead.

With regards to nuclear, it is completely safe, and in this case I happen to agree with /pol/anon that it is our best alternative. Yes it produces toxic waste, but we can figure out a way to safely store the toxic waste. The reason why nuclear is such cockblocked in the US is because Harry Reid the former senate leader for the Democrats was from Nevada, and he stringently oppose nuclear power because the toxic waste would be buried in his state, in the Yucca mountain. Again, based on liberal misinformation mostly, because I would imagine it would actually benefit the state of Nevada if there's a federal project to drill giant tunnels underneath Yucca mountains to store nuclear waste

File: reality.png (249KB, 1600x1045px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1600x1045px

>>8789065
Electricity generation is only one aspect of the larger energy picture. Sure you can dam up rivers but it helps if they are close to the grid, enviroloons have their own pet peeves as they flood large areas and block spawning fish but it's energy return on energy invested is still no where close to just burning coal. Also works best as a supplement to grids as can't store electricity efficiently. Nuclear science is a progressing military science, waste comes out the barrels of guns, micronukes are now being produced, EROEI is good but projects are massive, hard to budget in the age of wild oil price swings and obviously you need to source a lot of radioactive rocks. These rocks will deplete as well. Electricity has only a tiny real world application in transportation and mass producing billions of batteries is going to absolutely trash the environment if it isn't already.

In the end it will be better to just let the oil age wind down naturally whilst ensuring no massive concentration of power happens, this is all the climate change meme is trying to do, concentrate the remaining fossil fuels under a global state - corporate apparatus, has zero to do with anything else least of all saving the environment whatever that means. These two entities are already beating down the majority of humans on earth, empowering them even more is a recipe for big trouble.

>>8789101
>>8789112
Nice strawmanning on pretending to know what liberals want. You got BTFO'd on scientific grounds here >>8789069 and >>8789081 so now you just divert keep memeing your infowars charts over.

Maybe learn the fundamentals of basic science first before spouting your uninformed opinions

>>8789107
>With regards to nuclear, it is completely safe, and in this
Calling nuclear today "completely safe" is disingenuous, Fukushima just happened a couple years ago. Also nuclear isn't cost efficient when you factor in the cost of having to permanently forever manage that toxic waste.

>>8789130
It took a record breaking earthquake and tsunami for Fukushima to happen. Before that there was Chernobyl literally some 30 years ago and 3 mile island half incident both of which is due to human mistake.

You don't have to forever manage toxic waste. You dig the tunnel, which is a massive upfront cost, then you just leave the waste inside the tunnel and seal the tunnel once the waste is full.

Unless there's solar panel on every households and every building, you're not gonna get enough solar and wind to sustain the energy demand of the US

>>8789141
>It took a record breaking earthquake and tsunami for Fukushima to happen. Before that there was Chernobyl literally some 30 years ago and 3 mile island half incident both of which is due to human mistake.
Things you didn't expect have happened and they will happen again, you can't plan for everything, there's no such thing as 100% safety, that's the only point I'm making.

>then you just leave the waste inside the tunnel and seal the tunnel once the waste is full.
Then ISIS or someone else who wants access to it shows up with some TNT to get at it.

>Unless there's solar panel on every households and every building, you're not gonna get enough solar and wind to sustain the energy demand of the US
Society won't stay at our current level of energy consumption forever, peak oil will eventually happen and our energy consumption will have to collapse eventually. Nuclear might be an option to postpone the inevitable collapse for a couple hundred years at best but it's not as safe as you want to pretended and opens up other issues.
There needs to be a contingency plan for a low energy future which our descents eventually will need to face sometime in the future. Nuclear will just give us, if we don't kill ourselves, a couple hundred years of luxury to design and put low energy infrastructure into place.

>>8789130
Fukushima got hit back to back by a massive earthquake and a massive tsunami and even then pretty much nothing bad actually happened. Acting like it's somehow a mark against nuclear power's safety is absurd. It was a ridiculously extreme situation and if you had told anyone beforehand that they needed to prepare for it, they would have laughed at you because of how ridiculous it was. Yet even in that perfect storm of a disaster, pretty much nothing actually ended up happening. Solar has a far higher death per megawatt hour than nuclear.

>>8789183
The only way to reduce our energy consumption is to do less things that require electricity.

You can't do more with less, computers need more power to do more calculations, light bulbs need energy to produce light, cars need energy to spin their motors.

It's hard to make things more "energy efficient".

>>8789203
> The only way to reduce our energy consumption is to do less things that require electricity.
> You can't do more with less
> computers need more power to do more calculations
My laptop requires a fraction of the energy that a mainframe from the 70s required, and it is vastly more capable.

> light bulbs need energy to produce light
A light bulb made today can light the same room to the same brightness as a bulb made 50 years ago at a fraction of the energy cost. An incandescent bulb generally requires four times as much energy to produce the same amount of light as an LED.

> cars need energy to spin their motors.
In the US, the average gas mileage of a car made in the 1980s was 24 miles per gallon. In 2014 that number was 36 miles per gallon.

> It's hard to make things more "energy efficient".
We do that all the time.

File: 1458080169564.jpg (23KB, 535x330px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 535x330px

>>8789203
>The only way to reduce our energy consumption is to do less things that require electricity.
A society based around the internal combustion engine wouldn't be able to survive after the oil runs out, it's as simple as that. Americans living in cities or suburbs would literally have to resort to cannibalism, like their ancestors did, if they can't get to stores to buy food.
If oil ran out tomorrow you would be shit out of luck, since society isn't designed to function without oil, and that'll eventually happen sometime in the future. If you can't design alternatives it's just a matter of timing and predicting the doomsday collapse.

>>8788968
> "The planet is fine, the people are fucked"
No fucking shit you dumb retarded autist
We're talking about humans and a big lump of rock floating in space stop trying to sound clever

the michondria is the powerhouse of the cell. that being said it is fairly obvious that I know more than the rest of these so called scientist. and let me tell you global warming is not a problem because I said so.

>>8787001
>Why is global warming a problem?

It's a problem FOR US because the countries we live in will mostly vanish under the sea and our climates will go to shit. It's good for the human race, since it will free up vast new farmlands in the Sahara, in Siberia, in Canada and in Antarctica. The people in the far future will certainly see it as a good thing overall, it's just us poor slobs who have to live thru global climate change who will suffer.

>>8787001

Maybe this will help you understand the hysteria:

“We also go through journals and rate how well they conform to the scientific method. I used to think that maybe 10 percent of papers in my field … were maybe useful. Now it looks like maybe, one tenth of one percent follow the scientific method” said Armstrong in his presentation, which can be watched in full below. “People just don’t do it.”

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-29 at 7.59.41 PM.png (245KB, 1195x688px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1195x688px

Defend these climatefags

Don't be the (((moderate))) muslim. You need to speak out against extremist on your own side too

File: shocks.jpg (537KB, 1653x1162px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 1653x1162px

>>8789229
It will never run out but yeah, at some point it won't be worth it anymore as in EROEI goes less than 1. Oil shocks incoming over the next 30 years the likes of which have never been seen before, they will make these look like minor tremors but that's assuming a smooth wind down which certainly will not happen.

>>8788952
You are ill-informed. While plants can indeed thrive in higher CO2 atmospheres, they still can't cope with changing (often increasing) temperatures and altered precipitation patterns.

>>8789004
WTF are you even trying to say with this nonsensical rant? As far as I can surmise, you seem to think that plant respiration is responsible for heating up greenhouses, which is the opposite of what is really going on.

Also, it's "respire", not "respirate".

>>8787011
This.

>>8789101
nice try, but it's plainly obvious that because you've lost a debate on science behind climate change that you've changed your tune to whine about politics.

>>8789378
a) the astroids are hitting earth much more frequently now that humans have accidentally constructed an astroid-attracting device
b) the astroids will also drive humans extinct

>>8789203
This is completely untrue, technology has become more and more energy efficient. Lightbulbs are a perfect example of this, LED lightbulbs not only last a far longer time than standard incandescent, but they use far less energy and are brighter.

Modern energy efficient appliances like washers and driers use far less electricity than past models as well, the same can be applied to many household appliances. Technology improving means becoming more energy efficient as well.

How many deniers anon could there possibly be? It seems like every single fucking thread, the denialist argument is always the same, and get BTFO everytime

>CO2 are good for plants
>It was global cooling in the 80s
>I agree that the climate is changing, but I don't believe that it's manmade
>Modern AGW warming is just the earth coming out of ice age
>AGW warming is just natural variability
>It's cold where I live, it snows in Canada on March wooow
>It's (((they))) the liberals and the globalist jews trying to take your freedumb away through carbon tax
>I bet you got vaccinated too

Rinse and repeat till eternity

>>8789465
Check out Jevon's Paradox, the more that kind of technology accelerates the faster we consume resources including fossil fuels. As much as I like LED lighting in some situations, to replace all incandescent and CFL bulbs now with LED would probably cost a lot of resources and result in a net energy loss when all was said and done. And only for it all to be replaced again...

There seems to be much confusion between energy sources, energy sinks and technology. We are running short of the first while the last two are accelerating rapidly. What we need is a revolutionary energy discovery, not more technology. Smart phones and planned obsolescence alone have reined down an environmental shitstorm that is hard to even compute. Throw in the batteries, and all other techno widgets and it's something to behold but not look to as an answer to anything except perhaps a tip toeing totalitarian technocracy.

File: counterattack.jpg (33KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x480px

>>8789183
>Then ISIS or someone else who wants access to it shows up with some TNT to get at it.
I Don't Know Anything About How Nuclear Waste Is Sequestered: The Post
>http://www.elementsmagazine.org/archivearticles/e12_4/e12_4.pdf
spent fuel is stored as a glass. it's radioactive enough to present a hazard, but can't be used for a nuclear weapon and would require extensive and complicated processing to concentrate it enough to make a dirty bomb

>>8789536
>totalitarian techonocracy
ooh he said it, he said the words!!

if you are trying to tell me that anarcho-capitalism isnt the way to save the world you are a stupid drumpf supporter poopyhead and should go back to the stoneage. take your classist, sexist, racist, trans*ist nonsensical garbage with you. maybe when you're willing to grow up and realize that EQUALITY is the way of the future, you can come back and have a seat at the adult table, shoo shoo /pol/tard shoo shoo

File: 1479797947956.jpg (58KB, 639x768px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 639x768px

>>8787018

>>8790821
holy shit that picture is redpilled af dude
when are we removing the niggers

>>8789271
>your own side

This is what /pol/fags will never get. Climate change isn't a political debate. It's a scientific issue that's been politicized by both the left and right.

>>8790851
Then why aren't AGW believers working to stop the left from hijacking it into just another pseudo-scientific excuse to expand government power?

I'm pretty sure I will survive climate change so I'm not really worried at all. Trying to prevent it on the other hand would raise prices which would really affect my life.

>>8790938
>Fuck everyone else ever.
If you died no one would miss you.

>>8790821
Okay:
>1918: End of world war 1, certainly a hard time for Britain.
>1918-1939: Mild economic stagnation, but surely these hard men should've created good times?
>1939-45: Without any good times to speak of britain is once again dragged into the second world war, greatly hurting her economic abilities, losing her empire, but theoretically creating strong men once again.
>1945 onward: Britain is faced with the loss of her empire, slowly the commonwealth fades into a meaningless political entity, and the empire reverts back to a small kingdom, almost completely overshadowed by her child the united states, and keeps alive as a nation of merchants.
>So, world war 1 created strong men who couldn't create good times, and then despite the lack of good times we got into a situation with our strong men that created further hard times, and said hard times continue to this day.

You're full of shit.

>>8787001
The climate of the plantet has rapidly changed in the past and is directly linked to mass extinction events you fucking mong. Our problem is that carbon emissions are rapidly increasing the average temperature that is not unnatural, but was preventable. Increased CO^2 doesn't just affect average temperature; our health is affected as well.

>>8790851
When you try to pass policy and regulation, of course it's politicized. It's called politics because it relates to policymaking

>>8791858
>Increased CO^2 doesn't just affect average temperature; our health is affected as well.
Not true. Ambient CO2 in a workplace environment could be up to 1000 ppm if you have several office mates. You can have 5000 ppm CO2 before it is actually dangerous to public health according to OSHA regulation
https://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/howell.Par.2800.File.dat/25apxC.pdf

5000 ppm CO2 would've boiled the Earth several times over, just like Venus

>>8791712
British Empire started declining about 1800. That's what makes these climate religion threads so good, you can forget what board you are on.

>>8792107
>British Empire started declining about 1800.
Another falsehood from the know nothing know it alls of /pol/. The golden age of the British Empire is Britain's Imperial Century (1815-1914) which couldn't have been ended by the American Revolution because that was was lost decades before. During this century, Britain expanded its territory by 10,000,000 square miles and 400 million people. This is far from a decline.

>>8792206
https://books.google.ca/books?id=2eMoHQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=en

Forgot my source.

>>8792206
It was adding people, sure, but what were those people? A bunch of shitskins in Africa and India don't improve an empire, they just help drag it down.

>>8792216
So the strength of a society is determined by its racial composition and not its economic power, military power, land covered or scientific/technological advancement? I suppose by your dumb standards, Belgium was stronger than Britain during that time period since they didn't have any 'shitskins'.

That's so stupid that I suggest you drill holes into your brain cavity. Don't worry, you won't lose anything useful.

>>8792210
History is rewritten everyday, it's just my take on it. My source is this, the Empire started eating it's own young for example the war of 1812. Sure the US was more a retarded rogue step child but still, a part of the empire nonetheless.

It was infiltrated by a never ending stream of Guidos (Fawkes) from mainland Europe.

All of you
>>>/his/
>>>/pol/

Who fucking care about the British Empire. /pol/kin and deniers can't win on the merit of scientific arguments and facts so they're trying to deflect it onto social science and humanities

>>8792312
>My source is this
That's not a source dumbass, that's a hypothesis.
>the Empire started eating it's own young for example the war of 1812.
The War of 1812 was an attempt by the US to annex Canada while Britain was occupied with the Napoleonic Wars.
>Sure the US was more a retarded rogue step child but still, a part of the empire nonetheless.
No it wasn't.
>It was infiltrated by a never ending stream of Guidos (Fawkes) from mainland Europe.
A single post ago you claimed it was the 'shitskins' who destroyed the British Empire but now it's mainland Europe? You also have presented no proof of this, probably due to being stupid enough to confuse a source with a hypothesis.

My suggestion still stands, drill holes into your skull. It'll be a new experience without any risk of the loss of anything useful.

File: dumb shit.jpg (17KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 256x256px

>>8792107
>>8792216
>>8792312
holy shit this level of retardation borders on anencephaly

File: politics.jpg (39KB, 700x439px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 700x439px

>>8792425
I didn't post anything about shitskins. Agents of the Papacy infiltrated the British Empire and it was already in decline by 1800 is my "hypothesis" yes. These sorts of facts can be dredged up and sourced but for the most part are buried under mountains of Papal propaganda which prefers complete omission of their role in historical events such as the Napoleonic Wars which were about the suppression of the Jesuits and a Vatican civil war more than anything. In fact the Papacy has had a hand in every European feudal war for centuries including both world wars.

>>8792342
Because understanding real history is critical to understanding anything going on today. As it pertains to this thread, look no further than Jesuit political policy, not science. High ranking Papists and Jesuits are deeply entwined in the AGW religion but the most repulsive aspect is the co-opting of "science" and why your climate priests cannot really be trusted, they are after all priests.

>>8788679
It's okay anon, I don't think you're stupid <3

File: haha.jpg (41KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 562x437px

>>8792703
> Agents of the Papacy infiltrated the British Empire and it was already in decline by 1800 is my "hypothesis" yes. These sorts of facts can be dredged up and sourced but for the most part are buried under mountains of Papal propaganda which prefers complete omission of their role in historical events such as the Napoleonic Wars which were about the suppression of the Jesuits and a Vatican civil war more than anything. In fact the Papacy has had a hand in every European feudal war for centuries including both world wars.

>>8792703
>I didn't post anything about shitskins.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this >>8792216 post was made by some other anon.
>Agents of the Papacy infiltrated the British Empire and it was already in decline by 1800 is my "hypothesis" yes. These sorts of facts can be dredged up and sourced
Then why don't you?

It wouldn't only be pointless but actively self-defeating for the Vatican to sabotage the British Empire. The British Empire was the main enemy to Napoleonic France, whose secularism is a threat to the Vatican and the British Empire was instrumental to spreading Christianity around the world.

>the co-opting of "science" and why your climate priests cannot really be trusted, they are after all priests.
I suppose that means that Svante Arrhenius is a priest who first predicted that increases in CO2 would cause increases in global temperatures, and even farther back, Joseph Fourier who conceptualized the greenhouse effect after his calculations found that without it, the earth would be considerably colder. It's scientists who examine data and evidence for global warming, the only thing that priests did is advocate for a response to their findings.

It's been proven that the changes we've been experiencing are not just part of the earth's cycle.

/pol/kino is a gift that never ends. A person can't be this stupid and deranged, he has to be pretending to be stupid

>>8792785
Yet no one ever provides that proof, they just expect us all to take it on faith.

>>8792809
"On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" -- S Arrhenius, Philosophical Magazine 1896
"The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature" G. S. Callendar, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 1938
"Infra-red absorbtion by carbon dioxide, with special reference to atmospheric radiation" -- G. Callendar, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meterological Society 1941
"Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications" James Hansen, Science 2005
"A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time" Robert a. Berner, 2002
"Climate Sensitivity during the Phanerozoic: Lessons for the Future" -- DL Royer, Oral presentation at AAPG Annual Convention, Denver, Colorado, 2009

Plenty of people do provide the proof. You just refuse to view it.

>>8787410
>by definition clathrate is CH4 enclosed in frozen water crystal structure
thats only one clathrate, its a category of substances

File: bubble-march.jpg (119KB, 800x518px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 800x518px

>>8787296

This is actually total trash. It is already fucking happening.

Pic related, permafrost in Siberia that is "totally ok nothing goin on here guise, don't panic"

These studies you cited are trash and seem to be using optimistic numbers that really are unrealistic.

There is this funny thing that happens when scientists are faced with facts that are nihilistic. They say "Oh that is a nihilist hypothesis that will kill my children and their children, and the human race, how can I prove this wrong" and then they search for whatever convenient way they can to make themselves feel better. That isn't science that is just people being delusional.

>>8793058

Forgot to cite: A study from Siberia from 7 days ago.

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0905-7000-underground-gas-bubbles-poised-to-explode-in-arctic/

>>8793058
I cited three studies from Science, the most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journal there is, using three different methane isotopes, d13C, dD, and C-14 in ice cores that showed definitely there was no clathrate dissociation during the Last Glacial Termination.

Then I cited the IPCC report, the most comprehensive state of science review study in the field of climate science. According to the deniersphere IPCC is the big boogeyman UN consortion of climate scientists.

Finally I cited a review study by the United States Geological study, together with their official press release statement

You cited the fucking Siberian times.

Have you read any of those papers? I purposely tried to find the readily available pdf version that is not behind a paywall. Do you have any specific gripes about their data, methods, or interpretation, any reason why do you think they're "trash"?

Let me spoonfeed you on the review paper from USGS
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016RG000534/full

I'm a climate scientist, and if you go to any conference and try to find James Kennett, the guy who wrote the original hypothesis even he's kind of reeling back on the severity of his prediction.

We have several monitoring station in Alaska, and in the Arctic and so far, the Arctic region is a definite NET SINK of CH4 and CO2, rather than net source
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JD026006/full
and I can cite you 10 more studies that basically say the same thing

Climate change is a serious issue. The virtually certain consequences like sea level rise, reduced crop yield, droughts, and intensifying extreme weathers are already severe enough. There's no reason to be a big alarmist about something that is uncertain, or putting it in IPCC's term "very unlikely."

>>8787001
Can't tell if trolling anymore.

>>8793058
>They say "Oh that is a nihilist hypothesis that will kill my children and their children, and the human race, how can I prove this wrong" and then they search for whatever convenient way they can to make themselves feel better. That isn't science that is just people being delusional.

Just to add, people who study permafrost and permafrost only would make a CH4 measurement of their thermokarst lakes/rotting permafrost, then multiply their study site to area the size of Siberia and claim that permafrost in total contribute to certain Tg per year global emission.

However, NOAA stations, for example this one in Barrow Alaska are not seeing any of it.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/data/index.php?site=brw&parameter_name=C13%252FC12%2Bin%2BMethane

The high latitude is currently a net sink of carbon. How do we know a certain area is net sink/source? Both from stable isotopes and from phasing of concentration change with respect to other area. If Barrow Alaska CH4 increases, then Mauna Loa Hawaii CH4 increases several weeks later then there is a CH4 source near the latitude of Barrow Alaska (CH4 is fairly well mixed in the atm, the lifetime is 10 years while atmospheric turnover rate is 1 year). So far, all the high latitude NOAA sites responds to CH4 emission from the tropics, rather than burping their own CH4 emission and have the tropics lag their CH4 rise.

I do this for a living buddy you're out of your league. Next summer I can meet with James Kennett and have him record a soundcloud to even convince you further

When will you peple realize that NatSoc Germany was one of the most pro-environmentalism governments to have ever existed?

Their views and actions in regards to the environment are STILL used AGAINST them in the form of, "you want [legislation to reduce runoff into river, or whatever]? that simply kills more industry, this is exactly like the eco-fasicm that hitler enabled."

eco fucking fascism, and yet people decry the nazis as the bad guys. institutionalized animal rights, and concerted efforts are reforestation.

fucking brainlet /pol/tards turn people off of traditionalism when it is objectively the best way to combat man-made effects of climate change and environmental damage of the oceans and air.

>>8793125
>yet people decry the nazis as the bad guys
Maybe because they attack Poland their neighbor unprovoked, systematically kill their own civilians of certain race and denomination, and ally themselves with a country who bombed Pearl Harbor unprovoked?

Just because Hitler like dogs doesn't mean he's a good person

>>8793123

And you can't see those carbon sinks flipping as a possibility in a worst case scenario picture? I'm not arguing with the things you are citing in some empirical sense that I think they are lying about what their measurements are or something, which seems to be what you are implying. I am criticizing their initial axioms/baselines that they have chosen as superior over more extreme estimates/trajectories. At least admit that it could theoretically happen under the right conditions even if you think those conditions are very unlikely, and I will be happy to agree to disagree.

The studies you cited all seem to indicate the mentality a lot of conservative climate stuff takes e.g. "with temps going at the current rate of estimated increase" only the increases in temp HAVEN'T followed that ALREADY. They are already blowing out the water the estimates. A possibility of worst case scenarios of 5-10 Celsius increase range instead of 2-4 is not some fucking 1% lel yeah right possibility. Realize that in the late 80s and early 90s people thought 2C was being extreme and conservatively underestimated. Now look at where we are at!

File: holocaust.png (166KB, 1482x450px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1482x450px

>>8793135
>unprovoked
im sure the germans being systematically displaced and killed in former germany would disagree. poland only controlled the land due to the treaty of versailles. you could argue that due to germany losing, the germans living in what would become a region of poland deserved to be exterminated, but germany constantly offered peace to the countries they were at war against.

a similar comparison would be if america lost WW1, japan was given the west coast, and then started genociding everybody living there. america then reclaims the west coast to stop the killing, and japan starts crying that they weren't allowed to ethnically cleanse the lands.

>systematically kill their of civilians of certain race and denomination
proof? note that the word preceding this current sentence is illegal in many parts of the world, given the context.

>ally themselves with a country who bombed per harbor unprovoked
>unprovoked
america had advanced warning of the japanese bombers en route to pearl harbour and did nothing. america was not part of the war at that time, and yet enacted an embargo on japan. america clearly wanted to join the war in earnest to protect wartime investments, but as the majority of the population opposed further war in europe, FDR had no casus belli to attack japan or germany.

by the formatting and language of your post, i have to assume you are merely inviting me to a jape, as even slightly cursory knowledge of WW2 provides glaring holes in the "poland and the US and the jews were gud bois who dindu nuffin" narrative pushed in public education

File: Untitled1.png (67KB, 712x520px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 712x520px

>>8793136
Read the USGS paper dude. There's not enough carbon on terrestrial permafrost to dissociate. Here's an excerpt that is relevant to our discussion, they addressed your citation about developing terrestrial methane craters in the Arctic for a bit.

The argument against catastrophic & abrupt CH4 release are mulipronged and converging from many different field of study.

1. There's simply way less C in clathrate form than initially thought off.

2. Deepwater horizon oil spill, which is as close to catastrophic CH4 release from sediment as possible, show that none of the CH4 made it to the atmosphere. We have been underestimating the oxidation capacity of the ocean. Yes the ocean becomes anoxic and some fish and pelicans die along the way, but that's another story.

3. Ice core records show no evidence of CH4 release from clathrate in the past

4. Top down monitoring from NOAA air sampling station around the Arctic suggests that even under many reported rotting permafrost and melting thermokarst lakes, the Arctic is still a net sink of carbon

5. Again there's not enough C in clathrate form that is not in the ocean. The author went through exercise that the 20 Gt total C locked in terrestrial permafrost were not significant enough, considering we're already chugging 10 Gt C per year worth of CO2, plus 555 Tg CH4 per year. That's like 2 years worth of business as usual carbon emission. The C locked in clathrate ocean sediment also won't matter, as from the Deepwater horizon spill, and countless other measurements from various places like Svalbard, Hudson Canyon, Carico Basin, East Siberian Shelf, etc practically all the hotspots of clathrate in the past 5 years all show that CH4 got eaten by bacteria in the ocean before the bubbles made it to the atmosphere.

There is no trajectories/guessing/simulations/models here. Just simple observations and deductive reasoning that all converges to one, in this case thankfully a non-alarmist answer.

>>8793148
/pol/ pls go. This is a climate change thread nobody care about your Holocaust and WW2 revisonism. Take it to
>>>/his/
if you have nothing scientific to discuss contribute

File: aids hardon.jpg (172KB, 760x760px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 760x760px

>>8793198
>complaining about /pol/his/ in a bait thread
lmao

>>8787607
Those are two different things, unless you were talking about COLONIZED.com and that picture with the /pol/ack getting all sweaty over a black chick

>>8792216
Why the fuck are /pol/fags so cancerously retarded? Why do they even come on /sci/?

>>8793171

Printed it off to read later, I will reply back in a bit.

My reply from a preemptive skim is that I will change the goal posts of the discussion and will concede that while maybe the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis "a feedback loop of epic proportions will form, etc etc" might not be correct in that form, I have seen nothing in this that implies that permafrost /cont shelf/ arctic methane is not a problem, and will not add significantly to global warming in general even if the doomsday scenario is unrealistic.

>>8793171
I wonder why "good news" like this, and how the drought in California has essentially ended for now
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-g-california-drought-map-htmlstory.html
doesn't really get national coverage, while every hurricane or flood that make landfall has local news screaming about global warming every single time.

Even if the science is sound, which I trust it is, seems like there's a sensationalist bias in the reporting of the science in the media

File: Andrea_CC_mosquitorange.jpg (370KB, 1050x657px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 1050x657px

>>8787098
you're not taking into account the northeast is going to be more vulnerable to mosquitos and other parasites carrying transmittable diseases. Due to increasing average temperatures, these species will be able to expand their habitats farther and farther

File: 1473843600175.jpg (87KB, 419x610px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 419x610px

>>8793148
why are you posting this /stormfront/ shit in a /sci/ thread dude

File: 1490985632354.png (873KB, 1050x657px) Image search: [Google]

873KB, 1050x657px

>>8794318
This map just proves once again that Orono, Maine is the most climate change resistant town.

People here will get some mosquitos in the summer by 2100 is the best anyone could do to scare people about AGW. Woooow

>>8794515
oh i thought you were referring to upstate new york... but there's still clearly going to be a regional impact

>>8794583
> but there's still clearly going to be a regional impact
Doubtful. Most of Maine is pretty self contained and self sufficient.

>>8793100
>Science, the most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journal there is
I thought that was Nature?

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-31 at 7.08.06 PM.png (1MB, 1232x1518px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1232x1518px

>>8794892
They're in the top 3 for climate science, Science, Nature and PNAS.

Science is the densest, most technical and you have to convey your complex idea in very few amount of words. In my field you publish in Science generally if you have bombproof data to show something interesting & gamechanging, but not have a lot of narrative/discussion/conclusion.

Nature has slightly higher impact factor than science, but it allows for longer word counts and therefore for authors to build some kind of semblance of paragraphs and narrative into the paper. Submit to nature if you have a very strong story, narrative, and hypothesis to push with good enough data to back your story.

PNAS is kind of the 3rd runner up if you can't get in either Nature or Science. The benefit of PNAS is that it is run by National Academy of Sciences and allow 2 way communications between reviewer and writer if they're both members/fellow of NAS. Sometimes with Science and Nature, some reviewer don't know what the fuck they're doing and got paper like pic related published. A bunch of economists with no real knowledge of Earth systems published a calculation on the cost of clathrate explosion in the Arctic and came out with a number larger than the entire world economy (lol).

The study got immediately rebuked by everyone in the field.

>>8794953
Here is the response for anyone who's interested
https://www.skepticalscience.com/toward-improved-discussions-methane.html

Skepticalscience is the most pro-AGW site there is, with regular advice and posts by bigshots like Richard Alley and Gavin Schmidt, and even they called out the study

Republican Logic:
>We don't know what's causing Global Warming, it's not CO2! Therefore we need to slash all funding to Earth sciences because we don't know what's causing it and we don't need to find out! God did it! Praise Jeebus!

>>8793758
There is no doubt that there is an alarmist attitude in the media that is over blowing things. It's not a conspiracy, just a way for them to get more clicks.

File: 1461929632380.jpg (17KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 306x306px

>>8787001

>>8795034
You sound just as stupid as a hick living in a trailer park in Mississippi.

>>8795062
>There is no doubt that there is an alarmist attitude in the media that is over blowing things.
Plenty of media organisations are still quoting and interviewing fucking Monckton as an expert, that's not exactly "over blowing things".

File: even moar anime kek.gif (262KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 300x300px

>global warming thread derails into /pol/ bashing
>mfw

Also just reminder that I wasn't arguing that the warming of the planet isn't man-made, i'm arguing it is no real cause of concern.

>>8790851
This

>>8795798
>i'm arguing it is no real cause of concern.
stage 3 i see

>>8787001
>Why is global warming a problem?
It isn't.

It's far too cold where I live anyways and the rising sea levels don't concern me.

Maybe some niggers in Africa will die but who honestly cares?

>>8787001
It may destroy some shitholes like bangladesh and Holland. This alone would be a net gain for humanity, but sadly the suckers won't drown but flood other countries causing massive political problems.

Secondly, only the average temperature will go up, in some places it may go down, in some it may become wetter, in some dryer, again leading to problems to farmers that we could automize away but someway care about. Nobody cares about bangladesh, but if India can't grow enough crops anymore this will be a huge shitshow.

Lastly, we have no idea how climate on a global scale will change. We only have some clues. Maybe Europe will be hit harder than we think, why take the risk?

>>8795852
Maybe when you start realizing that the world isn't 6 people with 6 fixed views that keep shifting the goalpost, but rather individuals with individual opinions, you'll be taken seriously.

>>8795876
>Maybe some niggers in Africa will die but who honestly cares?
Go home /pol/, yer drunk,
Europe is already staggering under the weight of tropical and sub-tropical refugees.
What do you think it will be like in a few more decades?

>>8795890
>Holland
I think you mean The Netherlands

>>8795974
who cares about refugees, they can be just shot at the border

southern europe climate will be fucked, and northern europe will have to deal with increasing water levels

File: card.jpg (77KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 512x512px

>>8795929
>6 people with 6 fixed views that keep shifting the goalpost
>fixed views
>keep shifting the goalpost
you can't even shitpost coherently you turbo autist