/ccg/ - Climate Change General

Moscow reporting, it's literally snowing here right now. Explain that, global warmingcucks

File: rift-map-2017-05-01.png (1MB, 1157x972px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1157x972px

>>8893279
Place your bets on how long until Larson C breaks.

File: sweetdeathovertakeme.png (28KB, 619x337px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 619x337px

daily reminder that we're so fucked it isn't even funny anymore

>>8893495
20$ it breaks in next 5 years

>>8893282

Quebec here, it's fucking spring time here and we got a good five centimeter of snow

What the fuck

>>8893611
>Nearly 18 month for approval
Troublesome contents?

>>8893279
>thinking climate change is about whats in our atmosphere
kek, the contents and temperature of the ocean are what really matters.

>>8893282
>>8893627
Warmer waters=more storms no matter what time of year it is

File: hqdefault.jpg (18KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x360px

Climate Change Denial Is Code For Anti-White

Reminder that not stopping climate change will do nothing but hasten the demise of the white race.
>harsher climate in the Middle East, Africa and Asia leads to droughts, causing tens of millions of new refugees fleeing to new areas (read: Europe)
>flooding of coasts, especially in Asia, will produce a whole new type of refugee
>there will literally be hundreds of millions of shitskins flooding into white countries from these two sources alone

>Europe and North America are at least partially protected from shitskins by harsh winters
>climate change means that winters will be shorter and warmer
>places like Canada, Northern Europe, and Siberia will become new settling grounds for hordes of shitskins
Why are you still pretending like this isn't a problem, /sci/?
We need to adopt policies for immediately building nuclear plants and replacing gasoline cars with electric or hydrogen cars.

>>8893866
kill yourself, retard

>>8894355
He's not incorrect

>>8893279
>Climate Change
my favorite youtuber debunked this

basically it's a leftist plot

>>8893279
In a survey of Bill Nye's, 97% agreed that global warming identified as a bitchy fat woman.

>>8894372
he is incorrect
northern countries barely allowed a million people

russians won't allow indians to live in siberia or something

what will happen is southern countries will simply geoengineer - sounds like it requires a lot of advanced tech and time, when it can be done today, we just don't know the consequences, but when you face starvation you don't care much about the future

GEOengineering implies it will affect northern countries as well so they have to respond - they have a few possible responses, but that's too far into conjecture territory

>>8894372
yes he is

the root cause of climate change (and environmental degradation in general) is continually increasing consumption of energy.

He wants to increase consumption of energy (as well as population) by building nuclear plants.

Sad how people fail to understand this basic concept, but this is 4chan afterall.

>>8894396
>the root cause of climate change (and environmental degradation in general) is continually increasing consumption of energy.
>energy
no, it's oil

nuclear is a much better alternative, but it's competition to oil so it doesn't get mentioned much

What percentage of climate change is being caused by humans?

What is the ideal temperature for the Earth?

Why is increasing atmospheric CO2 is a bad thing?

>>8894414
>What percentage of climate change is being caused by humans?
we'd be cooling if it wasn't for our involvement
> What is the ideal temperature for the Earth?
lower
> Why is increasing atmospheric CO2 is a bad thing?
gets further from ideal T

>>8894396
>the root cause of climate change (and environmental degradation in general) is continually increasing consumption of energy.
It's capitalism and comsumerism that cause the downfall of humanity.

>>8894402
Oil is getting passed its prime. law of diminishing returns.

bankers like you are betting on a new source of energy - literally grasping at straws - to fuel the population/consumption growth you need to finance your opulent lifestyles

unfortunately for you, it is impossible

>>8894423
>capitalism and comsumerism

exactly the same as energy consumption growth

>>8894421
>we'd be cooling if it wasn't for our involvement
What... I thought the planet was warming before the industrial revolution.


>lower
But more people die from cold weather than hot weather. Also plants thrive with a bit more CO2.


>gets further from ideal T
What's the ideal temperature again? Details and facts pls.

File: Solar_vs_temp_1024.jpg (143KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1024x768px

>>8894414
Difficult question largely because we should be cooling now but we're not. So you could say eleventy gajillion percent and not be incorrect.

>>8894440
Cooling tends to lead to mass extinction events while warming doesn't. So I'm fine with that.

>>8893279
/ccg/ tinfoilery belongs to >>>/x/
this is a science board

>>8894440
You know that temperature fluctuates up and down. Showing a graph like that is misleading as you're ignoring the overall trend. Totally unscientific, but it's persuasive.


>eleventy gajillion percent
I came here for science, you can fuck off with this shit honestly. Thanks anyways.

>>8894436
>What... I thought the planet was warming before the industrial revolution.
You really do not belong here.

>>8894455
The lack of information in your post is quite telling.

>>8894453
Please elaborate. I don't understand what you are saying. It's a graph comparing solar energy with earth's temperature. If anything it makes it looked like they are linked.

File: 415k-year-temp-graph.jpg (63KB, 720x468px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 720x468px

>>8894459
The data only goes back to 1880, meaning that it's not really showing the climate trend.

I could take a snapshot of data during a different time period and show the opposite trend.

Look at this graph. It goes back all the way, and you can see from this that the trend you show is not significant.

It's normal for the climate to fluctuate like this.

>>8894459
Since I posted it I'll respond. When people who are uneducated in Earth sciences answer that climate change is caused by changes in the sun, they often try talking about things such as the Maunder minimum which was a period of cooling in the 17th and 18th centuries. They often then start going on about how correlations in solar output in the preindustrial era are evidence for how humans can't be causing climate change.

However this doesn't explain warming for the last half century when total solar output has been going down (which is easily measured directly rather than using sunspot activity as we do for explaining the Maunder minimum). Despite total solar irradiance going down for the last half century we continue to get warmer so if solar output is primarily responsible for climate change then we ought to be cooling.

So a statement like the earlier 'what percentage of climate change is human caused' is a bit difficult to answer.

I have a degree in Earth science, let me gather my thoughts and I'll add to the post in a moment. Right now I'm trying to eat.

>>8894476
hm, yeah, it goes from the "colder" end of the warmer-colder axis to the "warmer" end of the colder-warmer axis from time to time, huh

>>8893279
back to >>>/x/

>>8894483
>what percentage of climate change is human caused' is a bit difficult to answer
Can't you estimate at least? That seems reasonable considering how sure y'all are that human CO2 is the blame here.

I'm trying to get an understanding of what's occuring here and all I get is fear mongering.

Nothing about a warmer planet sounds bad to me. Even if we are changing the climate, GOOD.

>>8894503
>Nothing about a warmer planet sounds bad to me. Even if we are changing the climate, GOOD.
nice that it doesn't sound bad to you but you're gonna die, how does that sound

>>8894506
Real scary!

(not)

I thought this was a smart people board. You're just a regular asshole.

>>8894506
Anon you don't understand. My gf's new leather shoes are more important than the continued survival of the only known habitably planet.

>>8894508
this board is for people who wanna be smart, which is why it's full of pseudo-intellectual retards. Smart people have left here long time ago.

>>8894435
it's not just energy growth.

It's how we mindlessly drill away resources and clearing out land for profit. It's how planned obsolesce create a landfilled of disposable goods for the purpose of justifying the continue manufacturing of products. It's the outright scheme of gilded minded to have the stranglehold on the population to enrich themselves to godhood.

And don't get me started on factory farming of cows and pigs.

>>8894517
"Nothing about a warmer planet sounds bad to me" is the statement I would call into question on this front, rather than "People are going to die because of global warming"

>>8894483
I have one too. Atmospheric science. And another degree in physics. From a top university.

Don't bother.

You're wasting your time here. (So am I)

>>8894517
thanks

File: atmoswindows1.gif (17KB, 600x302px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 600x302px

>>8894483
Ok, so the only real way to answer this properly would be through the Stefan-Boltzmann energy balance equation. I could go way back to blackbody radiation curves, Wein's law, and Planck's constant but just to explain, it's solid physics. Stefan-Boltzmann is used in climatology and planetary sciences to measure the expected radiation curves of planets, including Earth, if no atmosphere were present.

According to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation Earth should be about -15 degrees C but it's clearly not it averages +15 degrees C. The rest is caused by the reabsorption of energy by the atmosphere before it can escape into space. Not all of it is reabsorbed, if it were Earth would bake. The primary gases responsible for absorbing outgoing infrared radiation are Water Vapor, Carbon Dioxide, and Methane.

Water vapor is the undeniable king of greenhouse gases. It accounts for more than 85% of the heat trapped by the atmosphere. But there's a problem with water vapor. Water vapor is a positive feedback. Imagine a scenario:

When the parents are angry the kids get noisier, when the kids are noisier the parents get angrier. That's a positive feedback. It goes to infinity, the louder the kids, the angrier the parents, and so forth forever until the kids become screaming little black holes.

Water vapor accounts for a huge portion of greenhouse gases but it's not a *REGULATOR* of climate. It's more of a consequence. Something else has to trigger it to evaporate into the atmosphere and stay there.

Methane is also a problem. It has a residence time that's too short. Methane only stays in the atmosphere for about 3-5 years. It quickly breaks down into carbon dioxide or is absorbed by the hydro and biospheres.

This is why carbon dioxide has been called Earth's climate *REGULATOR* by scientists. Without CO2 in the atmosphere we get too cold and Earth freezes. Long term geologic climate history is more often then not a consequence of atmospheric CO2

>>8894522
>It's how we mindlessly drill away resources and clearing out land for profit. It's how planned obsolesce create a landfilled of disposable goods for the purpose of justifying the continue manufacturing of products. It's the outright scheme of gilded minded to have the stranglehold on the population to enrich themselves to godhood.
>And don't get me started on factory farming of cows and pigs.

From my perspective (physics guy), that all falls under the category of energy growth use. It takes energy to do all of those things, and all of those things combined with energy growth allow population to keep growing.

>>8894538
>From my perspective (physics guy), that all falls under the category of energy growth use. It takes energy to do all of those things, and all of those things combined with energy growth allow population to keep growing.
Fair enough.

To be honest, I thought you're talking about electricity.

>>8894527
I really want to understand. Not everyone who disagrees about this is a redneck from the westboro baptist church.

I just do a little gardening and understand that plants like the way the climate is changing. Animals like bigger plants to eat. And cold weather is dangerous. Most fish probably like a warmer ocean too... less ice means more open water for life.

This is all perfectly logical and nobody seems able to explain why this is the wrong mentality other that phony ethics.

I'm supposed to discount all these benefits of climate change because of the sea level (which rises several feet every day). It's ridiculous.

There should be ids in sci. No flags, just ids so we can tell who's who.

>>8894564
this

>>8894536
>Water vapor is a positive feedback

This is absurd. It's obviously a negative feed back system.

Are you telling me rain makes the Earth hotter. What the fuck. Proof please.

File: stefan_boltzmann.jpg (107KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 720x540px

>>8894536
The other two primary regluators of climate are the Milaknovitch Cycle and total solar irradiance.

Total solar irradiance takes forever to change. It increases little by little steadily over huge geological time periods. It accounts for all the warming of the planet but it barely changes noticeably over millions of years. Those minor fluctuations can cause some short term changes but solar irradiance is a very poor match for overall climate trends.

The Milankovitch cycle is a great one. It is responsible for this chart
>>8894476
And while the Milankovitch cycle is a good match for climate change historically it's too slow to account for modern warming and we've reached it's maximum and should start going down again.

So we're stuck with CO2 again being the culprit. Anything else someone can argue is causing modern warming is a lie, there's no argument anymore that makes sense.

So how much are humans contributing to climate change? Is a sticky question to answer. I could say it's 50% of 10% of 30 degrees C since that's about how much we've increased overall CO2 in the atmosphere and how much of total climate forcing is caused by CO2 compared to water vapor but that's not answering the question either.

I could say all of it since humans are causing significant abnormal warming when we should be going down not up in temperature, that's kind of what I did already but even that isn't answering the question.

It's a loaded question. I think the only thing I can do is what I've done. Try and explain a little bit how climate works.

>>8894564
there should be a term to use in the options field that turns ids or flags on independently for a particular thread on any board

>>8894573
>CO2 again being the culprit
I never denied that CO2 was affecting the temperature.

Why is it a bad thing?

>>8894576
crops wont grow, waterlevel will rise alot, irreparable damage to the only known planet supporting life and all it's ecosystems
the reefs for example are habitat to beautiful and borderline ridiculous biodivesity, and they're bleaching because of climate change

>>8894573
>It's a loaded question
It's not a loaded question. You declare that humans are causing climate change.

So I ask, "how much?" it seems like a perfectly reasonable question and you're totally unable to give an answer. You can't even give an estimate...

"it's compliacted" is not an answer at all. you're saying a bunch of shit but totally ignoring the main point of my questions.

hope you feel smart or whatever, but you didn't educate me at all.

>>8894580
>crops wont grow
Earths geological record shows that we used to have like 20x the current CO2 and plants loved it.

So that's bullshit.


>waterlevel will rise alot
It already rises like 5-7 feet every day because of the tide.

>muh delicate ecosystem

No. Animals are constantly going extinct. You won't guilt trip me.

>>8894587
>It already rises like 5-7 feet every day because of the tide.
please be bait

>>8894573

Equations?!

beyond how their truck needs a radiator, these fucking consumers could give a fuck about physics.

i told you not to bother

>>8894584
>you didn't educate me at all.
I can't help you with that. I suppose the only thing I can do to help at all now is say this

'Humans have contributed about 1.5 degree C of warming since the start of the industrial age'

Does that answer your question? It's not a percent. There's no 'we WOULD HAVE gone up .5 degrees but instead went up 1.5' because that's not what happened. We SHOULD be going down. What's the percentage of a negative number? It's a nonsense question.

Honestly, I don't know how to help you friend.

>>8894594
Why should I be concerned about the gradual rise of sea level when it rises and falls several feet every day?

You think a few inches are going to make a different?

Fear mongering.

>>8894607
>'Humans have contributed about 1.5 degree C of warming since the start of the industrial age'
There's the answer I was looking for. Thank you.

Why did you over complicate it and fluff up your posts like that?

Because 1.5 degrees over 200 years isn't something to worry about. It's perfectly within normal temperature fluctuations. When you give the facts in a straightforward manner there's nothing scary about this

Climate change is good for humanity. If you aren't an idiot you should be buying land in Canada and Siberia.

While you pussies salivate to Al Gore's Inconvenient Baloney, I will be filthy fucking rich.

>>8894625
>It's perfectly within normal temperature fluctuations
No it isn't, not even slightly. Imagine at that rate over the course of 11,000 years, the amount of time it takes the Milankovitch cycle to complete it's course. The Earth would easily top 165 degrees C and all of the oceans rivers and lakes would literally BOIL.

And we're burning fossil fuels even FASTER than ever before. So where do you get 1.5 degrees in 200 years isn't something to worry about, your ass?

>>8894625
How fucking dumb are you? You do realize if you add a few feet to global sea level, that is added to the tides as well, right?

Fuck, add a few INCHES and places like Miami are inundated with water every super tide, which is exactly what's happening right now in Miami beach.

Just because some regions on Earth have high tides doesn't mean that SLR isn't a horrible thing for our coastal cities / towns.

Let's say you have a town that's a few feet above sea level at HIGH TIDE, now imagine that the Earth has sea levels of 1m higher, suddenly the entire city becomes inundated at high tide.

>>8894687
Oooh scary

Guys stop burning fuel or were gonna raise the temperature (which fluctuates wildly every day) by 1 degree in 100 years!!!!!

My area goes from like 50 to 90 every 24 hours.

Why should I be concerned about 1.5 degrees change? It's insignificant. Even in 500 years it's practically nothing.

>>8894691
>the sea level rises 5-7 ft every day
>two inches more and florida is DOoOmED!!!!!

Lol

Besides, the water will go back into the Earth like what happened in Austrailia.

Like the Earth doesn't operate with negative-feedback mechanisms. Lol. This planet is billions years old. Fucking supervolcanoes, asteroids, the Earth has no problem. But humans burning shit, yeah were all gonna die now.

Stop.

>>8894774
you're both right and wrong.

The earth will be fine, and live will endure even if 99.9% of them were killed off; it's the human's who're fucked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

>>8894779
That's just more fear mongering.

Humans lived through ice ages. Like a little heat us going to kill us, its a joke.

Drink a glass of water. WOW IT'S MAGIC.

>>8894788
Earth been around for billions of years, yet humans were around for merely 100,000 years.

Regardless if it were man made (like ACD, pollution, or nuclear war), or natural (Yellowstone eruption, Solar Flare, or Asteroid impact) humanity are venerable to extinction; and you have to be naively optimistic to believe that we'll survive, even unchanged, or another billion years.

>>8894807
I never said we would survive unchanged for billions of years.

I believe we can survive a gradual temperature increase (1.5 degrees every 200 years). There's nothing naive about that. You're just a cucked pessimist, which is no better than blind optimism.

>>8894823
I was refering to Environmentalism in general you idiot.

I was agreeing with George Carlin that liberals and environmentalist only concern about their own habitat and wanted the earth to stay the way it is. But sadly, Earth don't give a fuck about us, and neither does the cosmos.

Also, which do you believe the most likely threat of humanity?

A. Anthropogenic Climate Change.
B. Nuclear War.
C. Solar Flare.
D. Global Plegue.
E. Degeneracy.
F. Asteroids.
G. Alien Invasions.
H. Cosmic Rays.
I. Zombie Apocalypse.
J. Robot Rebellion.
K. Grey Goo.
L. Terrorism.

>>8894838
>I was refering to Environmentalism in general you idiot.
It's still a straw man. As if I was arguing that we only burn gasoline forever. I never said anything like that so shut up with that pretend argument.

>>8894838
>Also, which do you believe the most likely threat of humanity?
>A. Anthropogenic Climate Change.
>B. Nuclear War.
>C. Solar Flare.
>D. Global Plegue.
>E. Degeneracy.
>F. Asteroids.
>G. Alien Invasions.
>H. Cosmic Rays.
>I. Zombie Apocalypse.
>J. Robot Rebellion.
>K. Grey Goo.
>L. Terrorism.


Asteroids, if they were big enough. Why, do you think it's AGW? lol, please don't.

>>8894860
>>>8894838(You)#
>>Also, which do you believe the most likely threat of humanity?
>Asteroids, if they were big enough.
So you're saying that Trump should shift all Climate Funds to Asteroid Defense.

how are we going to deal with this shit?

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/scientists-warn-deadly-ancient-pathogens-melting-out-of-ice-in-the-arctic-could-wipe-out-human-population_05052017

>>8894871
>liberal debate tactics

you got me. yes, whatever. just shut up.

>>8894874
Vaccines

How long until manhattan is underwater, or at least significantly impacted by regular/permanent flooding?

>>8895109
5 MINUTES

>>8894915
>he misunderstands the word likely

>>8895138
You're so stupid that it's making me feel awkward. Sorry for your loss.

>>8894915
Guess who's back to bring /pol/ to sci.

>>8895264
That's a really compelling argument. I guess I shouldn't call out BS debate tactics or some meanie might call me a nazi :(

Better just let the shitposts shitpost in peace

>>>/x/

>>8895302
>>8894498
>>8894451
/pol/ have arrived.

>>8895305
That doesn't even make sense

File: image.jpg (4MB, 5760x3840px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5760x3840px

>>8893279
We need population control in western countries

>>8893866
Or whites, you know, can grow a pair and tell the shitskins to fuck off and die in their own countries

>>8894564
nahh

>>8894625
1.5 degrees in a century is about a 20 times faster rate of warming than we saw coming out of the last ice age. It's difficult to see how an ecosystem can adapt to such quick changes. If action isn't taken we could effectively increase the temperature of the Earth 4 degrees by the end of this century, in as little as 200 years. That's insane. It took earth 5-10,000 years to exit an ice age and we can adjust the temperature balance in a fraction of that time.

>You are instantly teleported to a room full of oil company executives from every major company in the world.

How do you get them to listen?

>>8893279
What's a way to learn about radiative heat transfer in transparent media?

Any good resources to learn about climate modelling?

>>8895568
They never listened in the first place, they knowingly ignored the evidence and set up efforts to funnel money (and still do) into groups that spread propaganda, misinformation and cast doubt on scientific findings. Most fossil fuel companies today admit that humans are the cause of the current trend, but they only do that for PR.

The men leading these corporations will be dead, their children will be dead before civilization bears the brunt of the ecological and environmental damages to our civilization, why should they give a shit? Even then, they will still have their billions and be able to avoid any of the inconveniences climate change brings the less well off of our population.

>>8895568
Hey guys, I just invented teleportation, here's what's up

>>8894625
>Because 1.5 degrees over 200 years isn't something to worry about. It's perfectly within normal temperature fluctuations. When you give the facts in a straightforward manner there's nothing scary about this

I really hate /pol/

Maybe the anon didn't want to use the numbers because without context you literally cannot comprehend what they mean, and hey, you didn't.

>>8895702
kek

>>8895704
>Maybe the anon didn't want to use the numbers because without context you literally cannot comprehend what they mean, and hey, you didn't.
Yes I do. 1.5 degrees over a couple hundred years. It's just not scary.

>>8894446
tell that to the Permian-Triassic

>>8894671
>you should be buying land in Canada and Siberia

Singapore daily mean temp is 27°C
if it goes up to 28°C it'll not became uninhabitable

same for Siberia: an average low of -18°C instead of -19°C in winter wont make it a paradise

>>8895730
So you don't care about future generations? At that rate in 10000 years, the oceans start to boil.

>>8895931
>So you don't care about future generations?
"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."

CEO Nwabudike Morgan "The Ethics of Greed"

>>8895944
That's toxic capitalist thinking that brought us so much suffering it's unimaginable how people allowed it to happen. There's no reason to repeat the mistakes of the past generations. We are here today and it's up to us to set things right.

>>8895954
>it's unimaginable how people allowed it to happen.
its just lord of the flies, on a much larger scale.

>>8895954
Which is why free marketeers opposed climate action.

Is any one itt working in this field or studying?

>>8896528
>>8896528
read the thread, there's a few guys that mention it

also, newfriend, there's a few people on /sci/ who work with climate - a paleoclimatologist or whatever you call that and a few others

>>8896534
>read the thread, there's a few guys that mention it

Yes lazy on my part, sorry.

>also, newfriend, there's a few people on /sci/ who work with climate - a paleoclimatologist or whatever you call that and a few others

Its the first time im visiting /sci/, do you have more generals like this (similar topics) from time to time or only specific threads?

>>8895873
Eh? That was an ice age event too.

>>8896223
Be honest. If "climate action" involved free markets and small government then you would be against it.

>>8894503
Alright, let me give you a quick rundown:

Putting more CO2 into the atmosphere (more than the earth naturally does) makes it harder for heat to escape bla bla bla you know that part

CO2, however, also acidifies the oceans (leading to decline of whole ecosystems (like corals, which if you haven't seen yet, I advise you to do so cuz they aren't going to be around in ~50 years))

As this happens and temperatures grow, permafrost starts melting and releasing shitloads of methane which increases the rate of climate change drastically

As this happens, the whole range of living things on earth, adapted to a certain environment starts suffering -> mass extinction of species leads to lowered biodiversity which leads to destruction of whole ecosystems.

Past a certain point trees, plants and algae start declining, leading to even less "protection" against CO2

As that happens, the higher temperature of the ocean is causing more extreme weather worldwide, the increasing ocean level is driving fuckloads of climate refugees away from their homes

As that happens, economies start to decline, food production is fucked due to the extreme weather and lack of biodiversity

And it's happening NOW. If some extreme change in environmental protection doesn't come soon, the future looks dystopian af. Even if we manage to deal with refugees, food shortage and related problems, and even if we start geoengineering, turning deserts into farmable land, even THEN we would live in an artificial world, devoid of nature, polluted and industrial.

It's actually sad that humanity will most likely prevail and win the unjust and uncalled for war against nature that humanity itself started. Only because of our need to consume and our "fuck it" attitude for every issue that doesn't directly affect our day to day miserable lives. Fuck humans, man.

>>8894546
You can't be serious.

>>8894414
>What percentage of obesity is being caused by fatty foods?
>What is the ideal weight?
Hint: you don't need to know the answers to these questions to know that too much fatty foods makes you fat avid that being fat is bad for you.

>>8896630
bullshit

>>8894580
>reefs
They bleach and then they recover EVERY TIME, and humans have little to do with this natural cycle: herbicides and UV filters in sunscreens are probably the only things we can look into.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching
>The coral reefs that are more subject to continued bleaching threats are the ones located in warm and shallow water with low water flow.
which hilariously implies that IF the water levels will rise due to global warming (notice the big IF) corals will benefit from it.

That marine park in Australia is crying about bleaching because they want more money from the government.

>>8897230
>That marine park in Australia is crying about bleaching because they want more money from the government.
Which explains why free marketeers claimed that ACC is a code word for more government spending and regulations.

>>8897230
>which hilariously implies that IF the water levels will rise due to global warming (notice the big IF) corals will benefit from it.

no it implies the opposite

File: abe.jpg (119KB, 500x519px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 500x519px

>>8897230
>bullshit
Wow, what a witty, reasonable, educated and well-thought-out rebuttal.
But seriously, unless you're a reverse-shill trying to make the scientific community look better by pretending to be an extra-retarded Republican, you're the biggest idiot I've seen on /sci/ in some time.

File: 600px-Westworld_lemat_04.jpg (47KB, 600x341px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x341px

>>8896684

But fat doesn't make you fat, awesome example

>>8896568
personally i would at least recognise that it was a real thing, then think about how to compromise the values i would like to see represented in society with protecting the environment, not graps at straws and deny facts like republicans are doing
also if there wasn't so much of an environmental burden in the first place i would have less of a problem with unregulated industry, it's about pragmatism not principle

>>8897250
>no it implies the opposite
I think he means that the minor increase in sea levels will make shallow-water reefs less shallow.
Of course, that just shows how detached he is from reality, desperate to grasp at anything that makes him "right".
"Shallow" reefs are deep enough that even an inch or two of sea-level rise isn't going to be significant.

>>8897265
Global warming concern is on a spectrum. One where alarmists like to view themselves as a 97% majority based on a abstract keyword search performed by an Australian cartoonist. When they are just a loud obnoxious minority. Then you have outright denial which isn't very scientific if you believe a leaf being raked in Canada can relate to a raindrop in a country worth a damn. Then the middle spectrum is debating how many trillions of dollars a possible degree change in global average temperature is worth compared to the mountain of other issues. But alarmists tend to be attached to other ideologies that seem to allow them to view the alarmism as politically expedient and thus 'righteous' even if ultimately proven wrong or over exaggerated.

>>8897292
>a leaf being raked in Canada can relate to a raindrop in a country worth a damn
fuck off, america is home to more insanity the rest of the world combined

>>8897292

bla bla bla
meanwhile, scientists are trying to understand how complex things work; take this for example:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/methane-slowing-global-warming-arctic

how much of this kind of stuff we DON'T know jack shit about?

>>8897292
>One where alarmists like to view themselves as a 97% majority based on a abstract keyword search performed by an Australian cartoonist
I'm not sure what you mean here, the 97% is not about popular opinion, it's the amount of published researchers that agree that climate change is anthropogenic vs those that don't

"Isn't very scientific" is a serious understatement, but I'm not sure what the "if you believe a leaf being raked in Canada can relate to a raindrop in a country worth a damn" rhetoric means

America has perhaps the worst footprint on the environment in relation to their efforts to minimize it, which is damn fucking irresponsible considering it's not their planet
I'd be interested to hear what sort of initiatives you'd like to see these "trillions of dollars" go towards, since america doesn't have any particular devotion to social support programs anyway. Unregulated industries are just making the richest richer

>>8897265
I know there was a leak a while that the military believes its real and has drawn up evacuation plans for when shit hits the wall.

File: frequency_12months.png (122KB, 1384x723px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1384x723px

>>8897257
seriously, why wasting time on B U L L S H I T? the sex of angels is a more interesting subject than that post

oh well, lets try again:

>>8896630
>more extreme weather worldwide

nope, bullshit

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/23/the-real-consensus-global-warming-causes-fewer-hurricanes/

>>8897372
remember when a hurricane, ANY hurricane was a big deal?
nowadays the hurricane has to be able to topple a twenty storey building before it makes the news

>>8897372
>dailycaller

You lost the argument.

I'm sorry, but unless you got a scientific article on the short, then you don't have a stand here.

>>8893495

Jeez, the Chinese are really going all out on this hoax aren't they! Maybe they're renting secret Antarctic Nazi technology.

>>8897372
>finds one statement of the whole argument that is PARTIALLY incorrect for an isolated case
>disproves everything

nice one

>>8894779
>it's the human's who're fucked

we were already very resilient in prehistory
now with technology we can do things like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man-Made_River

>inb4 NATO damaged it! see? we can destroy da planet
sure, stupidity has no limits, but things can be fixed too, in due time

>>8896630
Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas not co2

>>8897439
the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is too short, we don't fully understand the role of water vapor in climate change
carbon dioxide on the other hand is a clear catalyst for climate change and it's levels didn't change until we started changing them

>>8897450
>carbon dioxide on the other hand is a clear catalyst for climate change and it's levels didn't change until we started changing them

Can i see some proof of this? The climate changes naturally all the time and a small change of 1c doesn't seem like a big deal considering we are in an ice age.

>>8897450
>clear catalyst

Really? Do recreate its effects in a lab then! I'll wait 800 years for you to reconsider:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/

File: 1494126778533.png (465KB, 1000x1050px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 1000x1050px

>>8893866
Straw-man: the post

>>8895109

it's rising at a rate of less than 4 millimeters per year
do your math
but don't worry, Greenland ice sheet is doing great lately, it'll not disappear overnight:

http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

>>8894421
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There is no "ideal" temperature for the planet and saying it's cooler means nothing.
During the Cretaceous temperatures were higher and there was little ice in the poles. One could even argue that warmer climate makes an environment more prone to higher biodiversity.
Life adjusts to the Earth's climate,and that's where the problem lies. We are warming the climate to an accelerated rate and WE are the ones to get fucked by it. Not the planet or life.

>>8897464
>>8897471
common knowledge
you're essentially doubting the roundness of the earth

>>8897546
Already explained in a comedy bit by a well know pessimist: >>8894779

Keep making these into generals so I can filter them :]!

>>8896528
I do paleoclimate reconstructions with corals using geochemistry. Doing my Masters now.

File: Legates, D.R., Soon, W., Briggs, W.M. et al. Sci & Educ (2015) 24- 299..png (73KB, 752x1027px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 752x1027px

>>8897339
>97%

not this meme again

it's 0.3% (zero point three)

File: nope.jpg (105KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1280x720px

>>8897550

>>8894779
George carlin doesn't know shit about the environment
he's got some points but I don't advocate an anthropogenic mass extinction
>prolly a shill

>>8897572
i bet you shit your pants today
here's an article proving it:
www.gofuckyourself.com

>>8897464
>he climate changes naturally all the time and a small change of 1c doesn't seem like a big deal considering we are in an ice age.
It's the rate of change that's the problem. The slow change over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years gives plenty of opportunities for life to adapt. We've no evidence that the Earth's climate has EVER changed this quickly.

>>8897471
>The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming.
Reading really isn't your strong point.

>>8897571
>Climate Consensus and Misinformation
>Authors: David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchely.
I chuckled.

>>8893282
Moscow =/= global

>>8897571
Monckton is a hack, keeps using RSS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M

File: nh_sce.png (125KB, 1400x800px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1400x800px

>>8893627
>>8893282

yeah, snow cover extent over the Northern Hemisphere is above average:

https://www.ccin.ca/home/ccw/snow/current

this will increase the albedo, cooling the planet

>>8897718
Increased snowfall is a pretty common prediction of AGW.
More precipitation + milder winders => more snow.

File: Arctic May 8 2016 vs 2017.png (999KB, 930x712px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 930x712px

>>8893279

there is more ice in he Arctic than last year
open these in 2 tabs and switch from one to the other:

https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/asi_daygrid_swath/n6250/2017/may/Arctic/asi-AMSR2-n6250-20170508-v5_visual.png

https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/asi_daygrid_swath/n6250/2016/may/Arctic/asi-AMSR2-n6250-20160508-v5_visual.png

>>8894580
Or, to be more correct, a warmer and polluted earth will lead a max extintion caused by an exponential growth of plants, algae in particolar, that will "suffocate" the world.

>>8897560
Interesting! What is your bsc in?

File: sauroposeidon-by-ford.png (430KB, 640x504px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 640x504px

>>8898454

then we'll clone dinosaurs and mammoths to eat those plants :D

>>8894580
>crops wont grow

if you add 300pm of CO2 they usually grow faster and healthier; we have decades of experiments on this:

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

>>8898529
>then we'll clone dinosaurs and mammoths to eat those plants :D
Who will? Are you going to pay for it? That's going to cost a fortune if it's even at all possible. It'll cost even more than switching to renewables and eliminating meat consumption and yet we can't even get that done.

>>8898529
>:D
aah, yeah, sure
let's add 300 ppm more

>>8898393
The ice is newer ice, which means it is less thick and therefore easier to melt.

File: Stop_global_warming.jpg (17KB, 400x268px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x268px

www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/methane-slowing-global-warming-arctic
Good news about climate change is especially rare in the Arctic. But now comes news that increases in one greenhouse gas - methane - lead to the dramatic decline of another.

>>8898645
>But Pohlman says one can’t count on the methane fertilizing effect being the same everywhere. Even in his study area, it’s apt to change with the seasons. He notes that his team’s data were collected in the constant sunlight of Arctic summer. During the dark polar night, photosynthesis would drop to nearly nothing, and methane emissions wouldn’t be offset by declining CO2.

>>8898645
Ocean absorbing more CO2 is just going to make the issue of ocean acidification even worse.

>>8898599

still, the larger the better, because it increases the albedo (which is really undervalued around here)

>>8898654
>dark polar night

which fortunately is the coolest period of the year, with the ice cover working as a blanket, reducing the sea−air gas flux

>>8898720

read it more carefully:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/05/02/1618926114
>stimulates CO2 consumption by photosynthesizing phytoplankton

>>8898529
Who want to bet CO2science was funded by fossil fuel industries.

>>8894546

You are a fucking retard who needs to look for a different profession then

If you are a gardener you must clearly understand that certain parasites and fungal infections thrive in warmer climates

Now imagine having some small tree eating parisites hanging out 1 month longer and appearing 1 month sooner than they are supposed to

If this change would take place over thousands of years there would be no problem as the trees or whatever that keep the parasites in check can adopt

And this is just concerning parasites, you need to look up what ocean dead zones are, methane producing bacteria, etc.

In nature everything is interconnected, your plants might like few degrees warmer, and bigger animals might like to eat plants but the changes that are taking place on microscopic / invisible levels are just as much important and I don't want to explain the most basic things like the food chain and shit you can dig into this yourself

Your way of thinking is so simplistic and ignorant, I really dont want to hurt you but you should leave thinking about complicated stuff like climate change to people who can better grasp these basic mechanics in nature and admit to yourself that you simply don't have the mindset to crack climate change, you'll have to listen to smarter people sorry

File: cook.gif (33KB, 560x219px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 560x219px

>>8897339
It wasn't very scientific at all. To the extent it wasn't even performed by a scientist. He did a keyword search of 2000 some articles. Decided 34% gave an opinion of global warming and 33% of those attributed it to man. 33%/34% = 97%. Sophomoric at best. And he was already heavily inclined to see support for it because he had already made promoting AGW his pet hobby and his only point of notoriety.

>>8898849

That's nice rhetoric and all but where are the scientists who don't believe in climate change?

>>8898849
What are you talking about? Who is this guy? 97% of publishing researchers assert that climate change is largely anthropogenic

>>8898860
That is actually a fact, not rhetoric. The rhetoric is in moving the goal post when convenient and pretending "climate change" in general is the same as belief in catastrophic AGW.

>>8898937
>Who is this guy?
>97% of publishing researchers assert that climate change is largely anthropogenic
He's the reason you believe that.

File: Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg (93KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1280x720px

>>8898952
No he's some random idiot you found

>>8898969
Ok nvm that is actually a graphic made by that guy
BUT it represents studies done into how many scientists believe in AGW, he didn't actually look at studies about agw, but studies about the consensus, so point stands, he's a random idiot

>>8898969
Oreskes started the meme. But had the same methodology flaw. And managed to somehow avoid including known skeptical scientists.
Doran/Zimmerman asked two questions of 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions.
3146 of them responded
They then narrowed this down to 79 individuals due to additional qualifications they applied.
76 agreed with the "consensus" as 76/79 is 97%. Yet it's presented as thousands were asked and 97% agreed. Which is technically a true sentence but a misleading statement.
Anderegg was a Doran clone with 200.
Cook was already discussed and if his same methodology and credentials were used to claim 97% skeptical then you would be laughing with me at him.
Verheggen surveyed psychologists, pollsters, philosophers, and the like. Thus would be laughed at on /sci/
Stenhouse actually demonstrated a 54% consensus but parse it to "actively publishing" to derive the 93%
Carlton was a general survey of non-climatologists too but oddly seemed to acknowledge "that their beliefs are influenced by the same types of things that influence the beliefs of regular people: cultural values, political ideologies and personal identity". Yet doesn't pair that with a drumbeat of "consensus" since 2004 perverting such a poll. Which is really the intent of the "consensus" arguments. It is a political argument and not a scientific one. All promoted by people already inclined to bias them.

>>8898997
He's included on that chart. And the media ran with it uncritically. These are about repeating a lie often enough.

>>8899045
>Doran/Zimmerman asked two questions of 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions.
>3146 of them responded
>They then narrowed this down to 79 individuals due to additional qualifications they applied.
that sounds valid to me

>>8898849
>It wasn't very scientific at all. To the extent it wasn't even performed by a scientist.
I... don't think you understand what science IS.

>He did a keyword search of 2000 some articles.
Okay, so? That's what we actually care about - who's published papers that take a stance on attribution of global warming.

>he had already made promoting AGW his pet hobby and his only point of notoriety.
He's actually pretty well regarded. Go look at actual climatologisty blogs like RC or whatever. Only a handful of butmad deniers go around calling him a "notorious cartoonist".