So we've pretty much hit the point where we cannot stop

>>8795832
You familiar with the idea of carbon fixing? If we can build a massive enough system of apparatuses that somehow turn CO2 into a solid organic molecule without the extra stuff needed in plant-based carbon fixation we could drastically reduce atmospheric CO2.

>>8795847
I am but it seems a bit far fetched to pin our hopes on organisms sucking carbon out of the atmosphere when we're in the middle of a great extinction event. The algae that use the carbon are dying out, not propagating, huge problem if your strategy to lower CO2 levels hinges on them.

>>8795851
Methane release is the biggest problem I think. But to solve the increased CO2 levels which are causing methane sinks to release methane we need a way to artificially fix CO2 into a organic form on a mass scale.

>>8795832
Genetically engineer some kind of extremely fast growing ocean algae that will drag atmospheric carbon to the bottom of the ocean as marine snow

>>8795873
What happens when the marine snow is decomposed by deep sea bacteria? Now I know very feed aerobes live that deep but surely the few that do would release a good portion of this back into the ocean water as CO2 where it will eventually enter the atmosphere right?

If a runaway warming was possible on Earth it would've occurred already.

>>8795877
Yeah probably, but if you are dumping carbonsignificantly faster than it can be decomposed it doesnt really matter

>>8795879
The normal rate of climate change is very slow. Changes of 1 degree usually happen over hundreds of thousands of years. There hasn't been an event like this for Earth, ever. Change like we're seeing within 100 years is absolutely unprecedented.

>>8795903
So? we are talking about physics and chemistry here, the time scale is the second, 100 years or 100 millions is the same, it will be in equilibrium way before that.

>>8795914
Actually we're talking about biology and it's inability to adapt to rapid changes in the environment. Whenever there is a rapid shift in the climate of the planet thousands of species go extinct, and we're talking time scales of 100,000 years or more. What do you think is going to happen when we revert to the climate that existed 100 million years ago within the next 500 years? The ecosystem is delicate. Even the species that can adapt in so short a time are going to find that the things they feed on are dying out and die out themselves, complete ecosystem collapse.

This thread is too real for me

Pumping huge quantities of aerosols into the upper atmosphere to try and reflect the worst of the Sun would probably be our trump card. It would be a dangerous move to play, as the Earth is a complex system and we've no real way of testing it beforehand and working out what the potential side effects are until we do it, but if it's that or boil to death, I can see us giving it a go.

File: Renaissance10.jpg (35KB, 800x329px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 800x329px

>>8795942
>tfw Operation Dark Storm will be real
Seeding the atmosphere with chemicals sounds like a really fucking bad idea, as far as plans with unintended and unforeseeable consequences go.

>>8795903
But if it has never happened before, maybe the result will be super awesome.

>>8795832
Do you have any legitimate sources for this claim, or are you just a stupid fuck that repeats everything that it hears on the tabloid news?

>>8795965
Clathrate gun has gone off, havent you heard?

>>8795965
Go back to /pol/ retard

>>8795987
Go back to the 'ddit bitchfag.

I'll just list some things I've heard:
-release some powder/particles to cause the formation of clouds which reflect sunligh
-release some sulphuric stuff, don't really know. I think it is similar to volcanic eruption emissions.
-dump iron in the ocean to fertilize the growth of algae blooms for more photosynthesis

Just let the ice age happen.

>>8795832
From watching talks by leading experts, I'm pretty sure they think it's too late and we're fucked (although they never say it directly)

so, assuming that's the case, our only hope is a new breakthrough discovery/technology to remove large amounts of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere
perhaps combined with as many effective geoengineering techniques as needed to artificially cool the planet while the greenhouse gas is reduced

>>8796079
Swarm of reflective satellites at the L1 point to reduce the amount of incoming light.

File: jungle-04.jpg (1MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1200px

>>8795832
We can't stop it, but plants will stop it for us. Even if we are not here to see that happen.

>>8795847
We'd need to plant a trillion-tree GMO eucalyptus forest around the world and harvest-replant it every 7 years and store the logs in the mariana trench just to break even with our current CO2 production.

That does not include CO2 rising from newly thawed tundra/arctic regions. We'd need to stop all CO2 emissions from civilization to have a chance.

>>8796081
Make them solar panels and beam the energy down to use as electric to help replace CO2 emitting power plants.

>>8796101
>at least 1500 gigatons of methane stored in arctic permafrost which is now starting to thaw and leak
>the only way to stop it is to cool the planet (unlikely), or to go out there and capture it
>if anyone builds rigs to capture it, it will be energy companies
>they will then ship it to plants and turn it into electricity, releasing huge amounts of co2
we're fux'd yo

File: Surface_cooling_graphicSM4.jpg (95KB, 400x302px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 400x302px

Release sulfur dioxide into stratosphere.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/556/particles-in-upper-atmosphere-slow-down-global-warming/

>>8796118
Uh. Wouldn't that cause acid rain?

>>8796118
What about the acid rain plus the extra ocean acidification it will cause.

>>8795832
>It's another "Chicken Little opines on global warming" thread
Oh boy.

I'm all for educating people about the issue of global warming, but this sort of alarmist sensationalism is not constructive. Positive feedback mechanisms do exist, and do have a significant impact on the climate, but we are nowhere near a point where these positive feedback mechanisms will even come CLOSE to outweighing the overriding negative feedback mechanism of radiative balance.

So just
CALM
THE
FUCK
DOWN
(and promote renewable energy).

>>8796124
Don't forget gen.IV nuclear senpai

File: consensus.jpg (6KB, 280x230px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 280x230px

What have Climatism and Lysenkoism in common? The state-sponsored consensus.

>>8796109
Oh yeah, I meant to mention the Methane problem too.

Too bad there isn't some global government that has the ability to kick anyone's ass in order to get everyone in line for shit like this (disregarding any problems such a government would create).

Anyone know what form of government a normal family is? Like father, mother, and children? Because all of us are like children in this instance and there's no parent to kick out asses and keep us in line. Freedom kind of fucking sucks when you only ever use it to totally kill off your entire species.

>>8796118
That would help a tiny bit depending on the size, but wouldn't fix the long term problem. It would help give us some time at the expense of crops. You'd need to have a volcano-sized explosion once a year.

>>8796120
>>8796123
Mount Tambora, which blew its top in April 1815 cooled the globe for a year, only a year "The Year without Summer". Having something like that happen once every year or once every 2 years would probably not cause too much problem with acidification for long term. Short term it would cause world famine. Which isn't a bad thing really. Less people = less CO2.

File: 1476035936788.png (91KB, 308x586px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 308x586px

>>8796132
>Short term it would cause world famine. Which isn't a bad thing really.
Nice one edgelord.

>>8796140
Being truthful isn't being an edgelord. If humanity can't get its shit together on its own then it will start to die out on a massive scale until extinction occurs. The alternative, with humanity still not getting its shit together, is culling of the population.

Level of severity, worst at the top:

Extinction
Culling
Getting our shit together

I'd prefer we'd get our shit together. I don't give a damn about quality of life if it means no life at all as the result of living in luxury.

>>8796124
people will keep saying this well after the point where it's too late
they'll keep saying it after bangladesh is underwater due to sea level rise and its 100 million inhabitants flee to other countries

they'll keep saying it after india and pakistan, which share their source of fresh water, begin to run low and enter into nuclear war to gain/retain control over it

they'll keep saying it when the average temperature in russia, australia, and mexico raise a fraction of a degree and can no longer feed their own populations resulting in mass exodus, famine, war, and global destabilization

basically, fuck conservatives

>>8796158
Well liberals insist on pushing niggers, faggots and trannies into everything so I can understand why people vote conservative even when they deny climate change. Basically get a party that acknowledges climate change and pledges to kick niggers out and you'd have a vote winning platform.

File: giss_alc_130.png (71KB, 640x364px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x364px

>>8795832
>positive feedback loop
On a water planet one such event leads to an ice age and the other to the interglacial. Both are self-stabilizing.

>>8796199
Why does the y axis go from -40 to 120 when it would only take a few years above 60 or below 50 to make the Earth uninhabitable for humans?

>>8796206
because an increase of 2 degrees avg temperature leads to near extinction of humans
and if you zoom out far enough, that 1 degree increase looks barely noticeable
which is what they are going for

>>8795832
yeah except that's bullshit and you would know it if you didn't have your tongue up the leftist media's ass

>>8796257
Just out of curiosity, are there any other issues where you disagree with 97% of scientists? Or is it just on the issue of global warming?

>>8796268
9 out of 10 dentists think Colgate™ toothpaste is the best toothpaste.

you agree with this?

personally, i ask why they could only find ten dentists to talk about their shitty toothpaste.

>>8796270
ah, u wuz juss joken'
aight den

>>8796270
Is that a peer reviewed study that has been repeated and resulted in the same conclusion? Show it to me please

File: 464500a-f1.2.jpg (44KB, 800x683px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x683px

Bioeremediation best remediation.

A, C, and D are our best options. The major problem is the excessive CO2 produced. This would have to be offset somehow, but the methane shitstorm will happen eventually.

>>8795832
this board is about math and science, not mysticism or political ideology. please leave after deleting your thread.

>>8796257
/pol/ is fleeing to other boards because their board is becoming unviewable.

>>8796275
anthropogenic climate change is a very real phenomenon that has been objectively measured.

>>8796278

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT-rixDQM9A

>>8796285
oh wow you sure convinced me, wow it's like carbon dioxide just stays in the atmosphere forever! we are all going to suffocate tomorrow!!!

Everyone on 4chan who denies climate change is happening is just a troll, right?
The only real deniers are dumb old people

>>8796270

Find a dentistry publication that actually finds this 97% of the time in non corporate payed studies across thousands of publications.


You're comparing a fucking ad to the body of climat science.

>>>GETOUT

File: 12fa06fde421455272a161e95319941d.jpg (78KB, 554x554px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 554x554px

>>8796303
>dumb old people
nice meem, shithead

>>8796305
>non corporate payed studies
yeah because george soros, the gore's, the clintons, and the entire new left across the western world would never fund something and pressure scientists (who were indoctrinated in leftist universities since the 60s) to publish copy that fits their narrative

why /pol/
why do you come here
why
you aren't going to redpill us
just stop it

>>8796311
corporations fund studies here and there because it costs them a million bux but they profit a billion bux from the results
why would government officials spend enough money to buy 97% of climate scientists?

>>8796308
ok, to be fair, it's not only dumb old people
some of them are rich old people

File: Sowell-Factual.jpg (62KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 850x400px

>>8796321
climate scientists are a small fraction of scientists. climate scientists are not even a field.

ask a geologist, a chemist, a physicist about the first principles of this stuff. i personally know an analytic chemist who is unconvinced by the climate change argument on the grounds that it is based on false pretences, such as the fact that carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere long enough to produce any sort of "green house" effect. it simply reacts with nitrogen and other molecules and is recycled in the ongoing reaction that is earth's atmosphere.

>>8796314
Go see the /pol/ catalog right now, it's being raided by psychos and freaks. /pol/ is barely viewable anymore.

File: thomas-sowell-on-greed.jpg (43KB, 474x455px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 474x455px

>>8796326
>>8796328
>carbon dioxide can remain

cannot*

File: sowell.jpg (197KB, 703x703px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 703x703px

>>8796326
another sowell pill for little johny feels-a-lot

>>8796331
top zoz

>>8796336
>>8796332
>>8796328
>>8796318
what does the black science man of economics have to do with climate change

File: science.png (122KB, 740x572px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 740x572px

>>8796328
>ask a geologist, a chemist, a physicist
OK, here you go
look at that, they all agree

File: image4.png (92KB, 300x279px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 300x279px

>>8796341
More than you know. More than you know...

File: 6a0167621b7ded970b0191043c5d62970c.jpg (12KB, 276x172px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 276x172px

>>8796344
nah, the heads of those organisations agree. put another way, one person from each of those organisations, who undemocratically represents all of the people working at those places said they agree.

that is not the same as all scientists.

>>8796344
Clearly the (((APS))), (((ACS))) and (((GSA))) are all working for the Jews to promote the AGW lie and create a global government that's going to tax good hardworking whites for carbon use and implement forced miscegnation. It couldn't be that most scientists actually think it is a real thing. Daddy told me the Chinese made it all up!

File: Sowell-7.jpg (78KB, 934x452px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 934x452px

>>8796352
who is your daddy? CNN? Bill Clinton?

black man poster further reinforces my belief that the only climate change deniers on 4chan are trolls

>>8796358
They aren't all trolls, /pol/ is just extremely fucking stupid and bases their beliefs on tribal affiliation rather than broad scientific consensus, and if a scientific consensus exists that goes against their beliefs then it must be the Jews' fault

File: 2015-07-07-a37fc019_large.jpg (101KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 600x300px

>>8796358

how very interesting and important. never forget, you are bautiful, and have very important things to say. remember, buy more, and hurry up! don't forget, america made them do it!


>>8796360
i am smart because i am posting on a place called math and sicenced

that is means we are smarter

i watchted this to get smart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6ImP-gJvas&

>>8796362
love me some uncle tom's
that's some ben carson level retardation
america was like the last first world country to outlaw slavery

>>8796365
>1 million men in blue died to free the slaves, many more left disfigured for life, and it means nothing to you

>>8795832
Fun fact: The eight largest ships on Earth emit the same amount of CO2 as every car on Earth in a year, but no one asks about limiting their emissions.

ITT The sky is falling!

>>8796365
>implying America was a first world country before the world wars

>>8795871
>>8795966
>>8796109

See >>8787296
Current scientific consensus is shifting away from methane positive feedback being a plausible problem

Turn it into stone.
http://www.livescience.com/55038-method-turns-carbon-dioxide-into-solid.html

File: large.png (12KB, 624x351px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 624x351px

>>8796328
>i personally know an analytic chemist who is unconvinced by the climate change argument on the grounds that it is based on false pretences, such as the fact that carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere long enough to produce any sort of "green house" effect. it simply reacts with nitrogen and other molecules and is recycled in the ongoing reaction that is earth's atmosphere.

Your friend is not a very smart analytical chemist then. Let's start with composition of earth's atmosphere. It's 78% nitrogen, 19% oxygen, 0.9% argon and the rest is trace gas.

1. First from Chem 101 he should learn that Nitrogen gas, N2 is triple bonded and practically inert in the atmosphere, because for a reaction to happen you need to be beyond activation energy. The only possible way to break the triple bond is through lightning & very specific type of plants, and through Haber's process (anthropogenic, making fertilizer). Therefore the claim that CO2 can react away with nitrogen gas in the atmosphere is totally not true. Anyone who take basic chemistry would know this.

2. 18% of atmosphere is oxygen. Very little amount of hydrogen gas exist. This means that the atmosphere is HIGHLY OXIDIZING environment. What is the most oxidized (contain most O's and less H's) form of gaseous carbon? Yes it's CO2. CO2 cannot be oxidized further, and thus dpn't react with oxygen. Again the claim that CO2 would be scrubbed away via reaction with oxygen gas is false. One could make a claim that reduced gas, such as Methane (CH4) and CO would get oxidized in the atmosphere into CO2, and that would be correct

There are 2 known sinks of CO2 in the atmosphere, photysynthesis from plants, and CO2 getting dissolved into the ocean through Henry's law because the atmosphere is oversaturated with CO2 compared to the surface ocean.

TLDR; your analytical chemist friend is a goddamn moron. 2/10 failing grade, see me after class

>>8795832
Actually the positive feedback doesn't mainly come from more carbon dioxide/methane.
But because those gases have heated the atmosphere there will be more water vapor which will then in turn act as a greenhouse gas.

>>8795847
I'm not familar with the idea but intuitively I'd say that due to entropy it should be a lot easier to not release the carbon dioxide in the first place.

>>8796362
How does it feel to be a refugee /pol/? Look at your board now, it's ablaze and burning with ponies.

Climate change would do the same, sub saharan africa and the middle east would be inhospitable, creating flood of refugees into Western Europe. The pacific islanders nation would get submerged, and they'll be refugee to Australia and New Zealand.

I hope you enjoy your stay here in /sci/ as refugee, but prepare to get SCIENCE'd. Any argument that disagree on basic principles of how physics and chemistry work, scientific data & observation, and not backed by peer reviewed study will get ridiculed

File: Bro+out+of+all+the+works+of+fiction+and+falsehood+_eb9557964b583ff1ecc99f90dd5f6bd4.png (231KB, 900x827px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 900x827px

>>8796328
>>8796825
It's another dear diary, /pol/ is BTFO once again thread.

/pol/tards when will they ever learn

>>8795903
>The normal rate of climate change is very slow. Changes of 1 degree usually happen over hundreds of thousands of years. There hasn't been an event like this for Earth, ever.

That's a completely unscientific statement with zero evidence behind it. Ice cores do not have annual resolution for measurements beyond 68,000 years. There is no way of knowing how fast or slow current change is relative to what has happened over the past 4.5 billion years.

>>8795942

Will probably go about as well as the iron dust dump into the Pacific ocean by that Canadian retard. A massive algae bloom that released a deadly neurotoxin and genocided some significant marine life.

Please save us from your lack of foresight.

>>8796079
>From watching talks by leading experts, I'm pretty sure they think it's too late and we're fucked (although they never say it directly)

No, what they say is we're always x years away from death. Then, x years pass and we're suddenly x more years away from death.

Every. Single. Time.

Genetically engineer world trees and plop them on the four corners of the Earth.

>>8796158
>they'll keep saying it when the average temperature in russia, australia, and mexico raise a fraction of a degree and can no longer feed their own populations resulting in mass exodus, famine, war, and global destabilization

Crop yields go up with temperature increase, you literal know-nothing retard. That's exactly what has happened. Satellite measurements show a greening planet and crop yields have gone up.

Basically, fuck ignorant people.

File: facepalm doge.jpg (114KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 500x333px

>>8796988
>Ice cores do not have annual resolution for measurements beyond 68,000 years.

You're a moron aren't you. What is dT/d_age

Let's say at 110,000 years, we know that there's 0.5 degree C change over 10 years. The ice core doesn't need annual resolution of 0.05 degree C per year to be able to see 0.5C change over 10 years

>>8796865
Never because they're fucking stupid

>>8796344

>In response to my post on the draft APS statement, on April 8 I received an email from a group of APS members requesting that I create a thread on Climate Etc. where APS members could post their comments publicly, so that they could be discussed and so that it would be more difficult for the APS to ignore these comments.

>Roger Cohen
>What a craven and scientifically misguided statement this is. It wreaks of slogans, exaggeration, and distortions.

>David Douglass
>The APS should let the prior 2007 statement expire — i.e. let it die.

>William Happer
>History will not look kindly on APS for its 2007 Climate Change Statement, with its supposedly “incontrovertible” science.

>Robert Knox
>POPA and APS have joined those who promulgate the model predictions of dangerously rising temperatures as if they were settled science. It is a shameful situation that is amplified by the calamity-hungry popular press.

>Hugh Kendrick
>This statement is pathetically unworthy of a high school physics project much less of an organisation of physicists whose hallmark ought to be quantitative analysis, not an ignorant ideological polemic like this that tramples the scientific method.

>Franco Battaglia
>I’m sorry to say that the above statement would challenge the authority that the APS has so far gained on science issues. I would NOT approve the statement as it is.

>Laurence Gould
>I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH (AND ANGRY ABOUT) THE CURRENT DRAFT OF THE APS CLIMATE STATEMENT.


>they all agree
>OOPS

>>8797006

>hurr durr I draw a line through an unknown gap between 2 points and just pretend that's the actual trend

Believe that, if you want to.

>>8796328
>climate scientists are a small fraction of scientists
Physicists are a small fraction of scientists. Ask a geologists, a chemist, a biologist about the first principles of this stuff.

>>8795847
but not fast enough

>So we've pretty much hit the point where we cannot stop a positive feedback loop from occurring and the Earth is going to continue to heat up, which will release more CO2 and Methane, which will heat it up more, which will cause more methane release, etc.
No we haven't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBjFjSZjv6w

>>8796328
>carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere long enough to produce any sort of "green house" effect
It doesn't need to remain long in the atmosphere to cause a greenhouse effect. Absorption and re-emission of infrared light happens in fractions of a second. So long as it is there (and that can and has been measured), it causes a greenhouse effect.
Along with what >>8796825 said, your friend is a moron.

>>8796132
>edge lord
>muh one world government

Typical bs about having a few edgy ideas and not thinking any of them through

>>8796158
>crops will no longer grow if temperatures rise by a fraction of a degree

ok

>>8795832
They are already spraying stuff in the air all day long every day. What more do you want?

>>8796118
What do you think they are spraying up there all day long? That and a ton of other shit.

>>8797127
That's incorrect. Totalitarianism works most of the time. Just ask any good parent.

>>8797216
No it doesn't. Having the right society to go with your parenting in order to shape the kids personality and actions not just through punishment, but through social expectations is what makes for good kids. At least their direct environment had to be right.

Just forcing them to behave a certain way won't make for functional adults later on

>>8797285
>t. manchild

>>8797308
t. edgy kid who thinks he knows everything and the world would be perfect if everyone just did as he wants them to

>>8797341
>>8797285
>>8797127
>getting this BTFO

Did I hit a nerve, kid? You American?

>>8797343
>commenting on your own thread of arguments because noone else will
>not having made an argument beyond stating his opinion the entire time

Sure showed me there you little genius you

>>8797362
>Sure showed me

Of course.

muh gallic gun. this reminds me of michael ruppert and peak oilers that didn't understand new advancements in energy production, they thought oil was going to run out in 2004 and their leader ended up shooting himself in the head

>>8795877
Eh,CO2 at that depth coming back up will probably be converted to carbonic acid by the time it reaches the water level. So the threat is the quicker acidification of the oceans more than it is the return of greenhouse gases. Which means we get a whole 'nother problem for the environmentalists to get funding for.

Go science!

Realistically, how long will I be able to keep living comfortably before climate change rekts us all?
I am 24 now, will I die before the worst of it?

>>8798041
You'll be 50 when the first real effects start kicking in. Lowered agricultural yield and a refugee crisis the likes the world has never seen.

>>8796120
>>8796123
It would be released above the cloud-forming layer of the atmosphere, and there's relatively little mixing between the upper and lower atmospheric regions.

>>8798041
You're young enough to die of heatstroke in one of the eventual annual heatwaves.

File: geoengineering-srm-and-other-climate-engineering-methods-kiel-earth-institute-20111.png (912KB, 1326x859px) Image search: [Google]

912KB, 1326x859px

So which geoengineering exercise do you support /sci/ ?

I personally think that space mirror is the only one that is foolproof and don't have a lot of complex unforseeable consequences

>>8798519
countries will have to come together and do all of them
besides the space lens/space mirrors since the will probably fail 10 different ways

>>8795832
No we just evolve

Its funny because you science fucks actually think evolution is real yet we havent evolved since keeping records of humanity

But im a flat earthsr so i dont believe in that evo shit

>>8798519
Stop burning fossil fuels.

>>8799415
You think theres such things as fossil fuels? I bet you believe dinosaurs existed right?

>>8798519
Space mirrors seem like the best option to me. Reversible, doesn't fuck around with spraying vast quantities of chemicals into our atmosphere. I think the main problem is it would probably be the most expensive thing we've ever done by a large margin. You'd need to launch hundreds of mirrors with a diameter of at least 2 meters each to make any noticeable difference in the amount of light reaching the Earth

Or, we could all just go for the simple solution and say 'fuck the future generations'. After all, we'll probably all be dead by the time this really starts hurting.

>>8799573
Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

File: dino jesus.jpg (176KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 800x600px

>>8799415
>implying they didn't exist
>implying this wasn't a reality

>>8799578
Exactly! We shall feast until the world is no more! And... Then cry they we destroyed it.

>>8796996
>algae bloom that released a deadly neurotoxin

Where is that reported

Wikipedia said nothing like that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haida_Salmon_Restoration_Corporation

>>8798041

nothing is going to happen so you'll be fine unitl you're an old man and beyond

File: professor farnsworth.jpg (12KB, 200x181px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x181px

>>8799578

Good news everyone! The substructure of the universe regresses infinitely towards smaller and smaller components. Behind atoms we find electrons, and behind electrons, quarks. Each layer unraveled reveals new secrets, but also new mysteries!

>>8800147


Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.

>>8800168
>If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality

What's wrong with that? It is a chemical process and nothing more.

>>8800181
>Not getting the quote
Pleb

File: 1446058853058.jpg (101KB, 1024x904px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x904px

>>8796147
>these people actually exist and you post with them on 4chan

>>8796132
>being an eco-fascist
>in the current year

>>8797343
Americans believe in freedom, go move to north korea kid.

>>8796167
>Muh /pol/ brainwashing identity politics is more important than the fall of society due to AGW
Maybe it deserves to fall

>>8795832
1. Cloud whitening
2. Feedback loop isnt real
3. Doomsayers have been objectively wrong on every prediction theyve made. Icecaps are growing and polar bears are thriving

File: CS_sea-ice-projections_V6_0.png (73KB, 1700x1200px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1700x1200px

>>8800834
If anything the models have underestimated the extent of the feedbacks

>>8800147
You ivory tower intellectuals must not lose touch with the world of industrial growth and hard currency. It is all very well and good to pursue these high-minded scientific theories, but research grants are expensive. You must justify your existence by providing not only knowledge but concrete and profitable applications as well.

>>8800834
>Icecaps are growing and polar bears are thriving
how do people fucking say shit like this, i know you want very much to believe global warming isnt real but what the fuck are you literally retarded

who the fuck cares nigga its just the sun like go inside if u hot don't be such a bitch about it nigga

>>8801019
>i know you want very much to believe global warming isnt real but what the fuck are you literally retarded

>if you don't believe in doomsday prophecies you don't believe in climate change!

>>8801037
Look, anon, there's a fine line between arguing against the scientific consensus because you personally feel better about the alternative conclusion you prefer, and outright saying things that are blatantly factually untrue

>>8795832
Da fuck you smoking... MANY times in earth's history we have had FAR worse climate changing chemicals in the air. Earth NATURALLY goes into and out of ice ages... we are IN an ice age now and are DUE for it to get worse.

If it will make you feel better humankind is on its way to switching to solar, wind, renewable with nuclear future. If it REALLY get bad we can use primitive Terra-forming techniques to clean the atmosphere. Now relax and buy some descent drugs to smoke.

>>8796303
There's a lot of stupid people in the world who will believe anything, especially if it justifies thier political views.

>>8796360
+10
I wish they would stay on thier own board. I'm sick of every fucking thread being derailed by thier faggotry.

>>8801051
>the scientific consensus
if that was true, then we would have implemented any number of the engineering solutions to global warming we've had at our disposal for the last 30 years. when push comes to shove about injecting chemicals into the atmosphere/ocean or building some kind of global carbon control infrastructure, climate scientists rub the backs of their necks and wring their hands about it. instead of actual solutions, the only thing they request is more money for research and more taxes on hydro carbons.

not too concerned.

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-03 at 3.25.49 PM.png (1MB, 2022x1556px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2022x1556px

>>8801051
>things that are blatantly factually untrue

Climate /sci here, his comments are not really 100% untrue, but contain some classic denier half truths.

I think he's referring to polar bear population rebounding in Canada & Alaska (due to more effort in conservation, and more money poured into polar bear conservation)
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12339/abstract;jsessionid=3F26B6F3D4BE7F49AD18AC889172B0F4.f04t04

Yes the total polar bear population has rebounded, but sub population of polar bear groups that border on the sea ice (therefore rely more on sea ice) is still declining. This decline is offset by increased inland polar bear population in other areas due to increased conservation and awareness (who doesn't rely on the sea ice to hunt).
>http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/12/20160556

The other claim about ice caps growing might relates to this
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
with regards to East Antrarctic Ice sheet this claim is absolutely true. Warm airs can carry more moisture than cold air. Since Antarctica is so cold, slight increase in warm air results in increased accumulation. However this claim is not true for West Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland Ice sheet which have been losing mass every year, at accelerated rate.

These two are classic examples of denier half truths

>>8801102
Wow.

It's just disgusting how idiots will get so emotionally involved to rabidly argue such a retarded premise...like, the government pretending climate change isn't real because they accept studies funded by oil companies is one thing, there's money in it, but then some random pleb who has literally nothing to gain by being right except I guess feeling a little more comfortable about the state of the world will start spouting bullshit like they feel personally insulted.

File: epicagore.png (162KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 720x540px

>>8801062
>we are IN an ice age now and are DUE for it to get worse
>we are in an ice age now
>we are in an ice age now

Not even close man

>>8801088
You're vastly underestimating how shortsighted and greedy the people in power are. That said those 'solutions' you mentioned are absolute last resorts and have potentially devastating side effects of their own. There's no way to predict what the ecological consequences would be of spraying mass quantities of aerosols into our atmosphere, it could be just as bad or worse than climate change itself, which is why we haven't done it.

Climate change is a big deal, the fact no-one has taken any big steps to prevent it speaks to our greed and inability to think long term, it doesn't mean climate change isn't going to seriously fuck with our civilization over the next century.

>>8801716
you mistakenly assume that any solution is an all or nothing affair. there is a such thing as a gradiated response. you can inject a little bit of aerosols and see what effect it has, you can hook up a few nuclear reactors to CO2 sequestration machines and see what happens. but nobody is appropriating funding for that.

>>8795832
Immediate switch to nuclear power for electricity. Move industrial heat to electricity. Move as much transport as possible to electricity. Figure something else out for remaining transport fuel (such as synthetic gasoline from CO2 from the air or oceans, plus H2 from the oceans).

Then, build even more nuclear, using the limestone to quicklime method, to pull CO2 directly out of the air, and dump the CO2 into basalt formations, where it will form chemically stable bonds. It will take a shitton of energy, but it's doable.

Also, possibly some giant-ass shade in orbit (no idea if that could possibly work), or maybe aerosols to reduce incoming light (seems mightily dangerous because of unforeseen consequences).

>The Great Filter is something as simple as global warming induced by burning too much fuel that releases CO2

I hate how we can't come together to stop it. China I hate you so fucking much.

>>8796744
>but no one asks about limiting their emissions.
Lots of people are. I am.

>>8796996
That bloom idea would never work though, AFAIK. The dead algae would not make it to the bottom of the ocean and be permanently sequestered. You need shell-forming organisms to do that, AFAIK.

>>8800834
>Icecaps are growing and polar bears are thriving
lol

>>8797365
-not

>>8801716
>Climate change is a big deal, the fact no-one has taken any big steps to prevent it speaks to our greed and inability to think long term, it doesn't mean climate change isn't going to seriously fuck with our civilization over the next century.

It speaks mostly to the goddamned so-called environmentalists who are the biggest impediment to the solution. Full scale nuclear rollout is the foundation of our best hope, but the goddamned greens won't let it happen, and they would rather take global warming, and cling to their fantasies of solar and wind. My rage cannot be explained with words.

Aren't all the graphs that supposedly show that the climate is "changing" tailored in the extreme to show that the earth is heating up, despite being very unimpressive when the data is normalized other ways, or shown on a longer time scale? The scientists are really pulling out all the stops to propagandize the public to believing that they know for sure it's an immediate danger. There was also the thing where a lot of them colluded to lie about their findings at some (late 00's, I think), and they lost a lot of their credibility.

That all being said, the real data doesn't say whether we're killing ourselves or not-- it's a huge WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW. In the face of a potential extinction-level event, I think it makes a lot of sense to be cautious.

But people gotta treat everything as a chance to climb the dominance hierarchy, so it becomes a hugely emotional issue with one side ruining their case because they're trying to destroy industry out of resentment for the rich, giving the other side de-facto permission to ignore the danger and drive us off a cliff.

>>8802808
>There was also the thing where a lot of them colluded to lie about their findings at some (late 00's, I think), and they lost a lot of their credibility.
Stop getting your news from right-wing news sources. They are professional liars of the worst kind.

>>8802808
>That all being said, the real data doesn't say whether we're killing ourselves or not-- it's a huge WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW. In the face of a potential extinction-level event, I think it makes a lot of sense to be cautious.

Correct and correct. We know it's happening. However, it's still an open question: How bad will it be, and how soon? There's room for reasonable disagreement there. I also greatly applaud your proper risk benefit analysis, and the proper caution and concern that you show.

>>8802782
Nuclear is too expensive. Yes the environmentalists poisoned the well but honestly it's not economically viable to build more nuclear plants.

>>8802811
>Stop getting your news from right-wing news sources. They are professional liars of the worst kind.
In my experience, everyone fucking lies. Not saying that means the truth is just the average of all the lies, though.

The relentless propaganda coming from the environmentalists, decades of overstating the risk for a problem that never ends up happening is making people numb to their warnings. Boy who cried wolf, and all that.

Most scientists have an obvious political bias, and the ones that don't have no idea how human psychology works so even if they really care about these issues, they end up looking biased as well. Not blaming them for this, but it's a fucking tragedy that nobody can't speak about this clear-headedly-- you just get people using emotionally charged arguments, in this case accusing each other of being jews or /pol/.

>>8801102
>bear groups near the sea ice are declining
>must be AGW
Wow, that's some ebin science reddit

What about genetically engineering industrial bacteria so they use photosynthesis for their energy instead of glucose?

What about stopping eating meat or greatly reducing the consumption of meat?

>>8802855
ding ding motherfucker

>>8802855
Good luck making up the caloric shortfall with vegetables.

File: 1486167906736.png (345KB, 633x720px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 633x720px

>>8802865
>Caloric shortfall
>Over 50% of people in the first world are massively obese

>>8802865
You have to worry more about missing certain amino acids, but that's only if you cut out animal products entirely.

>>8802808
>Aren't all the graphs that supposedly show that the climate is "changing" tailored in the extreme to show that the earth is heating up, despite being very unimpressive when the data is normalized other ways, or shown on a longer time scale?
No. I don't know where you heard that from, but it's simply not true.
You can actually download unadjusted data for ourself and have a look if you want.

>The scientists are really pulling out all the stops to propagandize the public to believing that they know for sure it's an immediate danger.
How is that surpising, or evidence of foul play?
Of course people who have evidence that shit's fucked are trying to convince everyone else. What do you expect them to do, stay silent?

>That all being said, the real data doesn't say whether we're killing ourselves or not-- it's a huge WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW.
You can't just assert shit like that and assume everyone will believe you.

>>8802824
You willingly swallowed the whole "climategate" bullshit, but now you're going to be the one to lecture everyone else about how "everyone lies" and "scientists have an obvious political bias"?
What the actual fuck? Learn some scepticism yourself, and THEN ask it of others.

>>8802850
>What about genetically engineering industrial bacteria so they use photosynthesis for their energy instead of glucose?
That's basically just algea.
The issue with photosynthesis-based CO2 capture isn't the lack of suitable organisms.

>>8802855
Stopping eating meat isn't going to happen, but a push for less meat consumption and away from particularly energy-intensive meats (beef in particular, IIRC) wouldn't be a dumb idea. Really though, a whole bunch of stuff about agriculture and food distribution is pretty fucked up, so I'm not sure picking out meat as a single focus is the best choice.

>>8802872
>What do you expect them to do, stay silent?
I expect them to prioritize trying to actually save the world rather than use it as an opportunity to climb the dominance hierarchy.

>>8802879
>I expect them to prioritize trying to actually save the world rather than use it as an opportunity to climb the dominance hierarchy.
What does that even mean? Because it sounds an awful lot like "I expect them to shut up", and that's pretty stupid.

>>8802872
I think meat, as you said beef in particular, is the biggest factor in uneven food distribution. Cows eat a shit ton of food, and we are only getting a bit of it back in the form of beef. The food that is being used to make beef can also be used to feed people, who are starving to death. On top of that, next to making sure your household doesn't waste energy, stopping eating meat or beef is about the only thing normal civilians can do to reverse/stop climate change.

>>8802883
>"I expect them to shut up", and that's pretty stupid.
This is not at all what I said. This is why I hate talking important topics with people who don't have control over their emotions. You're programmed to respond to this subject matter in a certain way. You are unreliable at best and disingenuous on average.

Anyway, ignoring the futility of the endeavor, I'll try to set you straight. What scientists are doing is exactly what you're doing. Using the issue as an opportunity to show how magnificent their characters are-- "We CARE about the future!" "We are such good people!" etc. Trying to "raise awareness" which always, conveniently, means more money funneled to them, and less for their ideological enemies. Their motivations are not to fix the world's problems-- they are trying to raise their station.

>"climategate" bullshit,
It was probably blown out of proportion by the media, but it showed that most stuff based on statistics has to be mathematically massaged to be something other than just random data-- and it's up to the researcher to decide what techniques they use to get it there. It's WAY too easy, even subconsciously, to manipulate this stuff.

Maybe it's the only tool available in a lot of cases, but it still very fallible. Like people.

>>8802906
>feed people, who are starving to death.
People who make decisions on these sentiments are going to cause far more famine and death when our ability to feed them collapses than if we'd just left the starving people of the world well enough alone.

I hate to say it, but people who are starving to death aren't going to turn into scientists who move humanity forward if you feed them. They won't necessarily even make good laborers. Nor will their descendants likely do so, even ten generations down the line. You know what they will make? More mouths to feed.

I mean, you can say that the goal of human life shouldn't be only based on their contribution to humanity and up to a point you're exactly right. But when we encourage the least capable among us, who can't plan for the future, or decide not to have children at suboptimal times, we get more of those people. As a species, we are cultivating our vices, not our virtues.

>>8795832
Nuclear winter will easily fix this

>>8802914
africans already have the tools to sort themselves out
yes, a lot of them will starve and die until they reach a population configuration that's reasonable and it might take centuries in their case - everybody went through such a stage
i say africans, because indians etc. are already on the right path and show positive trends

still, about global warming, it's very much on us to not turn our place of living into a shithole

>>8802867
>>8802869
I don't think either of you understand what I'm saying. Meat is (extremely) energy rich. Replace all livestock with farmland producing crops suitable for human consumption and you physically need more space than is available on the planet in arable land to make up the energy loss.

>>8802907
>What scientists are doing is exactly what you're doing. Using the issue as an opportunity to show how magnificent their characters are-- "We CARE about the future!" "We are such good people!" etc
>Their motivations are not to fix the world's problems-- they are trying to raise their station.
You would actually need to prove that. "They're bad people because I said so!" isn't going to cut it.

>Trying to "raise awareness" which always, conveniently, means more money funneled to them,
If you think the work you are doing is important, of course you're going to push for more of it to be funded. Again, that's normal.

>and less for their ideological enemies.
Who?

>climategate
>It was probably blown out of proportion by the media
Yes.

>but it showed that most stuff based on statistics has to be mathematically massaged to be something other than just random data
Absolutely not.

>It's WAY too easy, even subconsciously, to manipulate this stuff.
Which is why we have systems designed to catch bias and accidental manipulation.

>>8802906
>The food that is being used to make beef can also be used to feed people, who are starving to death
No, it actually can't. The lupins fed to cows are toxic when eaten too often, for instance.

>>8802907
yeah, the data is sensitive
doesn't explain why whenever someone posts a concrete example of data that is fake or doctored in support of AGW they instantly get btfo even in these threads

>>8802936
>they instantly get btfo even in these threads
Sounds more like you're seeing what you want to see.

>>8802931
>Replace all livestock with farmland producing crops suitable for human consumption and you physically need more space than is available on the planet
That sounds very wrong.

>>8802943
let's put it to a test
every single denialist claim itt, that's been concrete was debunked

why don't you post something concrete, I'm sure there will be a valid and clear rebuttal

rhetoric tricks and doubting the data based on financial motivation is not the same as actually showing how the data is bogus

File: 1476360701484.jpg (48KB, 492x449px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 492x449px

>>8802926
>africans already have the tools to sort themselves out

man, if they thought whitey was bad...

>>8802951
>why don't you post something concrete
>Actually provoking a denial-spammer.
Now you're done it.

>>8802931
What? You're completely wrong. You realize the animals eat crops we grow too, right? Meat is extremely inefficient as far as calories per square meter of arable land goes, but we do it because meat is delicious.

>>8802951
I don't see the point in getting into another one of these tedious arguments where people spam links to metastudies they haven't read over and over again. I'm also not really invested in the argument one way or another anyway. It's just obvious that people have made their minds up and that (like you) it's become an article of faith on both sides. If you were intellectually honest you would admit you have a bias but you aren't.

>>8802965
yeah well you can literally go to any 4chan archive and find their arguments and the rebuttals

there's no way people don't have climate_argument.txt files saved

>>8802974
you have been useful

>>8796841
BUT
more water vapour = more clouds = more light reflection = less heating = less water vapour

File: Bizarro_World_001.jpg (43KB, 334x371px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 334x371px

>>8795832

one question guys please help

does or can light have to be refracted of something in order to be observed as of our current level of technology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOcCTbrd1zU&t=309s

>>8802978
>more water vapour = more clouds

Not necessarily. For cloud formation to happen we need more cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), where the water could condense and coagulate in the first place moreso than the total amount of water vapor.

That's why it's called "cloud seeding" because you dump bunch of aerosols to seed cloud formation. Otherwise you just have a humidifier running 24/7 and you'll get more cloud (which is obviously not true)

>>8802946
>>8802971
It isn't wrong, which is why I said neither of you understands what I'm saying. Livestock does not for the most part eat the crops we grow that are *suitable for human consumption*. There is a reason feed bags are three to four times as cheap as consumer grains and it isn't because farmers are rearing animals out of charity. Meat is also extremely efficient as a caloric delivery system and if you want to make up the dietary shortfall (not even touching nutrition) you have to somehow find a way to lot land that makes up for the enormous loss, particularly with grass-fed ruminants.

>>8803039
>Livestock does not for the most part eat the crops we grow that are *suitable for human consumption*.
No, it eats crops we grow instead.

>Meat is also extremely efficient as a caloric delivery system
You're actually going to need to cite evidence for that, because it's an almost unbelievable claim.

>>8799425
Plus you can use them to amplify sunlight in particular places and fry your enemies from space like they're ants under a magnifying glass.

>>8801015
>concrete and profitable applications
Nah, let the theorists develop theory. Engineers will learn it eventually and develop the applications that get your dick so hard.

>>8802978
The effects of water vapor have been closely studied.
It acts as the strongest greenhouse gas simply because there's so much of it.

>>8802821
False. Please see
http://euanmearns.com/nuclear-capital-costs-three-mile-island-and-chernobyl/

>>8802906
That's less than 16% of all human CO2 emissions. I don't know how much offhand, but it's probably much less. Also, no one is starving for any of those reasons. They're starving because of shitty political and economic structures. We don't have a food shortage problem. We have a political problem regarding food distribution.

>>8802978
The atmosphere is practically saturated with water all of the time, give or take. That's how we can still have liquid oceans; they haven't fully evaporated because the atmosphere is at rough equilibrium. It's this thing called "the water cycle".

>>8803811
Meat production produces more than [math]\rm CO_2[/math]. It is also a significant anthropogenic cause for methane, which is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

>>8803827
True. Apologies. I don't know the numbers offhand.