/sci/ - Science & Math

We are completely fucked and soon the polar bears will drown because they won't have ice to live on.

>>10085633
Yes. Capitalism is an inherently destructive system.

>>10085633
We have managed to kill ourselves

>>10085633
Remember peak oil?

>>10085633
Hopefully yes.

This will end in war. You wait and see.

Everyone in this thread gas yourselves. This is /sci/ and not buzzfeed.

It's the final call every year since 50 years.

>>10085685
Kek. "OMG guys we are for sure right now running out of oil, in the next 10 years there will be none, THE DATA DOESN'T LIE".
This fear mongering has happened many times before. It may happen that global warming will kills us all, but potentially crippling the economy on some speculation seems dumb to me

>>10085738
what gets me is the fact that the only imaginable solution these eco fuckers can come up with is to implode the economy and shower third worlders with infinite money
it is as if they lack the mental capacity to comprehend that such a solution is not one anybody who has to work for a living wants

>>10085788
>projection
Not feeding the wildlife would help the problem. The more developed and developing countries there are, the higher that emissions will climb. The solution is reducing resource consumption, whether that means "more with less" or "less with less."

The current model of "more with more" just isn't going to work. This fact is inescapable, but hypercapitalists and libertardians will frame it in whatever way makes it seem like we'll start living in mud huts instead of just having less cheap Chinese plastic, fewer Fudd wagons and fewer people on the meat monster diet. And fewer flights. Fuck airplanes.

>all those /pol/tards ITT

another board slowly ruined. Bravo.

>>10085788
This.

I care about preserving nature, but “global warming” became an apparent hoax around the time they started pushing the “carbon footprint” meme. Now (((they))) expect us to believe that Whites are entirely at fault for climate destruction even though Whites are the only race that actually care about the enviornment. Not only that, but we have to allow for the breeding and mass importation of billions of shitskins because apparently that’s better for the enviornment than Whites having one or two children according to the (((Carbon footprint))) meme.

In reality, if we cared about the environment we would be restricting the breeding patterns of niggers and other shitskins and encouraging the reproduction of Whites and Asians, since these two races are actually intelligent enough to be good caretakers of the planet.

>>10085855
You're an idiot. White people and the Chinese are the biggest polluters on the planet. And the Saudis. Per capita emissions are too high, period. "Carbon footprint" simply means individual emissions. You don't get to pretend to care when you deflect all blame away from the culprits (You) so you can keep doing the same dumb shit.

>>10085870
> t. Butthurt nigger or spic

Wrong. As someone who has actually travelled around the country and world, Whites and Asians are OBJECTIVELY the cleanest people and create the cleanest societies. On the other hand, shitskins pollute any space they occupy, and live in complete filth with little regard for their enviornment or others. The very concept of enviornmentalism is a White one.

>>10085818
Ironically /pol/tards make the case for globalism.

>i traveled around the country and the world
>now let me contradict well established facts

>>10085633
lol who fucking cares

>guys we did it, we ruined another thread
>will the master reward us with some more bennies now?
>I want my chicken tendies

>i care about climate change
>it's just these LIBRULS attacking the economy

>>10085890
now imagine being this stupid

>>10085890
The thing you're missing or avoiding is that "pollution" in this context means GHG emissions. And the numbers don't lie, white countries are among the highest per capita polluters. America is #2 in total emissions behind only China. America is #1 in per capita emissions.

Even when it comes to other pollution, we aren't doing very well. We usually keep garbage out of the backyard, but that's about it. Our agricultural practices cause huge soil erosion and eutrophication. Our anaerobic landfills are large sources of methane, along with meat monster diets. Comparing different races doesn't even matter in this context, because the GHG emission numbers are too high for everyone. Blaming others is avoiding confronting the problem.

>>10085912
Actually, after looking at the data again, America is 4th or 5th in per capita emissions. Saudi Arabia and UAE are the highest, and Australia is a little higher than USA.

>>10085917
US should become #1, make America great again!

>>10085683
/thread

>>10085633
Climate change is only a problem for third worlders

>>10085932
Better build some walls

>>10085633
I'm still hoping that we as a species will be able to pull some bullshit to make countries more conservationist or invent some kind of miracle technology to make the problem go away, but failing either of those we're probably fucked.

>>10085633
consumers gonna consume, consume, consume.

It's just so those doomsday clock hacks can advance their clock by 5s again so they keep getting fundings.
It has been talked so much about how the climate change (or I guess it's the climate crisis now) is going to be the end if we don't do anything about it. I don't think they ever get scientists on stage though, it's always Al Gore or the UN. I remember reading an article about the Paris summit and they cited a bunch of people, like someone from some third world tribe that came to the summit, who probably represented less than 100 persons total, but they never cited a scientist. I'm sure they had climatologists, I mean they're the one paying them to do the research. At this point, either they're lying and we're getting scammed on a scale of hundreds of billions of dollars, or we're really all going to die. Either way it's stupid.

https://realclimatescience.com/

>>10086055
Scientists are usually busy doing science, not worming their way into political structures. So the scientists offer their expertise to politicians to help construct evidenced and rational reports on the problems facing humanity, based on the facts. "Hurr durr it's a conspiracy" might play well with the crowd already inclined to swallow that crap, but you really don't have any convincing evidence of this. There is evidence that environmental degradation is proceeding with increasingly damaging effects, that are likely irreversible for many thousands of years.

>>10086092
>Thinks climate "scientists" are actually scientists

>>10086084
>realclimatescience
>full of fake news and intentional distortion of facts to push an unjustified, foregone conclusion

>>10086100
Please provide an example.

>>10086096
Climatologists are scientists, yes. Climatology is a hard science, much to the chagrin of ignoramuses that deny reality because the implications make them uncomfortable.

>>10086108
They're glorified meteorologists who tweak their pathetic computer models and make up the data.

>>10086114
>make up the data
Prove it.

>>10086096
Great argument, upvoted

>>10086105
How about the very first page linked at the top about NOAA data tampering?

https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

This article is full of outright fabricated graphs, which is maybe the most hypocritical thing that has ever been published in all of history considering the claim.

>>10086096
Climatology and meteorology is a specialized graduate level discipline for which most top programs require BSc. in general physics, which is an achievement much greater than anything you could do throughout your life, of that I am sure.

>>10085633
>It's the final call
Oh, another one. This time they're surely right. Why do the retards in pseudosciences have the need for desperation?

>>10086115
They're missing 50% of surface coverage.

>>10086118
>This article is full of outright fabricated graphs
Prove it.

>>10086121
Oh so they are scientists then?

>>10086130
>prove it
Here's your evidence. Proof is for deductive logic, not science. Compare the third graph on:

https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

to pic related. Source (not actually same image but basically identical):

http://berkeleyearth.org/nature-not-noaa-ended-the-slowdown-in-temperatures/

Past highs are exaggerated in the RCS meme graphs, or suppressed in recent data to obtain a flat trend when the trend is actually clearly upward. NOAA adjustments actually reduce the upward slope of the graph, but both data sets clearly show warming.

I have a plan, tranquilliser 500 pairs of polar bears and fly them to Antarctica and distribute them around the coasts of the continent to rescue this lovely species

>>10086146
>Past highs are exaggerated in the RCS meme graphs
Oh really? The only tampering of data has been done by NOAA, and they continue to do it. Explain pic related.

>Berkeley Earth has been supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, of the U.S. Department of Energy. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) has administered the financial support provided by the Department of Energy (Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231), and Berkeley Lab is a participating institution. Many of the participants work for Berkeley Lab.

What a surprise...

>>10086128
This isn't actually a problem though. The average of a diverse enough sample in terms of geographic locations is sufficient to show the warming trend, even with substantially less than global surface coverage of weather stations.

>>10086167
Gotta wonder if the cancer cells tell the regular cells things like 'life is good', 'nothing to worry about', and 'get a job'... Do they ever regret killing the host?

>>10086167
>1989
yeah, there's been a lot of warming since then and now the trend is clear
>DOE funding ooooh spooooooky
DOE is one of the largest funders of scientific research in the US in most hard science disciplines.

>>10086167
Hansen's work in the 80s contradicts this claim as well, so I'm not exactly sure what to think about it without seeing the actual report instead of a NYT article.

>>10086169
A warming trend globally? How much surface coverage = global?

>>10086187
If you go far enough away and the temperature is also warming there, and you can't account for it from local factors in each region, that implies that it is the global system that is changing. And if you're averaging a large amount of data samples together, even if the surface coverage is not 100%, the law of large numbers prevails and a robust warming trend should tell you something.

>>10086172
They certainly lie.

>>10086175
>yeah, there's been a lot of warming since then and now the trend is clear
Who collected the "data"?

>>10086177
So who is lying?

>>10086195
Weather stations and ships?

>>10086192
>local factors
How many local factors?

Greenpeace and anything green this, green that are idiots.

>>10086199
Who funds the "data" collection? Who owns the stations?

>>10086198
That doesn't necessarily imply either report's conclusion is an intentional lie. I don't know which conclusion has better justification without examining them in detail.

>>10086204
There's serious incompetence at the very least, correct?

>tfw carbon tax and dividend is a great economic solution to the problem but it won't happen because people either argue over the fine details or don't understand it at all

>>10086200
all of the relevant ones
>>10086202
Local news stations, universities, or government agencies probably. Not sure about the total amounts.
>>10086209
What? No. Scientists don't always agree and both sides can have solid evidence.

>>10085818
Nice arguments

>>10086218
>all of the relevant ones
Temperature data from the 1900s had all local factors accounted for, correct?
>Local news stations, universities, or government agencies probably. Not sure about the total amounts.
The 4 main datasets, all come from government owned/funded institutions, correct?
>What? No. Scientists don't always agree and both sides can have solid evidence.
Contradicting graphs are solid evidence are they?

>>10086215
>tfw carbon taxes are yearly quotas and companies buy carbon credits from each other creating a giant circlejerk that accomplishes nothing but passes the cost on to consumers while companies pocket the difference.

>b...but muh paris climate agreement

>>10086269
>passes the cost on to consumers
That's the entire fucking point.

>>10086269
This is why a carbon tax won't happen. Most people have no idea what it is. I'm not talking about "cap and trade", it's "fee and dividend".

You know what's sad? These selfish bastards think they are stiffing everyone else by denying facts but when things get worse the government is going to start taxing people directly to fund all the costs of climate change anyway. The only people who will make out like bandits are the super rich, but all the stupid selfish bastards on here are going to get taxed by Uncle Sam whether it is today or in a few more years.

>>10086215
Carbon Tax is an outdated idea, now being pushed by industry precisely because it is ineffective.

The short gist of it, is that not all negative externalities can be best handled with a tax. In some cases it is better to limit/prohibit behaviour outright. Martin Weitzman devised a framework to decide whether to tax or limit/prohit and in case of climate change, the latter is the more appropriate solution.

>Are we fucked?

Nope. But the geopolitical status quo certainly is

Russia and Canada, already two of the most resource rich countries on the planet, will largely benefit from the rising temperatures as far more land will become arable and far more fresh water will be released from melting glaciers. Far more land in general will be comfortable to live in. USA, on the other hand, will slowly become a desert wasteland. As you know, a lot of it already is.

Expect this and other things to be the basis of WW3. Expect to have to make some tough choices about how much your nationality means to you in the future.

>>10086308
A shitty version of fee and dividend seems to have worked decently in British Columbia. There's no way you're going to be able to just ban fossil fuels outright.

>>10086240
You suck at arguing.
>local conditions
The point here is that we now understand quite a lot about the climate, and can rule out both local factors and natural variations in accounting for the mean warming trend, even in spite of less than 100% surface coverage of measurements. Local measurements just have to be done with the best practices of the time to ensure minimization of error.
>The 4 main datasets, all come from government owned/funded institutions, correct?
The four main data sets are aggregated by government institutions. This is not the same thing as what you are disingenuously implying by "comes from."
>contradicting conclusions
Turns out science isn't so simple. There is only one truth of course, but different conclusions may be reached independently from different sources and analyses of evidence. It's amazing how reliably you can seize upon the dumbest misinterpretation of what I'm saying to cast doubt. Evidence and the analyses of experts should be seriously considered if valid, but you turn this reasonableness and subtlety of the expert opinions around into an attack on the one side you don't like.

>>10086324
Most "patriots" really aren't "patriots", if NA became an inhospitable hellhole they would be jumping the fence to Canada.

>>10086336
You really should just avoid the whole argument. Climate change being catastrophic, being man-made, data points, etc., is really irrelevant. The debate is "we should prevent this pollution that's definitely unbalancing things even ignoring climate entirely" vs "pollute all you want, i love big corporate cock".

>>10086347
I agree with that. Something made me want to engage in good faith with discussing the evidence, but then the sophistry pissed me off and made me reply to expose it. AGW denialists don't care. Not about the truth and certainly not about the severity of environmental degradation.

>>10086373
What gets me is that it's not even for their own benefit usually. The people I know who deny it don't own businesses or even stocks, and removing regulations would hurt them more since they're not exactly well off.

>>10085633
Bullshit, I have seen the studies.

>>10086407
Yeah but can you actually interpret the evidence? (no)

>>10085633
We're living during the biggest die-off since the Permian. We're fucked.

>>10085724
> Everyone in this thread gas yourselves.
We are - with carbon dioxide. That's the point of the thread.

Just wait until the entire planet but the north and south poles are too hot and cold to live in. That will be world war 3.

>>10085633
On the bright side, our CO2 emissions have prevented the planet from going into its scheduled ice age, that without global warming, would have likely caused mass famine.

Inb4 on the not so bright side
>ocean acidification bringing another mass extinction

>>10086240
>>10086336
>Contradicting graphs are solid evidence are they?
Yeah, you should look into the simpson's paradox or "p-hacking". It pretty much allows someone well versed in statistics to create a statistic, given accurate data, to suggest, mathematically, whatever you want. The most notorious use of these misleading statistics is with the gender gap, where by intentionally leaving out certain contributing factors, one can get data to strongly suggest that women are being paid significantly less than their male counterparts in all areas, strictly because they are women.

>>10086406
Well yeah. The real fight would be thoroughly debunking supply side economics.

>>10086455
>where by intentionally leaving out certain contributing factors
well there's the problem

Invalid analysis may fool normies and laymen, but it usually won't fool experts, and those experts should expose it where appropriate.

>>10085890
Go back to /pol/ and do it now

>>10085890
>Asians are OBJECTIVELY the cleanest people
It's true, in China they even clean up the grease in their sewers and resell it as food!

>>10085870
>taking ironic meaning this seriously

>>10086654
>i-it was just ironic
doubtful

>>10085633
Yeah. The only way to save the planet is to reduce the amount of people.

>>10085633
It's like Pascal's Wager, except your kids go to hell instead of you. I would rather my kids did not go to hell.

>>10085723
>end

>>10086714
Literally EVERYTHING is pascal's wager.

>people may have poisoned your food
>better not eat it
>stepping on cracks might break your mothers ass
>better safe then sorry
>that next lottery ticket hanging there at the gas station might be a winner
>if you don't buy it, you'll never know
>

>>10086714
That, and it’s not a false dichotomy like Pascal’s wager so it’s at least coherent. There’s no “Maybe earth is actually Blorg/the Greeks were right” option.

>>10086732
Nah, Pascal's Wager considers the case of a decision where the outcomes are both known and of existential importance, but the likelihood of any one outcome occurring is impossible to determine with any certainty. It's straightforward to determine probabilities for the cases you list.

>>10086714
>except your kids go to hell instead of you
We still have things like ocean acidification that are happening with or without catastrophic climate change.

>>10086796
Isn't that still directly caused by atmospheric CO2 levels?

Pascal's wager is about wether or not to believe in god. But if you do not believe, you cannot just decide to. You have to fake it till you make it. Science is the new religion. You have a bunch of idiots running the show and telling you that their opinion if fact. There if enough room on Rhode Island for everyone in the world to breakdance on it. People are animals and are therefore part of nature. Once in a while a comet or volcano will straighten things out. Deere are dinosaur bones in Antarctica the ice has been melting since the Neanderthals. Carbon dioxide helps plants produce oxygen. Everyone is so smart that they are stupid. Take it from this tard and don't worry about it. Still, pick up your trash though.

>>10086801
Yes, but that's something where there's no argument AFAIK, just that only environmentalists give a damn. People are all distracted by arguing about if humans are changing the climate or not or how much or if it's good or bad, that they miss a huge issue that's unambiguously man-made. It'd be Pascal's Wager where you already know you're at least going to Heck.

>>10086807
>Once in a while a comet or volcano will straighten things out.
Good thing the Earth can just change its mass to attract nearby asteroids and fix this.

Nice straw man. You are not a person. You are a pile of microbes and shit. When you eat a sandwich, you think that you want it but you are being controlled by a bunch of stupid animals that taught you how to feed them. You did not make nature it made you. You can like Darwin or Yahweh but whichever you can't know better than nature. Whatever happens makes the way for whatever is next. How about saying something and not putting words into the mouths of others. Insert cock joke here

>>10086824
Who are you talking to?

>>10085648
polar bears to the north of us, muslims and caravans to the south, here i am, drowning in feminism, and that's a good thing.

>>10085932
No, it's a problem for the entire world because of the economical impacts. Also, if you live in the coastal zone, it's going to be a problem no matter where you live in the world.

The collective. But the order is correct. You earth changes mass mother fuckerator

>>10086831
>third worlders
>economy
we got by without orcs before, we can do so again
and rising sea levels can easily be overcome, just ask the Netherlands

Right on. The economy is a construct

>>10086836
The Netherlands vs just something like Japan is a huge difference in scale.

>>10086836
We live in a global economy, so yes, impacts in one part of the world have a butterfly effect on the rest of the world.

One example of this is cocoa beans. The vast majority of them come from western Africa. When there's increased droughts there, the plants don't yield as much, and civil strife leads to a reduction in exports, that means chocolate shortages in the west. Of course, chocolate is a luxury item, but this is just one example I could think of an export good from developing countries that could be impacted by climate change. Then you have raw materials from those countries as well that are shipped around the world, disruption in trade due to conflict and civil strife will definitely have an impact globally in the current economy.

That's my biggest fear about climate change, the impacts and stresses it will bring a civilization that's already at the brink due to over-exploitation of natural resources, a population that is simply unsustainable and over consumption of resources to the point at which there will be nothing left for future generations. Humans are living right now as if resources are endless. We lack the foresight to see 100+ years into the future, we're only thinking about the present and the next few years if that.

I always wonder, with the Neanderthals with bigger brain cases and all, just saw where this shit was going and realized the pointlessness and just checked out.

By that time, we can go into space and fuck that shit up too... if we can make it past our own space-garbage gauntlet

>>10086844
large in scale does not mean impossible, we've been knocking down mountains since we had stone tools
>>10086847
if global warming increases temperatures, that will just move cocoa plantations northward, not magically render the species extinct
the doomsaying that civilization is on the brink of imploding from resource use has been going on for fucking centuries
considering we can make technological solutions for everything nature throws at us, I am not one to cower under my bed about things we can overcome and defeat

Can someone inform me on what is up with volcanism, and how we know that isn't entirely responsible for climate change? No one knows how many active submarine volcanoes there are, so how can we know they don't account for all the excess carbon?

Not a denier, but one made this argument and I didn't know how to respond.

>>10086889
>having to state that you don't defy the cult in order to justify asking a question about it

>>10086888
Its not just the weather that will hurt crops though. Look at whats going on with insect populations. They're down ~60% worldwide. Loss of insect pollinators would cost the US alone $56 billion in crop failures.

>>10086893
Yeah, but fixing that might cut into the pockets of giant agrochem corps, so it's not gonna happen.

>>10086897
NOT fixing it will be even worse. Even GMO crops need to be pollinated.

>>10086898
That's okay, we can sell drones to do it. Nature doing it for free was bad for business.

Robot bees. Mexicans with paint brushes. Out with the old and in with the new.

>>10085633

Yes

>>10086901
>>10086903
This all reminds me of how bizarre it is to see people talk about robot bees as a solution instead of fixing the whole dying bees thing so we have actual fucking bees.

>>10086906
we don't have gene tailoring tech yet so we can't fix the current bees

What is good for business is what is driving all this. Businesses want money. Pay politicians. Politician grants money to scientists. People buy it hook line and sinker. New type of light bulb every six months. Selling cars. And so on.

>>10086888
Increasing global average temperatures is just one aspect of climate change. You have to think about all the other factors that come with that increase in temperature, which is not uniform and is most pronounced in the arctic. Think about the impacts of SLR on various regions of the world, such as the US east coast, Bangladesh, the various Micronesian and Indian ocean states, and other vulnerable coasts such as the US gulf coast and Florida.

Think about the impact that rising temperatures have on precipitation and droughts in already drought prone regions, as well as regions that are depleting the aquifers that have no way to be replenished. Then there's the impacts on fisheries due to ocean acidification and overfishing, combined with the plastic wastes being dumped en mass into our oceans affecting ecosystems globally.

There's also the increased risk of crop failures, especially in developing countries that are drought prone, combined with exploding populations, leading to mass migrations into the developed world, something that is already happening now, but will be on a much larger scale in the coming decades. We will literally see climate migrants within our lifetimes. These are just a few impacts that I can think of off the top of my head.

>>10086906
Bees are a pretty great insects. I have a decent size hive myself. It would be a terrible idea to let them die off. They do way more than people realize.

Maybe it is just time for the bees to bow out. There is a lot of extinct bullshit. That bee shit is chicken or egg stuff. If they need each other who came first. Wasps and humming birds can do that stuff and the japs can make robot bees all day

GUISE FOR REAL THIS TIME. THIS IS THE LAST LAST LAST CALL FOR REAL WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE.

>>10086911
Hopefully the EU ban on neonicotinoids gives us data to know if they're the issue. The way the EPA responded to requests for a ban in the US makes me think something's up.

>>10086913
The increase in temperature also increases the scale of storms. This will eventually lead to storms that will destroy populations on a much larger scale than any hurricane that has existed.

People are always saying they thought of stuff when they are just remembering what they heard from some other bozo.

>>10086929
Just build the sea walls even higher. It works in Cites Skylines, so it'll work here.

>>10086929
We're already seeing that too. Ocean temps are staying warmer for longer, and getting warmer in general, fueling stronger storm systems.
I live in the gulf coast and I want to move the fuck inland to get away from this shit badly.

Yep, like after Katrina, when the tv was saying that there would be even more hurricanes next year are there wasn't jack for like seven years

>>10085633

There are ancient human settlements 300 feet under the ocean but I think the humans had plenty of time to get away. Here we are. Our ancestors have been dealing with this shit for thousands of years.. wonder if they were such bitches about it.

Fuck bees. The wind from the super hurricanes can spread pollen. In fact. The regular ass wind can do it

>>10086952
And the superhurricanes can uproot the plants to deliver the crops right to everyone's front doors!

Yes. Fuck amazon too

>>10085633
bs

>>10085890
You need to stop living in your /pol/echo chamber. Black countries are so backwards they barely leave a carbon footprint. Industrialized nations like the U.S and China are the reason why global temps are accelerating. Sometimes I wonder if the world is worth saving if people like you exist :'(

>>10086940
Give it time and you'll see. We won't see any noticeable effects until it's too late. That'll happen in 30-50 years from now.

>>10086968
>THE END IS NIGH
>it isn't
>O-OK, THE END IS NIGH 10 YEARS FROM NOW
>isn't again
>THE END IS NIGH, THIS TIME WE'RE SURE
>isn't once again
how many rounds have we done so far? this apocalypse shit has been going on since the 70s

Righter than you think you are. Thiis apocalyptic shit has been going on for at Lias as long as the wring Writen record

>>10086981
You're not thinking in terms of timescale.

>>10085633
Projecting this hard.

If anyone cared for anything geological they would run China to the ground. They are the number 1 source of serious pollution. Globally climate change is a natural occurrence. We should welcome our impending doom with open arms.

So, what is the solution for the geo fuctards. Go back to living in caves and such. Genocide. F things up even more with producing electric cars and lightbulb that did not deed to be replaced.

>>10085870
>T Indian

You fucks have your own problems

>>10085724
But that's the same thing, you dingus.

Which fucks? What problems?

This Is science and not buzzfeed. That is why you geonazis should fuck yourselves. It was science when shit was geo centric and Newtonian and now it is science again. There has been plenty of evidence presented here that you guys are halfwits. And a lot of shit in the form of comedy. There are two sides in trenches and nobody's switching. This is all about winning over the stoners. Science your ass of. We can take it. But quoting some credless goons that were payed to think is not science

>>10085932
t. mongol

>>10086915
How are we doing the math on this? Could an increase in bee keeping appear as a decrease in wild bees? Do farmers hire bee dudes to pollinate shit? Are bees maybe just pussies? Didn't we think that 80's alligators were fucked and now people are tripping all over them. Really I'm just saying shit to practice my 4chan. I don't care. I'm trying to make those red numbers appear above what I'm writing.

>>10086163
great job anon, keep up the good work

I blame TRUMP. Am I right ladies!!!?!?!?!

>>10087057
But what of the penguin. The polar bears would eat them. Seem like a cool trade to me but I'm sure someone wouldn't like it... hey that could be a twofer. If the bears kill those stupid penguins, the could not eat all those fish. And people could stop whining about over fishing. There would be plenty of fish for all the fish eating humans and we would not have to kill the humans so that the bees could live.

>>10087058
I detect no sarcasm. If that is sarcastic, it is funny. I don't think we can give Trump credit for this. Al Gore had a lot to do with it.

>>10087058

>>10086981
>My knowledge of climate predictions comes entirely from newpaper headlines.
>Here's why all climatologists are wrong and shouldn't be trusted..

>>10087099
Goddamnit. You are leaving it up to people to think for themselves. I ain't gonna do that shit. Tell me what I am supposed to think motherfucker.

>nationalize the industry and scrap it and then make it illegal to use machines
Explain to me why that won't solve all the climate change and pollution issues.

>>10087122
Darth fucking Vader. I'm sure you could think of all kinds of stupid shit that would happen as a result of that. I would take over my small town with a group of friends and we would rape anyone we wanted to. You want to go back to wiping with a corn cob? You would probably hav to share that corn cob with your whole family

>>10087122
You do realize that Karl Marx already said that. Right?

>>10087132
Whether its controlled so that people can adapt to the new lifestyle, or uncontrolled caused by the global catastrophe, it's coming in either way.
I hope you make the choice most beneficial to you, the rest of humanity, and the Earth itself.

This dude is fucking serious. Good for you bro

>>10085932
Yeah and where are those 3rd worlders gonna go?

>>10087151
Nobody wants them besides the EU so I guess the answer is obvious.

>>10085633

>>10087154
Canada just signed on to the 250 million migrant deal or whatever they just came up with

>>10087161
Plenty of room in Canada. Nice and cool.

>>10085633
We're fucked but news media and publicity relating to it is all bullshit.

>>10087099
100 years is literally nothing. Climate was far warmer in many periods in the past. Teutonic Knights were making wine in northern Poland.

Yes warmer climate will impact the economy and ruin many 3rd world shitholes, but it's not the end of the world.

>>10085662
Oh, I remembered how socialist and communist states do not have any industry at all.

>>10085932
nice battery dickhead haha

>>10085890
Unironically the best comment on this board in ages. Thank you for bringing a little objectivity into this thread.

>>10085633

Want a good indication? Then look at what the smart money does.

At the moment the smart money is buying up land in places like New Zealand.

Still relatively unpopulated. Western infrastructure and culture. English speaking. Most importantly it is a large mountainous island. An island separated from its neighbors by considerable distances.

What does that tell you?

It tells me the rich are buying insurance policies against their homelands becoming untenable. They want somewhere they can flee to when the things become "unpleasant" in their home nations.

Its not so much that climate change will make their homelands inhospitable, but rather the civil disorder, collapse of services and infrastructure, and social unrest which will follow on the heels of climate change.

>>10087222
>100 years is literally nothing.
Not really. From a geological perspective it's nothing, but to a civilisation it matters.

>Climate was far warmer in many periods in the past. Teutonic Knights were making wine in northern Poland.
You're confusing regional climate with global trends. The last time it was this warm globally was about 5000 years ago, and we're rapidly leaving the temperature range seen over the Holocene altogether.
https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf

>Yes warmer climate will impact the economy and ruin many 3rd world shitholes, but it's not the end of the world.
All of the impact studies I've seen paint it as a pretty bad deal for first-world countries too.

>>10085662
With fee and dividend we can at least try to make capitalism work to fix it.

>>10085633
NO PROB. THEY'RE STERILIZING YOU WITH WIRELESS.

LMAO!!!

>>10085723
Based. I cant wait to slaughter and rape by a scale yet to be experienced by man

>>10087151
We will destroy the traitors bringing the filth in

>>10087161
>population of Canada is 35 million
>15 million of those are already non-white
wake me up

>>10087241
>a post is objective if and only if I agree with it

This fucking thread is cancer, thanks /pol/tards.

>>10088448
Trump supporters, like Trump, have a very good instinct for Science. Even China says all the time how they have a very very big ah brain.

>>10088448
>>10088484
RENT
FREE

I think that we have evidence of a temperature rise that should be taken seriously because this sort of thing has fucked untold civilizations before ours, and we have the technology to do something about it.

>>10086981
>implying the most hyperbolic of failed predictions mean the problem never existed at all when it has simply gotten progressively worse by degrees
this is a logical fallacy

Yea the climate is changing but honestly there have been massive shifts and mass extinctions throughout our planets history. While I would like to keep species alive, I don't really care as we are essentially causing a mass extinction event similar to an asteroid or mass eruption. It's just the way she goes. We are overdue for another mass extinction event.

>>10088667
>overdue for another mass extinction event.
yes finally

>>10085633
Probably and the truth of the matter is on a large scale we're never going to get around to fixing it the only viable option is prepare for the eventual shift and endure

>>10085890
cringe

1 minute summary for idiots.

1. The climate is changing. It's a fact. Everyone who is qualified to actually know what they are talking about agrees to that. It's scientific consensus.

2. We are past the point of no return, it can't be stopped, but it could be considerably mitigated with immediate action.

3. Climate change will not wipe out humanity even in the worse case scenario. We're not all going to die. People who say that are scaremongering.

4. No matter what, it is going to suck. There will be serious consequences (worse storms, disease spreading, drought, sea level rise, etc.). It's going to be a big, expensive mess, and it is both easier and cheaper to start working on it now, compared to working on it latter.

5. Anyone who tells you something otherwise is either pushing an agenda or doesn't know what they are talking about.

>>10085633
Let's say we humans 100% stop all our pollution tomorrow.

Now what?
How are you going to stop all the natural methane that comes from the ground every year and the ASS LOAD of C02 and other horrid shit that comes from Volcanoes every year? What about the natural global cooling and warming that's always happened for billions of years on Earth that's 1000% beyond our ability to control?

What we produce as human is insignificant to what the Earth naturally produces and always has for billions of years and is massively arrogant to think man has even the slightest effect on a fucking planets climate. Greenpeace is a bunch of hippy armchair "scientist" that enjoy hearing themselves talk high and mighty like their shit dont stink.

Greenpeace would have everyone move to the Moon or Mars and watch Earth then be like "Well shit its still happening even though we are gone for thousands of years now....sorry guys"

>>10089143
>pushing an agenda
sure does sound like thats what your doing there Greenpeace

>>10089517
>>10089518
>>10089516
Taken together all these seem to indicate that carbon content and temperature are only somewhat correlated and the Earth is a well buffered system with strong negative feedbacks that prevent the temperature from swinging too far in one direction or the other.

>>10085908
Optimized.

>>10086283
Optimized.

>>10089143
>We are past the point of no return
Not technically, but politically yes
We could stop this before 2C/450ppm if we really wanted to.
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

>>10089533
https://www.dailypioneer.com/2018/columnists/our-future-hothouse-earth.html

Another Vostok ice core chart clearly shows that CO2 concentration typically lags temperature in nature, and not the reverse.
If CO2 were as potent a greenhouse gas as the IPCC would have you believe, this in and of itself would have set the Earth on the path to runaway warming long before humanity ever emerged to worry over it - Temperature goes up -> CO2 is released -> Temperature continues to climb -> repeat ad infinitum. Clearly this has not been the case.

>>10089533
>>10089544
>Some journalist's opinion
>>>/pol/

Al Gore is a liar.

>>10089143
>we are not going to die
>but lots of as are going to die

Ok.

>>10089533
>Not technically, but politically yes
Depends heavily on who we get after Trump.

>>10089557
low iq post, how about actually reading the article

>>10089550
Dude have you read your own graph? The raise in co2 PRECEDES the raise in temperature. Therefore high temperature cannot cause rise in co2. What you just wrote makes no sense

>>10089626
Shut the fuck you inbred retard.

>>10089629
>reading comprehension
Look again, the left border is current year, and the X axis is years before present.

>>10088749
Tbf I don't think it's going to be nearly as bad as the other extinction events we had. Still, I expect (most) people to die

>>10085932
Bullshit. It has the potential to destabilise global ecology, therefore it is a problem for everyone

>>10089629
>doesn't read axis label
Your average fearmongering AGW retard.

>>10089550
>Another Vostok ice core chart clearly shows that CO2 concentration typically lags temperature in nature, and not the reverse.
Yes, because on the timescale shown in icecores CO2 is a feedback mechanism, and the forcings are things like changes in the Earth's axis and orbit.
On human civilisations timescales the feedback from CO2 is negligible, and it's human emissions which is the dominant forcing.

>If CO2 were as potent a greenhouse gas as the IPCC would have you believe
We can directly resume the strength of the greenhouse effect, and how much of it is due to CO2.

>this in and of itself would have set the Earth on the path to runaway warming long before humanity ever emerged to worry over it - Temperature goes up -> CO2 is released -> Temperature continues to climb -> repeat ad infinitum.
"Positive feedback" doesn't imply >1 gain. Plenty of feedbacks in nature (including climatology) amplify changes without triggering a "runaway".

>>10089672
I'll say it again:

>Institutions involved in the study of climatology have been shown again and again to use fake and poorly curated, if not outright doctored data.

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/

https://archive.org/details/ClimategateEmails/page/n0

>>10087322
New Zealander here, we have become a huge glaring target because of rich elite hiding here. We will just get annexed by China or some other power if SHTF so it's retarded that we are seen as a safe space.
An actual smart person who wanted to be safe during the future should move to Tierra Del Fuego or somewhere like that.

>>10089638
Only the jews will prevail

>>10085633
utter nonsense like the last 120 doomsday events

it's kinda sad that people fall for this shit over and over again.

>>10089672
I think there are as yet undefined (or at least incompletely understood) negative feed back mechanisms that will come into play when the temperature reaches a certain point, and it's definitely a cyclical thing. Look at >>10089550
- about 320,000 years ago, with no human influence, the CO2 concentration climbed nearly as high as it is today, and the temperature was nearly 2C higher! If the positive feed backs related to CO2 forcing are strong enough to counteract the negative feed backs that have triggered cyclical glaciations for at least the past 500,000 years, why did we not sink into an ice age then? In reality, the opposite happened - in spite of the higher than modern temperatures, no positive feedbacks were triggered; rather, the temperature and CO2 both dropped in that order. This makes sense, chemistry-wise because cold oceans hold more CO2, but it also implies a different and much more powerful mechanism for the cooling that followed.

>>10089785
>why did we not sink into an ice age then?
was supposed to be
>why did Earth not experience increased warming, but instead another glaciation

>>10089762
Nature is incredibly brutal and hostile so if some false alarms trick you into believing there's no genuine threat then you're seriously dumb. There is no magic space wizard protecting you.

>>10085633
no central planned action should be taken

>>10089802
this is true.
if we are to believe climate scientists, then we must also keep into consideration what economics scientists teach us, that is no central planned action is efficient

>>10089677
>I'll say it again:
Don't bother, it's been shot down each time.

>Institutions involved in the study of climatology have been shown again and again to use fake and poorly curated, if not outright doctored data.
>https://archive.org/details/ClimategateEmails/page/n0
No. And debunked conspiracy theories aren't evidence.

>http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/
Oh boy, more brainless blog articles.
Regarding the paper itself: Climate datasets are big, and patched together from vast numbers of small station records with different formatting. Data quality issues are the norm, rather than something exceptional. Unless there's some reason to think these issues introduces a systematic bias, I don't see a reason for anyone (outside of the climatologist who work with the data directly) to give a shit about them.

>>10089762
>utter nonsense like the last 120 doomsday events
Care to name the last 120 doomsday events predicted by scientists?
Or do you think that shouting by nutjobs on street corners undermines the credibility of an entire field of science?

>>10089785
>I think there are as yet undefined (or at least incompletely understood) negative feed back mechanisms that will come into play when the temperature reaches a certain point
That's nice, but there's no evidence for that.

>Look at >>10089550
Those are Milankovitch cycles. Look at the timescale - as far as human civilization cares that graph is flat.

>If the positive feed backs related to CO2 forcing are strong enough to counteract the negative feed backs that have triggered cyclical glaciations for at least the past 500,000 years, why did Earth not experience increased warming, but instead another glaciation?
I don't follow. Positive feedback doesn't make things warmer, it amplifies changes - including cooling.

>>10089802
>no central planned action should be taken
Look up "The Tragedy of the Commons".

>>10089825
The CO2 concentration was nearly as high during the warmest peaks of the Milankovitch cycles as it is today, and yet no further positive feed backs were triggered. CO2 sensitivity is logarithmic, not linear, and its heat trapping power drops off steeply over about 300ppm. I very highly doubt man made CO2 has the heat trapping power to push us over the line for triggering feed back, considering the difference between 400 ppm and 1000 ppm is only 2C according to the MODTRAN graph. There was no water vapor or methane feedback when the Earth was 2C hotter. We are not really far outside the parameters CO2 wise, and certainly within the parameters temperature and timing wise (RE: Milankovitch cycles) to slide into another ice age, however.

Yes
we were given effective warnings back in the late 60s and early 70s about what needed to happen regarding population, resource consumption, and pollution
nothing was done so now we deal with the consequences

nuclear war over resources within our lifetimes is probable, especially as unconventional oil sources dwindle adding even more strain onto already strained agricultural production

>>10086888
>that will just move cocoa plantations northward
>what is land arability

>>10089875
>The CO2 concentration was nearly as high during the warmest peaks of the Milankovitch cycles as it is today, and yet no further positive feed backs were triggered.
I'm pretty sure that's not how feedback works.
Also, your graph shows CO2 levels topping out at about 300ppm. Current levels (410ppm) haven't been seen in 20 million years.

>push us over the line for triggering feed back
What does that even mean? Feedback isn't an event that occurs at some specific point.

>CO2 sensitivity is logarithmic, not linear, and its heat trapping power drops off steeply over about 300ppm
It drops off, but it's still steep enough to cause significant damage.

>There was no water vapor or methane feedback when the Earth was 2C hotter.
That seems strange. Why do you think that?

>We are not really far outside the parameters CO2 wise, and certainly within the parameters temperature and timing wise (RE: Milankovitch cycles) to slide into another ice age, however.
Again, timescales matter. In twenty thousand years we might be dropping into a glaciation, but in the short-term human influence is dominating those cycles.

>>10089630
>i have no argument

>>10085890
Only people denying this are brownoids

>>10085870
>White people and the Chinese are the biggest polluters on the planet.

Because they are responsible for modern civilization.

>>10089894
>>There was no water vapor or methane feedback when the Earth was 2C hotter.
>That seems strange. Why do you think that?
Because when the CO2 and heat reached their maximums in previous interglacial periods, it didn't get hotter still - if 2C more worth of heat were going to create greater feedbacks, it would have happened already. Instead, what happened according to the ice core and sediment observations is temperatures topped out then quickly dropped.

>>10085633
according to most "experts", we have long past the point of no return, its damage control at this point

>>10090043
>Because when the CO2 and heat reached their maximums in previous interglacial periods, it didn't get hotter still
I think you're seriously confused about what feedback is. Positive feedback amplifies changes, negative feedback reduces them. Just because a system is in equilibrium doesn't mean it doesn't contain any feedbacks.

>Instead, what happened according to the ice core and sediment observations is temperatures topped out then quickly dropped.
That's completely consistent with feedback.

>>10090055
Talking about "the point of no return" is meaningless without context. There's no magic point where global warming starts killing everyone "The Day After Tomorrow"-style. Any emissions we produce will eventually have consequences on the global climate. The more we emit, the faster and worse those consequences will be.

>>10089736
Sad but true

>>10085633
any action they want to take is guranteed to fuck things up even more

>>10087161
they are really going to bring in many multiple times their own population in 3rd worlders? what the fuck do they think is going to happen?

>>10090064
>"the point of no return"
it means that sea warming, permafrost melting increases the level of co2 and ch4 in the atmosphere even if the human race would disappear overnight.
positive feedback.
we lose control.
analogous to fire escaping out of the fireplace, it isn't dependent of us adding wood, it has its own fuel now.

>>10085633
should've went for nuclear power,you reap what you sow.

>>10090439
this may or may not be true, all that's certain is there will be cataclysmic changes to global climate and ecosystem destruction, no one actually knows if the runaway effect is really substantiated, and its not necessary for it to exist to be terrified of what's coming.

>>10090463
yeah lets roll the dice, what can you lose
oh right

>>10090469
>do nothing
that's not what I said. Runaway theory alarmism is a waste of time until we know more. Its unnecessary to wager based on incomplete information when a less paranoid wager based on already worrisome information can be placed. I don't agree with the Trump administration throwing up its hands or the idea we can mitigate with technological advancements, we'll have to downsize and suffer immensely.

>>10090473
>we'll have to downsize and suffer immensely
why bother, you just said nothing serious will happen
sounds like just a few 3rd world niggers will die, who cares

>>10085633
It’s greenpeace bullshit. Suzuki was a geneticist before the climate shit. Supposedly he got overly friendly with some of the female students under his watch.

Cyanobacteria have already caused more climate change then humans ever could.

Man I wish I'd gone into climate science, its free funding and metrics.

Nature have disproportionately published more climate science papers over the last 8 years than I have time to wipe my ass with.

>>10089802
>>10089823
Central planning is literally the only way out and today information technology provides us with all the necessary tools for it to not fail like it did in the USSR. Multinationals such as Amazon do central planning all the time, for their own purposes. Why not plan for social demand?

To understand what I mean, read this: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1f22/0b10ad8f0ade08cc88dbea58e71f1ca6fdc4.pdf
Then this critique from the libs: https://mises.org/sites/default/files/qjae7_1_6.pdf
And then the rebuttal: http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/replytobrewster.pdf

>baww I can't read
You're on a board about science and math. Face the facts and know what you're talking about.

>>10086331
whatever you say buddy
https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&ei=fpjPW7bqN9u80PEPtZ2foAE&q=british+columbia+carbon+emissions&oq=british+columbia+carbon+em&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0.191.4640.0.5808.30.18.1.11.12.0.139.1563.15j3.18.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.30.1719...0i131k1j0i3k1j33i22i29i30k1j0i22i30k1.0._-eqGU9E2_4

>>10086331
>seems to have worked decently in British Columbia
Not really. It would have worked if the people pushing carbon taxes weren't simultaneously pushing for population growth.
https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&ei=M6HPW8KaIfW_0PEPkuSP2As&q=carbon+emissions+british+columbia&oq=carbon+emissions+british+columbia&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1.140.4667.0.4790.33.22.0.11.11.0.264.2320.10j7j2.19.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..4.29.2194...0j0i131k1j0i8i13i30k1j33i22i29i30k1.0.V9NtnoXf8tk

>>10085633
not fucked at all

the ice on pic realted isn't melting because of warmer air but because of underwater earth activity

also this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc

>>10086331
>seems to have worked decently in British Columbia.
Not really. It would have worked decently if emissions per capita were the only metric, but the people pushing for carbon taxes are also pushing hard for huge population increase, so the effects of a tax are canceled.
Search 'carbon emissions British columbia' to see graphs which show a emissions mostly increasing since 2010 (despite the great recession).

>>10086331
>There's no way you're going to be able to just ban fossil fuels outright.
well you basically have to in order to get a hold of the problem and simply reduce it to civilization ending rather than species ending

Don't listen to the hippies, we cannot exterminate life on Earth through climate change. All the carbon that's in the ground was in the air at one point, and if we put it all back we'll just create another Carboniferous period. It might cause a mass extinction but there's no way in hell it'll eradicate all life on Earth.

>>10085633
According to these people we were fucked 20 years ago

>>10090064
>negative feedback reduces them.
Exactly, and a strong enough negative feedback would reduce the trend completely to the point of reversing it, and setting in motion positive feedbacks pushing the other direction.

>That's completely consistent with feedback.
The temperature has risen higher in the past, without the CO2 having been nearly as high. The CO2 concentration has also been higher in the past without corresponding temperature increases. If a hotter temperature were going to drive more GHG emissions, it would have happened in the past. Likewise, if higher CO2 concentrations were going to drive temperatures higher, there would be evidence for it in the geological record. CO2 and temperature, as far as the evidence conclusively demonstrates, are only weakly correlated. There is something much more powerful at play driving the climate. CO2 is not a climate "control knob." It's more like a busted gain knob that only goes up to 1. The actual control knob (solar activity and underwater volcanic activity powering ocean currents and evaporating water vapor into the atmosphere) completely overpowers it.

I think you're either trying to strawman me or being deliberately obtuse.

>>10090965
No one has claimed all life on earth will die only that most of it will and that nearly everything from the Quarternary is going away forever

>>10091276
>Exactly, and a strong enough negative feedback would reduce the trend completely to the point of reversing it,
No, that's still not how feedback works.
Positive/negative feedback doesn't increase/decrease a quantity, it amplifies/reduces changes in a quantity. No amount of negative feedback will turn a upward trend into a downward one.

>The temperature has risen higher in the past, without the CO2 having been nearly as high. The CO2 concentration has also been higher in the past without corresponding temperature increases.
There are other factors besides those two. Once you correct for things like changers in solar intensity, CO2 levels and temperature are highly correlated.

>If a hotter temperature were going to drive more GHG emissions, it would have happened in the past. Likewise, if higher CO2 concentrations were going to drive temperatures higher, there would be evidence for it in the geological record.
There IS evidence for that, That feedback is the source of the correlation in the Vostok data you posted.

>There is something much more powerful at play driving the climate.
On long timescales yes. On short timescales no.

>CO2 is not a climate "control knob."
It very much is on human timescales. I don't even need to appeal to theory for that - the increasing greenhouse effect from CO2 is directly measurable in the increase of downward IR.

>The actual control knob (solar activity and underwater volcanic activity powering ocean currents and evaporating water vapor into the atmosphere) completely overpowers it.
Assuming you're talking about the last hundred years: do you have a source for that? Because non of those effects are particularly strong.

>>10091049
>According to these people we were fucked 20 years ago
According to these people bad things would start happening in 20 years unless we did something to prevent it.
We've waited 20 years.
The bad things they warned us about are starting to happen.