Climate Change

>>8956579
>graphics
This isn't /pol/ retard

File: CC_trends_anthro.png (422KB, 1520x1230px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1520x1230px

>>8956579

Why not just go to the thousands of sites in support of it and read their comment boards, rather than asking us to spoonfeed you so you can wave it away in favor of /pol/ memes

>>8956596

Where is the data since 2000?

>>8956579
Man even NASA said global warming is bullshit on their website. Not in these words but ALL statistics in the world, looking at long term indicate that the earth's clime has never been stable. In fact, we're long due a drastic climate change. It has never been this stable.

On short term yeah the "graphs" look frightening but look at the 1000 year+ graphs. You see nothing.

>china is fucking up the climate
>let china do whatever they want
>my sub-10-million-population country that could be, and for a brief period almost was, running on 100% clean nuclear energy has to apply green policies that cripple our economy

numerous people got lung cancer in chinkland today and i'm happy about it

>>8956596
why are you showing a tiny part of huge temperature fluctuations like this has been going on forever?

>>8956684

Is this graph based in reality?

File: 1496600408398.png (83KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x600px

>>8956691

Forgot to attach!

>>8956592
If you want the short version, the science says that global warming is occurring, caused by man, and will have on the whole have significant negative effects. Economists agree that mitigation will save more money in future damages than they will cost.

If you want the science go read the IPCC reports. They summarize everything.

If you want to shitpost, go back to /pol/.

>>8956705

Where are the IPCC reports, and what do they reflect?

Where am I "shitposting"?

>>8956604
Go and find it. Hint: it doesn't slow down.

>>8956679
>Man even NASA said global warming is bullshit on their website.
Sure they did.

>Not in these words but ALL statistics in the world, looking at long term indicate that the earth's clime has never been stable.
This is a big strawman. The question is not whether the Earth climate has always been stable, but whether we are taking the climate too quickly out of the range that the current ecosystem has been adapted to for hundreds of thousands of years. The current warming rate is unprecedented in human history. Why would the climate before humans existed be relevant if we are worried about its effects on humans?

>>8956695
Those graphs don't show temperature the since 1850. If they did, you would see the current warming rate is unprecedented.

>>8956679
>>let china do whatever they want

Are you retarded? Don't you realize that China has the heaviest burden out of all the countries in the Paris Agreement?

Heh, Donald Trump complained and thought he had it hard having to reduce GHG emissions by 17%, China has to deal with 20%, the highest in the world, and it has to reduce that by 2030.

Plus China is already the largest investor of green technology in the world and has cut the most coal plants. What China is doing here is very good for the Earth, get educated you ignorant fool.

>>8956715
Ever heard of Google buddy?

The IPCC reports summarize the current state of climate science.

>>8956731

Where is the underlying data they use, and has it been peer-reviewed?

>>8956774
Everything in the report is cited. Yes its all peer reviewed. The report itself is peer reviewed. Go look at it.

>>8956774
>trying to force a strawman out of the other anon
Good on >>8956779 for not falling for it

>>8956779

Why does it not have data prior to the 1800s?

>>8956695
You graph is missing the most recent measurements.

>CO2
>LATEST MEASUREMENT: April 2017
>406.17 ppm

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

>>8956779
So they correlate CO2 emissions with global temperatures, but correlation is not causation. Are there any good studies directly connecting global temperatures to man-made CO2 emissions or are we just going to assume that everything else is held constant?

From what it looks like, their sources don't seem to agree on the extent of effect that manmade emissions have. There's no question that there's some effect, but whether or not we need to do something about it is where there's a sticking point that apparently can't be met with an answer that has both conviction and intellectual honesty.

>>8956807
It does.

>>8956807
You didn't read it if you think it doesn't. There's a lot about ice core data and other proxies.

Now if you actually want the science and aren't shitposting, why do you keep making up excuses?

>>8956695
This graph is showing CO2 concentrations rising AFTER the temperature variation rises. Just compare the peaks; the temperature variation falls down right before the CO2 concentration falls.

>>8956828
>This graph is showing CO2 concentrations rising AFTER the temperature variation rises. Just compare the peaks; the temperature variation

So, you're feeling is that the temperature change drives the CO2 levels?

>>8956814
>So they correlate CO2 emissions with global temperatures, but correlation is not causation.
Wrong. The AGW theory is completely causative. CO2 warms the planet via the greenhouse effect. If you are just going to misrepresent the science then leave.

>>8956828
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
#12
#30
#33

>>8956828
Yes, that's because interglacial periods are initiated by warming from increased solar radiation from earth's orbital eccentricity. This initiates the feedback loop between temperature and CO2/water vapor. Current warming on the other hand is initiated by warming from CO2 emissions and is on a much faster, shorter timescale.

>>8956835
Well, you're misrepresenting me here. I didn't say CO2 didn't affect global temperatures. I said that manmade CO2 emissions might not be the only thing affecting global climate. Climate changes have happened without manmade interference, but none of the modern climate science reports seem to take into consideration any other possible sources and confounding factors. I'd hate to have billions of taxpayer dollars spent on something that has a negligible effect.

File: 85114615.jpg (39KB, 600x877px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x877px

>>8956579
>>8956592
Most of the "graphics" and "science" have been corrupted by "politics".

>>8956838
Why does the CO2 fall AFTER the temperature falls if it's a great accelerator of the temperature rise?

>>8956828
>>8956832

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

>>8956851
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Why+does+the+CO2+fall+AFTER+the+temperature+falls+if+it%27s+a+great+accelerator+of+the+temperature+rise%3F

>>8956851
>>8956854

Go troll /pol/ with the rest of the vermin.

File: Reconstructed-Northern-Hemisphere-annual-temperature-during-the-last-2000-years-v2.jpg (64KB, 940x417px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 940x417px

Past 2000 years global temperature proxy stack
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years

Just to add, the lead vs. lag argument between CO2 and T during interglacial cycles is of scientific interest because of climate dynamics, but has nothing to do with the current anthropogenic warming. A simple couple of Watts/m2 changes following the tilt of Earth's orbit and precession of Earth's rotation here and there in Northern Hemisphere solar insolation alone is not enough to drive glacial interglacial cycles. You need the CO2 and CH4 feedback to drive the observed temperature change.

You can say that Antarctic T leads CO2 change by 200 years (Parennin et al. 2013, Science) and then CO2 drives global T (Shakun et al. 2012, Nature) so Antarctic T > CO2 > global T, but all of these changes are positive feedback to one another, and 99% of the time they both change in phase synchronously. The effect on global T to increase CO2 is unquestionable, just like the effect of increased CO2 to increase global T.

wow /sci/ you guys are the only to punch /pol/ in the face

good for you!

greets from /v/

>>8956868
This is a figure from Shakun et al. 2012 showing Antarctic T > CO2 > global T during the last deglaciation if anyone interested, but again this is a false argument because of different climate dynamics between glacial-interglacial vs. CO2 driven climate change that is happening now so you're comparing apple to oranges.

The only thing of value that pertains to current AGW is that you see global T, antarctic T, and CO2 changes concurrently >99% of the time, with the obvious exception during the initiation of deglaciation where Antarctic T leads CO2 leads global T when they're not in phase.

File: Untitled.png (40KB, 487x541px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 487x541px

>>8956875
Forgot figure

/pol/ has been punched in the face yet again.
Even china is in on the global conspiracy.

>>8956728
Oh, the non-binding Paris Agreement? Yes, China is famous for complying with international initiatives. It doesn't have to reduce shit and they won't reduce shit.

>the largest investor of green technology
That would explain why they're burning more than 30% of ALL the coal being burned in the world.
Educate me on what China has done for the environment so I can post pictures of people breathing airborne cancer.

>>8956722
Wrong post number hombre.

>>8956868
>Past 2000 years global temperature proxy stack
Stopped reading. If it sounds like word salad, looks like word salad, it's probably word salad.
Why the embellishment? Why not just say we have about 100 years of somewhat accurate climate data and the rest is best guess. Any predictions regarding future climate are pure speculation, sometimes wild speculation loosely based around an infantile climate theory. The pillar of a new global taxation and wealth distribution system.

>>8956904
Per capita China is emitting less.
Per capita America is emitting more.

>>8956907
Fuck off /pol/nigger, go back to your containment board

File: 238eb46742db30303bcd33fe9ce65f3d.png (104KB, 1561x1042px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1561x1042px

>>8956904
>Educate me on what China has done for the environment

They just doubled their solar power generation
>http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-solar-idUSKBN15J0G7

They (read: their government subsidy) singlehandedly drive solar panel price down by 80% and drive american solar panel businesses out of work
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-china-is-dominating-the-solar-industry/

They just started the largest solar farm 2 days ago
>http://globalnews.ca/news/3499997/china-solar-farm-renewable-energy/

They are way ahead of schedule of their projected peak emission
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/07/china-vowed-to-peak-carbon-emissions-by-2030-these-researchers-think-it-could-already-be-there/

and that washingtonpost article is slightly outdated, they might even peaked last year
>http://cicero.uio.no/no/posts/climate-news/have-chinese-emissions-peaked

But surely the chinese invented global warming as a hoax, this is why they're putting their money and effort into their own hoax just as an extra double down to make sure everyone believe their hoax

File: tfw.png (601KB, 1000x1700px) Image search: [Google]

601KB, 1000x1700px

>>8956910
Image if the Chinese pulled out of Paris and said they wanted to live like the USA with all their people having the same energy hungry fossil fuel based lifestyle.

Fortunately some countries are capable of global leadership.

>>8956937
mad max would happen

>>8956907
>Stopped reading. If it sounds like word salad, looks like word salad, it's probably word salad
Just because you're to stupid to understand what it means doesn't mean that it is a word salad.

Einstein's photoelectric effect paper that won him Nobel prize is titled "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light." I'm sure an idiot like you also think it is a word salad

i would love to see how cognitive dissonance will take effect to /pol/ users in this thread

File: hakase.gif (2MB, 500x271px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x271px

>>8956907
>I'm too stupid to understand what these words mean
>I'm too dumb to even bother to learn about it myself
>Other people who spent their lives studying things I don't understand, and don't bother to understand must be wrong because their conclusion disagrees with my preconceived bias

/pol/lution pls go, get off my board

How much does humans contribute to global warming?

>>8957049
Close to 100%. Studies vary between 90-100%

Ribes et al. "A new statistical approach to climate change detection and attribution" Climate Dynamics

For some reason 4chin think the link is a spam

>Consistent with the last IPCC assessment report, we find that most of the observed warming over this period (+0.65 K) is attributable to anthropogenic forcings (+0.67 ± 0.12 K, 90 % confidence range), with a very limited contribution from natural forcings (−0.01±0.02 K).

>>8957063
ok, I was just wondering because I've seen graphs that show that during a period during the Roman times and medieval times it was almost as hot as it was now

will read though

File: Lappi_Greenland_ice_core_10000yrs.jpg (182KB, 864x516px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 864x516px

>>8957066
Oh this meme graph? If you read the actual study, the uncertainty on the reconstruction was +- 2C.

Obviously deniers are usually too stupid to plot error bars in their shitty Excel plot. You shouldn't trust any graphs without error bar in it, especially with regards to past T reconstruction

>>8956946
>>8957038
ignore these /b/ tier spam posts

>>8957073
no not that one, I've honestly just been looking on google images and more specifically CO2 and T correlation, there sure have been a spike in CO2

>>8957049
This is kind of a futile question, we don't have 2nd Earth as control experiment, so all of the studies that answer the questions will come from models.

We know how much climate deniers meme'd it up with regards to climate models they don't understand (and to be fair a lot of modelers don't understand their own model as well as we would've liked too)

Why don't we just plant more trees to fix climate change?

https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/benefits.htm

Its says here an acre of trees can absorb 2.6 TONS of carbon dioxide.a year. So we just need to find out exactly how many tons of carbon dioxide humans emit each year, then plant enough trees to completely get rid of it.

>>8956846
>I didn't say CO2 didn't affect global temperatures. I said that manmade CO2 emissions might not be the only thing affecting global climate.
I didn't say you said that, and no climatologist believes that manmade CO2 emissions are the only thing that affects climate. Another idiotic strawman.

>Climate changes have happened without manmade interference, but none of the modern climate science reports seem to take into consideration any other possible sources and confounding factors.
That's simply not true. Why are you lying? Why are you pretending to know what's in these reports when you haven't read them?

>>8956928
>Solar. Solar. Solar.
You do realize that the only reason they have a booming solar power industry is due to the fact that everyone and their brother outsources the production of solar panels to China, right?
You do realize that the only reason everyone outsources solar power device production to China is because it is a heavily polluting process that can't be approved of in other countries, right?
You do realize that they're carbon output will only increase along with the pollution from creating solar power devices/accessories as world demand for solar products increases due to the Paris Climate Treaty, right?

Holy shit, the only people to benefit from this deal will be China, "Green" Energy companies, and the politicians that receive donations from the two. All the while, pollution will spike along with energy prices. It's almost like environmentalism is a scam and produces no actual benefit to western society or the environment.

>>8957220
>You do realize that the only reason they have a booming solar power industry is due to the fact that everyone and their brother outsources the production of solar panels to China, right?
And this is bad why?

>You do realize that they're carbon output will only increase along with the pollution from creating solar power devices/accessories as world demand for solar products increases due to the Paris Climate Treaty, right?
I realize you are just making shit up. If you actually believed what you were saying you would not need to lie in order to justify your preconceived conclusion.

>>8956869
/v/ after gamergate truly is based. Same with /co/.

>>8957265
I know this board doesn't have many users, hence how little it updates. But, could you at least change it up a bit. I lurk in most green energy and climate change threads to learn from different perspectives. But, there is also this massive faggot of a tool that devolves into calling everyone that doesn't approve of solar/green dogma a "liar".

At least switch it up a bit, you under educated arrogant cunt. Just because someone disagrees with you and challenges your world view by, oh idk, saying solar might do more harm than good for the environment, it doesn't mean you need to throw a shit fit and derail a possible constructive argument with ad hoc attacks.

Grow up.

>>8957301
>saying solar might do more harm than good for the environment
Not him, but the burden of proof is on you to provide us the evidence that solar do more harm than good to the environment. With regards to the negative effects of carbon based energy like fuel powered cars and coal power plants, the effect is obvious, CO2 emission driving global warming at unprecedented rate compared to natural climate change in the last 800 thousand years

>>8957268
This is kind of true. If you compare cripplechan /v/ to /v/ one just shitposts about videogames and have videogames discussion with minimum e-celeb drama while the other is nothing but e-celeb drama. I hope /pol/ocaust 2.0 happened so that /pol/ can also go

>>8957101
Planting trees can mitigate the rise of atmospheric CO2, so it is a mitigation approach but it doesn't make energy, and at some point you'll run of of both the finite greenspace where you can plant trees and also fertilizer (which requires energy and fuel to make) to sustain your CO2 offset.

Personally though you can always donate to CO2 offset charities. So if you feel bad about the planet for being meat eater with higher CO2 footprint than vegetarian/vegan you can donate to CO2 offset charities as an act of ""absolution"" but in this case, unlike the Vatican it is actually based on scientific merit

>>8957339
New anon joining the fray, gotta ask though with regards to planting trees, do you know if they pose a problem down the line with returning carbon to the atmosphere?

I know one of the big issues with spiking oceans with nutrients to encourage algae growth to reduce CO2 is twofold, in that it creates deadzones of oxygen deficiency leading to mass die-offs of a lot of fish, and once the algae dies and decomposes, it releases all the CO2 right back into the atmosphere at an alarming rate.

Trees don't have the same issue, but I know there's a lot of conservation talk about the health of environments as they relate to forest fires and the like, and the increased likelihood of devastating fires as we grow denser forests. Do you know anything 'bout that? Not trying to distract from what you're saying of course, just interested in the topic at large.

>>8957301
>this massive faggot of a tool that devolves into calling everyone that doesn't approve of solar/green dogma a "liar".

You're either a liar or an uneducated faggot slurping up contrarian denier talking points if you think that solar panel production do more harm than good. A simple search on google scholar will yield you the answer
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13728

The study takes into account GHG emission and energy consumption during the whole manufacturing process and lifetime of PV solar panels and conclude

>For every doubling of installed photovoltaic capacity, energy use decreases by 13 and 12% and greenhouse gas footprints by 17 and 24%, for poly- and monocrystalline based photovoltaic systems, respectively. As a result, we show a break-even between the cumulative disadvantages and benefits of photovoltaics, for both energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, occurs between 1997 and 2018, depending on photovoltaic performance and model uncertainties.

And for a layman term, it says that the break even environmental impact already occurred between 1998 which is almost 20 years ago vs. at the maximum 2018 within their uncertainty, which means that beyond 2018 solar panels and their associated semi conductor production would be a net gain for the environment.

File: zeng-woodb.png (27KB, 600x180px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x180px

>>8957367
It depends on the types of trees. At most they live to 100 years or so. Once the trees die if you let it rot on the ground/soil the carbon will be released back to the atmosphere. Therefore to effectively sequester the carbon you need to bury the dead trees or store it somewhere where it doesn't rot away, which is not very practical.

A lot of carbon offset scenarios involves paying indigenous people in the Amazon, Central Africa and Southeast asia a dole so they don't cut off their rainforest that's already there, essentially providing them with better living through charities.
https://www.coolearth.org/

This while it is fairly cost effective if you think about C emission offset simply masswise, it is of course akin to the indigenous people taking the rainforest hostage for us wealthy westerners to provide them with some dole so they don't cut the forest, and while it is a decent mitigation strategy, it is not the most sustainable nor it is the most fair mitigation strategy in the long run.

>>8957382
I guess then one of the things we should be looking at are easily stored "carbon sinks", huh?

I'm a biofag myself, but I'm only at the entrance of the CRISPR meme rabbithole. Have there been any serious talks of engineering carbon-storage organisms or anything like that?

Thanks for the response, it's given me a bit to think about, by the way.

File: geoengineering-srm-and-other-climate-engineering-methods-kiel-earth-institute-20111.png (1MB, 1326x859px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1326x859px

>>8957386
>I guess then one of the things we should be looking at are easily stored "carbon sinks", huh?
Absolutely. The answer is either in the deep ocean or deep rocks.

With deep ocean even if you fertilize the ocean with Iron, very little (less than 10%) amount of that sinking organic matter made it to the deep ocean. A way around it is with the artificial upwelling/downwelling tubes like pic related, or direct injection of pipes into the deep ocean both to avoid the mesopelagic zones where the sinking organic matter (read:fish poop) is consumed by bacteria and recycled back into the upper ocean. The idea with upwelling downwelling tubes is that you upwell nutrient rich water to the surface to spark productivity, and once the growing season ends you artificially downwell them so they don't get released back to the atmosphere


With regards to storage, deep ocean storage is a cheaper option, but ocean overturning is on the order of 1000 years or so, so in 1000 years all those anthropogenic carbon that we sunk into the deep ocean will show up back into the surface ocean and reequilibrate with the atmosphere.

Deep rock injection is of course order of magnitude more expensive, but you don't have to worry about it for millions of years, until the crust is subducted from tectonic plates movement then the carbon will be released back to the atmosphere from volcanoes

Sadly instead of dealing with these kind of interesting solutions and debating the feasibility of each mitigation options, there is a massive opportunity cost in the community because we have to deal with faggots who deny that manmade climate change is happening in the first place

What really gets me about this move by Trump is that he's actively fucking his own global power. It makes him look weak compared to China.

>>8957398
Man, there're a lot of hard decisions that need to be made regarding environmental science. On one hand, storage of the carbon is going to be necessary, because the rate we're going with regards to simple equilibrium of atmospheric, organic, and inorganic carbon is very imbalanced, but permanent carbon sinking is pretty dangerous in and of itself, isn't it?

In an enviro class I took, nutrients coming from the ocean back onto land is a relatively restricted process, with seafood eating predator, and atmospheric gas release being essentially the only non-anthropomorphic ways to remove nutrients from the ocean. Doesn't this pose a long-term problem of land nutrient and hydrocarbon deficiency if we start locking away carbon never to be used again, or is the enormous size of it enough that it would never ever be a concern?

>>8957398
not him
that sounds impossible or very very very hard to achieve

it sounds to me like we need to stir the entire global ocean

>>8957073
>No uncertainty bar
>nonlinear scaling to make previous warming look worse
You're right anon. That's impressive.

>>8957373
Nice try dude. Even they admit that their methodology is iffy at best and hard to reproduce. In addition to that, it doesn't even assume the cost/ environmental impact of storage/transmission/etc. Finally, it doesn't compare energy yield from respective energy outlets to compare energy output via solar pv vs. nuclear/nat gas/etc.

Essentially, at best, it is saying that PV production has become more efficient. I would fucking hope so lol, they've had enough time to figure it out. But, this just doesn't prove that Solar is the best choice when taking into account environmental impact of production/maintenance.

But hey, it was nice to actually have something to read from your perspective. Although, it would probably behoove you to not assume that just because someone questions your world view or opinions that they are somehow lying/uneducated/less than you. It only makes you look like a cunt and make a skeptic even more skeptical.

File: major_C_reservoirs.png (19KB, 394x175px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 394x175px

>>8957408
>Doesn't this pose a long-term problem of land nutrient and hydrocarbon deficiency if we start locking away carbon never to be used again, or is the enormous size of it enough that it would never ever be a concern?

99.5% of carbon on Earth is in the rocks and dirt that is for all intent and purposes inert and not bioavailable (no living beings eat rocks) until the crust got subducted, melted and released back as volcanic ejecta to the atmosphere.

All geoengineering effort would be a conscious effort, so it is very unlikely that we can set something in motion with regards to carbon sequestration that will spin out of control. A simple reason behind this is that all geoengineering effort goes against chemical equilibrium, hence we're gonna be always swimming against entropy. If for some reason the amount of bioavailable carbon become scarce, then we'll just stop the geoengineering sequestration effort, turn off the pumps and the equilibrium will swing the other way again

>>8957427
In that case, that sounds reasonable. Thanks for the information, there.

Sort of unrelated to the issue of carbon sinking, one of my major areas of interest, both in some of the work done in labs I've worked for as an undergrad, and just in my general interest, is ocean acidification. It's an easy model for showing even laymen what exactly the problem with excess CO2 in the atmosphere is causing on an immediate basis.

On that note, a lot of more complicated, or easily perverted is more how it is, models are used to explain climate change. Discussing temperatures may be ultimately important for understanding effects like ocean level rises, or an increase in certain equilibria, but for "global warming" to be the spearhead for any kind of talk on climate change has proven to be labyrinthine and "debatable" rather than a true discussion of macroscale effects.

Do you know on that level why it has such large focus? The current rate of acidification due to CO2/water carboxylic acid equilibrium is very much noticeable through empirical data collected on pH, as well as the very tangible effect on the fishing industry and marine life population. My apologies for rambling, I just think that this kind of thing would make a better public focus.

File: 400px-Ocean_Heat_Content_(2012).png (58KB, 400x269px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 400x269px

>>8957437
Ocean acidification is one of the few isolated case where negative impact of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is unrelated to the greenhouse effect. It certainly merit a seat on the table, say if Arhennius and all infrared spectroscopy research in the last 100 years was wrong and CO2 doesn't have the greenhouse behavior (literally next to impossible that they were wrong), pumping CO2 into the atmosphere still fucks up the pH of the ocean.

However all the other negative impact of climate change, such as exponential increase in extreme weather events due to simple shift in temperature average, sea level rise, droughts, crop failure, shifting hydrological pattern yielding to change in soil moisture, etc pertains to temperature, that's why temperature is such a forefront in the debate.

A severely underrated argument in my opinion is the ocean heat content (pic related). Climate is severely affected by weather, and decadal weather variation such as El Nino and La Nina. Climate activists whose head on fire during 2016 peak El Nino as HOTTEST YEAR EVAR is just as guilty as climate deniers who's arguing for the global warming ((pause)) after 1998 peak El Nino year. Unlike land based surface temperature average, ocean heat content measurement due to high heat capacity of the ocean, and the sheer volume of the ocean dampens this incredibly counterproductive and asinine month to month year to year jousting match between climate alarmist and climate denier. What the ocean heat content shows is that steady rise closely following the radiation imbalance measured by top of atmosphere satellites, there were no "pause" and your judgement is not also cluttered with shortsighted panic like the 2016 El Nino year and the subsequent asinine cheer of the deniers in 2017 when the El Nino subsides.

>>8957463
That is an incredibly good point. Isolated cold and warm patterns themselves won't have easy to explain trends due to the fact that they are, by artifact of how weather works, not actually isolated in how they interact. Heat content, however, is the net change of heat energy throughout what we can consider to be the entire system.

Do you know why we don't focus on stuff like that, but instead we do have the retarded jousting match of anecdotes?

>>8957437
>On that note, a lot of more complicated, or easily perverted is more how it is, models are used to explain climate change. Discussing temperatures may be ultimately important for understanding effects like ocean level rises, or an increase in certain equilibria, but for "global warming" to be the spearhead for any kind of talk on climate change has proven to be labyrinthine and "debatable" rather than a true discussion of macroscale effects.
Hang on.
The warming of the Earth due to the greenhouse effect isn't somehow debatable or corrupted, it's a widely accepted fact among climatologists. It may be highly controversial amongst the general public, but that is in no-way a reflection of it's strength as a scientific fact. Creationism is still popular amongst some groups, but no-one (besides the creationists themselves) thinks that casts doubt on modern biology - why is climatology any different?

There's a reason we keep calling these people "deniers" and not "sceptics", and it's not merely to be insulting.

>>8957474
>Do you know why we don't focus on stuff like that, but instead we do have the retarded jousting match of anecdotes?
Where are you getting this from? Atmospheric heat content is obviously something climatologists talk about.

>>8957463

Is that dataset available back to 1900 or 1800?

>>8957480
>>8957487

No, no, I'm sorry I must not have been clear.

I mean from a sort of political science stance, why the PR approach for politicians and the sort who are in agreement with scientists on issues of global warming don't make light of issues that the public can't much bicker about, but instead there's a huge media focus on the issues like yearly temperature dips and singular patterns that are weird one year but relatively normal the next.

It's not so much curiosity about the science at this point, but just musing and wondering how things have gone so wrong with the PR surrounding climate change.

>>8957474
>Do you know why we don't focus on stuff like that, but instead we do have the retarded jousting match of anecdotes?

Because that's the fault of science journalist, not climate scientist. Ocean heat content is such an obvious thing, that it is just sitting in the back of the mind for everybody. They need human stories to make it relatable, like Bob in Florida loses his yard from erosion and landslide related to sea level rise, or Tch'ala in South Sudan haven't eaten for 3 months because of the drought. Even stories about climate scientist, for example
>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/climate/a-parable-from-down-under-for-us-climate-scientists.html?_r=0

HOBART, TASMANIA — John A. Church, a climate scientist, did not look or sound like a man who had recently been shoved out of a job. Speaking softly and downing coffee at an outdoor cafe in this old port city, he sounded more like a fellow fresh off a jousting match. “I think we had a win — a bigger win than I ever anticipated,” Dr. Church said in an interview last month.

Like who fucking cares about what John Church is doing as a person. He's an IPCC working group chair and one of the foremost lead researcher on sea lever rise, certainly the most knowledgeable person about sea level rise in the Southern Hemisphere in the whole human race, ask him a fucking question about his research and talk about his data.

>>8957498
>but instead there's a huge media focus on the issues like yearly temperature dips and singular patterns that are weird one year but relatively normal the next.
Oh, that's easy.
People are, as a whole, INSANELY short sighted. Efforts to make the general public care about a disaster that's going to happen on a scale of decades to centuries are extremely slow and often completely unfruitful. So politicians and media folks generally focus on the stuff that they CAN get people exited about, and that's events that happen over a year or less.

>It's not so much curiosity about the science at this point, but just musing and wondering how things have gone so wrong with the PR surrounding climate change.
It's a difference in priorities.
Climatologists have been trying to warn people about the hundred-year trends, but people don't really care and scientists have some of the worst PR skills known to man.
Politicians aren't interested in the long term trends, have massively "different" priorities, and are skilled at PR. So the general public gets to hear the day-by-day "hottest year!" "Coldest year" "snow!" "Bushfire", but not about the actually underlying decade-by-decade decline of the Earth's climate.

>>8957494
No, we only have decent means to measure ocean heat content starting with the implementation of NOAA ocean buoys in the 50s and 60s. Going back further we need proxy for ocean heat content rather than direct measurements

One of a very promising proxy is ratio between Krypton to Xenon, or Kr/Xe ratio in ice cores. Krypton and Xenon are both noble gasses with no sink and no source. Therefore the amount of Kr/Xe in the atmosphere is strictly a function of ocean heat content and mean ocean temperature, as these two gasses dissolve slightly differently into the ocean based on their solubility. I have some colleagues that I personally know working on these. We're not quite there yet into publishing the result, but there are some conferences abstracts here and there about Kr/Xe
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016EGUGA..18.6986B

>>8957509
>>8957508
Damn.

Life just kind of sucks, doesn't it?

>>8957525
Yeah well, that's kind of beyond my pay grade. A lot of climate scientists just want to focus on research and don't want to bother with the baggage that comes with being a public intellectual and jump into the shitposting trench against the deniers, which comes at severe opportunity cost of being able to excel at your own research.

Another problem I think personally is that beyond the disconnect between scientists and journalists there's also disconnect between real natural science scientists who study the climate system with the social "scientists" who study public policy and public acceptance of science for a living.
This 2nd group, the metascientists are obviously the one who comes up with "97% scientists agree" meme and recently during the Earth day science march "scientists doesn't lose credibility when involved in advocacy"
>http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/27/scientists-have-long-been-afraid-of-advocacy-a-new-study-says-it-may-not-hurt-them/
>https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/when-scientists-become-advocates-do-they-lose-credibility/518157/

While their hearts are obviously in the right place, often times these meta studies being social science based, rather than strictly based in the physical science of physics chemistry and biology obviously have less academic rigor, less way of accounting for uncertainties, error propagation, confidence interval etc and their studies are easy pickings for the Heritage foundation and even us the physical scientists who are technically on their side. 2 simple meme you can use ad infinitum to discredit these survey based meta studies are:
1. Sample size (usually n<1000) might be biased
2. Causasion =! correlation
(CONTD)

>>8957571
Climate scientists trust these "science communications" people, but I personally think that their whole field is a house of cards. People who study science communications are surprisingly not good at science communications. The result speaks for itself, 50% of american believed that intelligent design guides evolution, and only 48% believe that climate change is manmade.

While I think eventually it is bad for actual climate scientists to abdicate their advocacy effort into these science communications social scientists and science journalist, as these people are a couple of degrees removed from the scientific process, and often don't have up to date scientific knowledge on the subject matter it is incredibly understandable to do so because of the severe opportunity cost involved with jumping into the shitposting media trench and going up against the deniers head to head.

>>8957571
>>8957580
As a molecular/cellular bio bachelor headed into lawschool, I hope I can at least do something going forward to impact, even in whatever degree possible, this kind of trend.

Ultimately, what I've learned over the past few years in studying science and mathematics is that for the most part, for those who are good at it, it's a selfish undertaking. I don't mean this in a bad way, I just mean that the people I know who have been the best at understanding and learning Chemistry, Biology, Physics, and even Math aren't those who want to do anything with it for money, or people who want to help change the world, but the people who find actual pleasure and intrigue in discovery itself. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge, as it were, rather than science as a means to an end.

I agree with it, and the only reason I decided to do STEM for my undergrad was because I found it exhilarating to discover new things about how things worked mechanistically. But it's ultimately worthless on a societal level, unless people who do have PR skills and the ability to sway hearts also have the scientific knowledge required to understand what the best path moving forward is- or at least the capacity to learn.

Do you think there's a solution to the typical disconnect between those who's passion lies purely in the descriptive science and those who wish to impact people's hearts? I'm really just rambling and musing at this point, but the whole conversation here has been very thought-worthy.

climate change is the real deal.
carbon dioxide from humans is good and won't kill us all (most likely).
if this is about Trump pulling out, he made the right decision even though he's (obviously) wrong when he says climate change is China's invention

>>8957591
>Do you think there's a solution to the typical disconnect between those who's passion lies purely in the descriptive science and those who wish to impact people's hearts?

I think there needs to be a trend where senior scientists in a field with high implication to public policy to step back and "semi retire" from primary research, running labs and grant writing just like what Richard Dawkins kind of did for evolutionary biology (before he got sidetracked into being religion bashing fedora atheist overlord) and let younger scientists with more fresh brain and ideas take up the frontline of cutting edge research.

Without these more senior scientists abdicating their primary research into public advocacy position in which it is currently pretty much vacant, or hell even jump straight in becoming a politician running for congress/senate we're stuck with memer "public intellectuals" like Bill Nye and Elon Musk & Sam Harris (neither of them have CS degree, Sam has never written a line of code in his life) on communicating to the public the societal danger manmade climate change and development of AI respectively.

>>8957604
Things'd probably go a bit better if that were how it went.

Thanks for the chat, anon. It was good.

>>8957606
You're welcome!

>>8956579
>file deleted
why?

>>8956596
Strange to see the levels leap upwards ... just as the 1970's oil crisis hit.

>>8956679
The eladers in a country that ordered the massacre on 2 - 3000 own students at Tienanmen Square probably aren't too worried about this either,

>>8956910
You believe you will ever get independently audited figures?

The other big issue here is the focus on CO2 while the elephant in the room is methane, as emitted by rice paddies. That topic cannot be touched with a barge pole.

>>8957979
>levels leap upwards
maybe earth population doubling had something to do with it.

>>8957979
Do you have anything of interest to contribute, or just vague conspiracy theories?

>>8956579
>you folks
gtfo folksy fgt pls

>>8956695
Way to exclude all the data after the industrial revolution you dumbfuck.