/sci/ - Science & Math

>climate change
>>>/x/

Arctic is melting faster than it ever has and we set new temperature records across the globe every year.

It’s too late to stop anon. Just embrace our sweet release (of CO2).

Not science or math

>>10566057
>we set new temperature records each years
>n=200 years at best
>highest temperature out of n =200
Nothing in the grand scheme of things, and certainly not high enough of a sample period to extrapolate "new temperature records" as if they mean anything.

>>10566057
>Arctic is melting faster than it ever has
we don't know that.
n=80 years of observation at best.

There are various geoengineering methods we could try, if whatever warming effect starts actually causing problems. It looks like both sulfur aerosols & marine cloud brightening could block any plausible warming effect for less than $10 billion a year. Of course, that doesn't fix ocean acidification and would cause some minor weather shifts, but overall if global warming is half as bad as the pundits say, we should consider these as options to allow humanity to switch to CO2 neutral energy in a more gradual manner.

That said, I am skeptical that global warming will be anywhere near as bad as the doomsayers say - back when I went to high school in the late 1990s the text books & media were full of predictions on how global warming was going to cause all sorts of disasters by 2015-2020; that whole "boy who called wolf" problem is probably what makes it hard for some people to take seriously.

>>10565962
>>10566307
I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy at the bottom of some of our deeper mineshafts.

>>10566075
This comment is nothing but obfuscation. We know most of the factors effecting climate. We have ruled out natural forces (such as solar irradiance and Milankovitch Cycles). We know the physics of CO2 radiation absorption and that increasing it SHOULD alter the climate at levels we emit it. We know how much we're putting out there and we know it's the main driver of the current warming.

>>10566307
So your highschool level texts and the media gave you inaccurate time frames so the peer reviewed science is wrong?
Or do you actually have scientific papers to point to that made these kinds of false predictions?

>>10566057
>we set new temperature records across the globe every year
Not in my country we don't.

>>10566510
If you are talking about your own comment, indeed. Indeed it is obfuscation.

>>10566346
our deepest mine shafts are very hot tho

>>10565962
Do you want ice age?
Why do you want ice age?
Why? Oh why? OMG why?

>>10565962
global warming is irreversible. Reversing it would be like un-burning a log of wood. That said we could stop making it worse, but I doubt that will happen. Consumers like >>10566307 are going to multiply exponentially and rationalize converting every last microJoule of potential energy (including from sources that can provide a continuous/infinite supply of energy if not exploited) into waste. The Consumers have no plan for what happens afterwards - they actually believe that their activities are sustainable, or worse, literally couldn't give a rats ass about future generations

>>10566057
The VAST majority of sea level rise comes from the antarctic, greenland has been adding mass or remaining stable for the past 3-4 years.

>>10567338
>Do you want ice age?
Humans and the ecosystems we rely on evolved in and have always lived in an ice age.

This is like an obese man asking why you want him to starve to death after telling him he needs to go on a diet.

>>10565962
Why did you use my picture ?

>>10566092
>we don't know that.
>n=80 years of observation at best.
kind of like how when we nuked japan we could not be sure that they got more radiation during that second than any other second in the last million years

maybe that happens all the time

>>10567338
Haha, yes. Scour the countryside clean, glaciers.

>>10565962
It's not too late.
We are gonna make it to Mars before the shit really hits the fan.
If you are poor, then I'm afraid I have some bad news.

>>10565962
First, the methane heatsink will brap us all to an early grave, the few degrees isn’t all that big of a deal. Warming can be slowed but at the rate the ice caps are melting we are literally fucked. Make preparations for Gensokyo while you still can.

>>10566346
We must not allow a mineshaft gap!

>>10565962
Yes, fortunately I have an inter-dimensional portal that I can use to escape this reality and traverse to a different timeline.

We still have the whole of Antarctica to discover that's like the united states + australia put together. If a runaway warming takes place and palm trees really start growing back in the south pole I will be one of the first people making the journey there by boat to be part of a new society and system of living
it's like manifest destiny all over again. it's been a long time. I'm foaming at the mouth.

>>10566041
haha XD based lol epic post good sir have some gold

>>10567815
Can't wait to die fighting china for it!

>>10566075
Global climate events that happen on a 200 year timescale are usually called "cataclysms". There are ice core samples of ancient atmospheres which show the natural climate cycle, which takes tens of thousands of years to shift between cooling and warming.
You can keep saying "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT WAS HUMANS". You are not presenting an alternative explanation that fits the data better. You are not giving any constructive arguments, you're just denying. No better than what flat earther retards do in the fact of contradictory evidence.
But at least flat earthers provide an alternative, TESTABLE model. You climate change deniers can't even do that.

>>10567650
>Go from a collapsing life support system to a vacuum bathed in radiation with low gravity
Yeah those first colonists are gonna have a great time, I'd rather be living underground eating cockroaches on Earth. Not that we shouldnt colonize space of course.

>>10567939
Is there any reason why we can't use reflective aerosols to decrease solar radiation until we figure out a way to sequester carbon? IRR they're already trying something like this in areas of california and those aerosols have a shelf life of 10 years... but they say those aerosols could affect agriculture... well pick your fucking poison

>>10567973
I wouldn't know anything about that, but I really doubt there's anything we can do. Putting aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect energy would almost certainly have unforeseen consequences on the weather.
Not to mention you're trying to reduce the warming by reducing the amount of light that reaches the surface, which means plants get less energy, which could potentially cause mass famines both for many plants and animals, possibly even humans.
But I'm not a climatologist, my opinion doesn't matter here.

>>10566518
>peer review
I automatically know you're not /sci/ because you think peer review means anything in the age of nobody being able to replicate findings in climate papers. Hell, forget climatologist fraud, this kind of fraud is going on everywhere.

It would be simplistic for any climate papers to be released with jupyter notebooks (that data is open, and often accessible via API), so you can repliate the findings yourself but there's a reason they don't do this, and make it unnecessarily overcomplicated to the point of obfuscation.

>>10567991
PICK YOUR POISON. Worldwide ecological collapse and runaway warming possibly causing a mass extinction event or slightly lower yield crops that can be mitigated with GMOs or artificial light????

>>10568000
your idea isn’t feasible

>>10568002
Harvard doesn't think so:
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-geoengineering-atmospheric-spraying-climate-change-global-warming-a8647206.html

>>10568000
Worldwide ecological collapse is already happening. It's called the holocene extinction. Purely caused by human civilization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
Plenty of life will THRIVE thanks to global warming.

>>10568019
>Plenty of life will THRIVE thanks to global warming.
what lifeforms will thrive? The meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs did not release gigatonnes of buried hydrocarbons.

>>10565962
It's never too late to start changing for the better

How about complexes of massive mirrors, in order to artificially increase the albedo of the planet? We could put them in an equatorial orbit, at the L1 point or just build them on the ground. If we built them on the ground, there's a few places we could build them
>Indo-pacific islands
>Middle Africa
>Northern South America
>Pacific, Atlantic or Indian Ocean
Personally, I think northern South America might be the best option, since they would just border the Amazon rainforest, and if we positioned them to produce steam and encourage rainforest growth like in the Sahara Forest Project, they would be a boon to the local ecosystem that's already unstable.

>>10568035
Nah let's just tax everyone

>>10568026
The fossil fuels we use came from near global rainforests and swamps. In a grossly simplified way, a lot of plants (and plankton) died, took the carbon from the atmosphere with them, turned into sediment, and over millions of years turned into oil.
We burn that oil, putting that carbon back into the atmosphere. The carbon we're putting into the atmosphere was in it at some point in the past. Even if climate change sucks for humans, plenty of other life will be around to take our place.

CO2 is now higher than any point in the past 2-10 million years (estimates vary). In just a few more decades, CO2 will be higher than at any point since tens of millions of years ago with great certainty.

We have actually now emitted more CO2 to the atmosphere than was there before the industrial revolution (We've omitted >600 Gt C, and there was original 500-something). As a side note, CO2 has only gone up ~55% (260 to 410 ppm) because half of what we've omitted has been absorbed by the oceans and plants.

Either way, its a whole lot of CO2 that we'd have to draw down.

>>10566041
>>>/pol/

>>10565962
Its not too late to not give a fuck.

>>10567992
>peer review means nothing but the highschool texts I read back in the day and random media pundits do
fuck. ing. kek.

>>10568051
The sun was also significantly dimmer in the past.

>>10568063
>because half of what we've omitted has been absorbed by the oceans and plants.
That co2 could have a significant effect over the long term as well. It's a complex system. We still hardly understand the nitrogen cycle, and how nitrogen fixing bacteria fit into it all, yet that element makes up 78% of our atmosphere, and is absolutely critical for all life. We are literally fucking with Earth's biomechanical heat engine without a care in the world. Like some kid putting nos in his scooter. I don't think we can eliminate the possibility that this little experiment humans are doing could eventually lead to a completely sterile Earth.

>>10568063
Cool
T. Tree

>>10567316
Hence why it's usually referred to a global phenomenon, rather than a local one.

>>10565962
Kind of, yes.
It's impossible to simply put an end to all burning of fossil fuels right now. The best we could do as individuals is to conserve while infrastructure is moved over to alternatives.
But that's probably not happening at a pace sufficient to curb the emissions: we don't know exactly where the tipping point is where we end up with runaway. And there are too many uninformed mouth-breathers who won't accept the science, so they wouldn't change their ways if they could. My brother-in-law is one. He just (proverbially) puts his fingers in his ears and sings when facts and figures are presented.
But in the meantime, we have that idiot in Brazil who's determined to burn the lungs of the Earth to make way for farming, and the money pig in DC who enables others of his ilk to pull ahead in the race for the last money grab before it's too clear to deny.
So yeah, we're fucked.

>>10566041
Oy vey

>>10565962
Yes.

>>10565962
who cares the sooner that humanity ceases to exist the better

Its fucking dead, Jim.

Its not even spring really and my country already has record shattering drought that was expected at 2050 earliest. Crop losses estimated to 50%. Western europe.

Were fucked.

>>10568981
What country?

>>10569294

>>10569299
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aAwmmpdIgk&t=2m50s

I'm sure you and the rest of pop-sci brainlets are smarter than Dyson tho

>>10569308
>hey! HEY! LOOK THIS GUY'S SUPPOSED TO BE REALLY SMART OR SOMETHING AND HE DISAGREES WITH THE SCIENCE SO THE SCIENCE IS BULLSHIT!!!

>>10569339
He's definitely smarter than you

>>10569339
>if people call it science, then it must be
if you dont have controls in your experiments, then its not science
and you cant make a control of the entire fucking biosphere

>>10569354
Literally everyone's smarter than you though
>>10569357

>>10569369
>posts no arguments
>posts rare brainlets instead

>>10566041
Ok everyone go home. Thread over. This 16 year old /pol/ genius just DESTROYED all climate (((((((scientists))))))) with hard cold FACTS and LOGIC. None of your LEFTIST TEARS can ever compete on the ULTIMATE PWNAGE.

Anyway like and subscribe. Also pls buy my ballsac supplements. They are all natural and made from ream ballsac oil so you know it works.

>>10569354
How the fuck does that matter when he does nothing to do with climate science whatsoever? Climate scientists know what they're talking about more than him. We know the science isn't settled, but we also know that climate change is being largely caused by humanity, and will change the climate in catastrophic ways.

>>10569294
Meanwhile people who actually have read the literature agree that climate change is still a thing and the overall effects are more like the results you'd observe from stripping the insulation out of your house and poking holes in the walls. Deniers merely attack and strawman portions of the argument while ignoring the entirety of what's actually being said. With the comparison to ripping insulation out of the house, the analogous argument would be me saying 'Its going to be hot as hell in here tomorrow because you removed the insulation you jackass', to which you respond that 'No you retard, its getting colder right now. In fact it's colder than its ever been in this house in the last month!' Which while technically true, is still a strawman - you're arguing against a point the theory never raised. At best you're winning against crackpots who don't understand the theory and vastly overestimate it's immediate effects.

>>10569422
Why is climate science the only science that can't be questioned?

There's 0 scientific method involved. The climate models are statistical simulations and it's stupid to use statistics as evidence of any sort of correlation. That's philosophy 101.

In every system with positive feedback there has to be a negative feedback to balance it out. Simple thermodynamics. In the case of climate, the negative feedback is most likely in the form of cloud coverage, and conveniently that's missing or severely misrepresented in all climate models, except the most wildly unpredictable ones.

So again, why is climate science the only science I can't question and have rational discussion about? Climate skepticism is seen as some sort of sacrilege behavior, and the whole climate alarmism borders on very cult-like, religious behavior.

>>10569422
I wonder how many more years it will take for you philistines to understand that what people question isn't climate change per se, but the amount of impact man has on it. That's something that still is, and likely always will be, shrouded in darkness because the datasets necessary to draw a conclusion do not exist. Yet doomsayers pretend to know exactly why things are happening, despite having no evidence for it whatsoever. For example: Climate barely changed between 40s-80s, despite most countries undergoing economic wonders and rebuilding after the damages caused by WW2. Why for example were the temperatures static during a time of expansion and the rebuilding of entire industrial branches? It's just gonna be dismissed as an "outlier" because it doesn't fit the narrative. Fact is that climate change is real, but that noone knows jackshit about why it's happening and that the influence of people could be anywhere between 1% and 100%. Nobody fucking knows.

>>10569439
Why is your bloat, and "The Market" the only thing that can't be questioned?

>>10569439
>In every system with positive feedback there has to be a negative feedback to balance it out. Simple thermodynamics.
You don't know the first thing about "simple thermodynamics". And you couldn't care less beyond finding a way to rationalize your disgusting gluttony and make shitty excuses for it to people who call you out.

>>10569439
>why is climate science the only science I can't question and have rational discussion about?
But you don't bother questioning any of the other sciences, amirite? That's because the other sciences don't threaten your little consume-fest.

>>10569439
>The climate models are statistical simulations and it's stupid to use statistics as evidence of any sort of correlation. That's philosophy 101.
Are you serious? Every single word you have written here is absolute bullshit.
>That's philosophy 101
Holy fucking fuck you are so unbelievably retarded.

>>10569439
>In the case of climate, the negative feedback is most likely in the form of cloud coverage
Actually recent studies show that to be a positive feedback. Yes, yet another positive feedback.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2019/02/25/we-could-be-on-the-verge-of-killing-off-clouds-and-returning-to-a-hothouse-earth/#5a1c1d513a51
In fact, the more research is done the more positive feedbacks we find.

But I'm wasting my time here. There is no research in existence that will ever convince a morbidly obese moron who lives to eat that eating less food would be good for him. And that's essentially what I'm dealing with here.

>>10566075
13 of 14 hottest years all occurred after 2000

>>10569683
Wow, 13 of the 14 hottest years of all human history? That's pretty crazy Anon

>>10569683
[citation needed]

>>10569767
13 of the 14 hottest years in the last 2 centuries which were accompanied by widespread ecosystem collapse and loss of permafrost you nigger

>>10569442
>I just ripped a tenth of the insulation out of the house in 5 minutes
>why hasn't the temperature in the house changed drastically and immediately within that 5 minute period?

>>10566307

Geoengineering sounds intriguing.

>>10570029
Temps supposedly went up prior to that period, genius. That's the entire point. Sample is a hundred years and there's a 40 year long outlier. Not very statistically coherent, especially given the rise of private cars in all major industrial nations. Would be great if people could finally admit that they have no fucking clue why global warming is happening and that they are stepping around in the dark. Right now it's being pushed because of pic rel and the interests of economic giants. Still, we don't know shit about climate change and it's fucking offensive to listen to all these pseuds pretending to have an explanation when they really, really don't. They simply created a bloated industry and need to keep up the facade to justify all the positions. In reality our impact on the planets change could be big or non-existent, be don't know.

>>10570062
Again
>I just ripped a tenth of the insulation out of the house in 5 minutes
>why hasn't the temperature in the house changed drastically and immediately within that 5 minute period?

Take ten seconds to think about what climate change theory actually argues and then think about what you just posted. Hint: increased volatility.

>>10570072
>Again
More like
>Look, I am misinterpreting things on purpose "Again"
The temperatures changed drastically during the years leading up to the 40s you fucking retard. Nothing you say even makes any sense. The aftermath of WW1 and the armsrace for WW2 created rising temps, at least according to historic data. There was no delay, mongrel. Yet somehow the aftermath of WW2, industrialization, rebuilding of nations and introduction of the private car from didn't have an immediate effect and instead took until the 90s to show? It's outright laughable, plain and simple.

>>10569772
Eighteen of the 19 warmest years all have occurred since 2001
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

>>10570072
There is only one way to force a devoted drug addict to become sober. They are not rational, or logical. No amount of science or good will is going to convince them to do the right thing. You simply need to lock them away until they sober up. There is no other way.

>>10570093
Here you go. Someone else provided the data >>10570088 for you. Why did "we" have an immediate impact on the climate during the 30s-40s, but during one of the most expansive times in human history we suddenly didn't have one anymore?

Either we have limited impact and the 30s-40s temps rose at random, or we have a big and immediate impact (which the 30s-40s numbers support), but in wish case the development of the graph makes no sense since the 40s-80s are off. Where's the correlation here? The correlation between industrialization, CO2 emision and an effect on the climate? Not even you're own evidence supports that we have an unquestionable direct impact on what is currently happening.

>>10570111
But the problem with this graph is that the trend started in 1900.. Do you really believe that the industrial activity of 1890 UK was responsible for the warming trend? I doubt it.

This is a nigger tier level of comprehension and doesn't support your premise. If anything, the graph will probably top off and reverse its trend. What does the ARIMA say and why is your lowess model using only a couple dozen points?

>>10570111
Check the absolute values of the second derivates with respect to time and then go lick a toilet seat.

>>10570093
So, you're saying that people who disagree with your supposed "science" should be thrown in jail?

You're a fucking leftist monster who should be castrated. First and foremost, your arguing that its the responsibility of US citizens to care and police the issues of China, Indonesia, India, etc. Even if I agreed with your Global Warming theory, which I don't, there is no practical way of implementing your supposed policy without going to war with half the fucking earth you moron. .The result of this war, if you won being the totalitarian and universal monopolization of the earth's energy resources into the hands of politicians that have shown themselves over the past 60 years to do everything in their power to keep Americans poorer and dumber. Are you fucking mad in the head?

God damn leftists like you make me wish for a civil war just so I can put a bullet through your head. Your ideas are so fucking sick and mental that it's disgusting even reading this sick shit.

>>10570124
What's nigger tier comprehension is your pathetic way of trying to undermine the evidence you use in favor of your own argument when it suits you. Why aren't you simply answering the question? You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that climate change is primarily man made, yet pretend for the rise in temps from 1915-1944 to suddenly be an anomally. That's a pretty specific time, one that was extremely eventful for the human race. You might have heard of it.

>>10570111
kek, sure, nothing to see

>>10570156
Not the brightest bulb in the room, aren't we?

>>10570111
riiiiiiiiiight, nothing to see folks

>>10570147
No, I think drug addicts should be allowed to kill themselves and anyone who gets in their way. Just trying to make a point. (And yes, I have no doubt you'd kill all the "little people" you needed to keep on braaaaping.) Just making a point.

All I know is that this man's nigger tier thinking is cracking my dumbass up

>>10570151
I must have struck a nerve with this dumb big black Jamal cock loving nigger. Look faggot, I asked you a legitimate question about the assumpptions underlying your stochastic model and the fact that you're actually fucking ignorant of what a "Lowess" model is just shows that further discussion with you is pointless. You're so fucking retarded that you literally think some picture proves your point.

What are your stochastic assumptions? Can you prove that your model maintains these assumptions? Why did you only choose a handful of datapoints for a lowess model instead of using ARIMA? What was your data-preprocessing if any- if none , then your data is wrong for multiple reasons since your time series violates the assumptions of stationarity and linearity. How do you account for variance in your model due to different sources? /Did you account for variance? - the answer to both of these last questions is fuck no because you have no idea what your fucking retarded models even mean.


You're literally talking to a statistician here who does financial modeling for a living, acting as though you understand wtf you're talking about. My professor studied environmental shit for 30 years and we can say with 100% certainty that climate alarmism is a scam by elites to justify the monopolization of the entire earth's resources into the hands of a few key aristocratic families. You have no idea what the fuck you're doing and even if you were right, you're literally telling me that I must support the monopolization of the earth's resources into the hands of despots. Go read the constitution you dumb nigger and then go drink bleach you massive faggot. You're a waste of space and a waste of my time.

>>10570165
This is what you should have posted

>>10570147
No, I think drug addicts should be allowed to kill themselves and anyone who gets in their way. (And yes, I have no doubt you'd kill all the "commie/leftists" you needed to keep on braaaaping, even if they were just fighting for something to eat.) Oh and by the way, it just might come to that. Starving people have nothing to lose.

>>10570191
that's what idiots do
well done

>>10569294
Darwin didn't mention DNA therefor evolution is wrong

this is you

>>10570235
His image pretty clearly makes fun of the scientist. It doesn't imply for global warming to not be a thing. You need to stop yourself from comparing the two.

>>10567316
All those maximums after 2000 and all those minimums prior to 2000, big think.

>>10570191
Anon, are you aware of what a "line of best fit" is?

>>10566064
Based and redpilled

>>10567346
Look at this failure of a human being

FUCK OFF you pseudo-climate caring cunts! Fuck your pathetic computer model religion.

>Look at this graph, it predicts catastrophe, believe me, I am God. Graphs cannot be made up. Data cannot be made up. I really care about the environment. No, I don't have shares in green energy companies. No, I don't care about money. No, I would never lie, or scam people. You can trust us, we understand the "climate", and we know what's going to happen. WE NEED TO ACT NOW. TRUST US. MONEY HAS NOTHING TO DO IT WITH IT, OKAY?

>Is it too late to do anything against climate change?

The question does not really make sense. Climate change is already happening and will get worse.
It is never too late to slow it down or maybe even try to reverse it.
Of course the longer we wait, the worse it gets, the higher the costs.

>>10570417

>>10570432
BIG OIL AREN'T DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE, THEY'RE IN ON THE SCAM TOO.

>>10570436
sure bud
https://www.wsj.com/articles/city-sues-oil-companies-over-climate-change-1515607107

>>10570432
Now add another column, but this time take the people on the left and simply make them CEO's of car manufacturing companies. Or do you think it's a coincidence that you've been conditioned to accept for climate change to be YOUR fault and that traditionally fuelled cars will be banned globally by 2030? Now you help the car manufacturers pay for the development of their new tech, while buying substandard and underdeveloped products, increase their growth rates in the process and you do all this because you feel guilty. Imagine what your reaction to those bans would have been hadn't you been conditioned to feel responsible?

>>10570448
Nice theater, as if a NY mayor would suddenly fight against huge corporations because they care about the environment when NYC is a fucking tip.

Explain this: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/energy-and-environment/environmental-protection/climate-change

>>10570453
follow the money, retard
>>10570432

>>10570454
words are cheap
no correlation with what they do

Thy Orbulon likes it warm.

>>10570457
Your infographic implies for "90% of the world's scientists" to be climate scientists. If you want people to take you serious, maybe don't come storming out of the gate looking like a liar, building your "case" on half truths.

>>10570461
So ExxonMobil have funded pro climate change research and yet they're actually against it? How does that work?

>>10567316
Global =/= local

>>10570475
They know they have to give up oil some day, so they have a back burner tiny project looking at the alternatives. Mentioning that in a obscure corner of a www page is just PR, nothing else.
99.9999% of the business goes on as usual.

>>10569683
n=200

>>10570521
"Across the globe" is an idiom for "everywhere", so it includes all local regions by proxy. He also specifically claimed "temperature records" which implies record lows and record highs. Not my fault he can't express himself properly, but I guess that's something you doomsayers love to do.

>>10570530
iq=50

>>10570526
>They know they have to give up oil some day
So why wouldn't they be the ones who have invested the most in "green energy" in order to make the most money?

>>10570526
I am sure that oil and car manufacturing conglomerates, who would make top20% of the richest countries on earth if they were countries, lack elaborate plans for 2030 and onwards, which is when traditionally fuelled cars will have gotten banned in most countries of the planet. You people really think execs are fucking retarded or something, don't you?

>>10570532
no it isn't you absolute retard

AGW
wtf do you think the A stands for

>>10570538
99.999999%

>“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“

– Club of Rome,

Premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

>>10570540
execs dgaf, they're retired with a shitload of money by then

>>10570545
>99.999999%
What does that mean?

Is there any money to be made from green energy? And if so, who is making it?

>>10570552
china it seems, u.s. seems to cling to coal

>>10570576
>china
Provide specific examples.

>>10570534
I realize you have such a low IQ.

>>10570591
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601093/china-is-on-an-epic-solar-power-binge/

>>10570631
So it's important for climate change to be a real thing for Chinese solar panel manufacturers to make money, right?

Is it just them making money from climate change?

>>10565962
>imagine being interested in a topic from a young age
>so you study hard and learn everything you can about it
>discover danger and try to warn people
>only to have them generally disregard and insult you for it

>>10570856
they cant change their nature
they are "The Consumers"

>>10567619
no they didn’t most of the current biota in the most productive ecosystems came about after the K-T extinction event or in pockets of tropical climate insulated from glaciation

>>10568981
implying there isn't a record of this before the worst parts of the maunder minimum?

>>10570856
Are you a Jehova's witness?

>>10570875
Very few species are that old. The vast majority evolved within the Quaternary glaciation.

>>10566307
Global Warming is already causing horrible natural disasters, your textbooks were right. The fires in california are year-round now, wildfires in northern Europe, stronger hurricanes (harvey did the most damage of any hurricane in history). You're blind to the truth, just don't try to call your opinion fact.

>>10570856
>>imagine being interested in a topic from a young age
Most people are only interested in gaming the system and out-competing other people using any dirty methods they can think of.
---- and thus we touch on the crux of the problem, "The Consumers" indeed.

>>10570906
Nope

>>10570906
the common ancestors of most mammal species and families originated after the Cretaceous extinction event, the vast majority of insects, angiosperms, amphibians and birds are much older than the Quarternary glaciation. They are not adapted for a rapid warming or cooling event, and most life evolved in tropical climates. Humans are not adapted for cold climates either and nearly went extinct in those conditions multiple times. Its a stupid argument from a stupid foundation.

>>10565962
If we all move to nuclear right now it will take ~25 years minimum to load the majority of energy use onto the electric grid.

>>10570993
obfuscation.

nuclear is based on non-renewable resources with harmful waste products just like fossil fuels.

Obviously the best way to prolong humanity's run for as long as possible is to abandon exponential economic/population growth. Even nuclear fanatics should be keen on doing this as a priority because it would prolong the use of nuclear as an energy source as well.

>>10571004
>Even nuclear fanatics should be keen on doing this as a priority because it would prolong the use of nuclear as an energy source as well.
but you're not because in reality your main goal is in fact to preserve exponential economic/population growth for as long as possible

>>10571004
The amount of nuclear waste that cannot be re-used in gen 4 reactors is minuscule and the supply is in the 100,000s of years. In that time fusion can be developed.

Population & economic growth are what enables us to escape the grinding poverty of nature; anprims should go out into the woods naked for a week and see how they like it.

>>10570973
Yup.

>the common ancestors of most mammal species and families originated after the Cretaceous extinction event
And?

>the vast majority of insects, angiosperms, amphibians and birds are much older than the Quarternary glaciation.
Wrong. The average bird species is less than 2 million years old.

>They are not adapted for a rapid warming or cooling event, and most life evolved in tropical climates.
Utter nonsense. They are adapted for the climate in which they have lived for the last 2.5 million years, a glaciation. Glaciation does not mean a lack of tropical climates, it means tropical climates are colder.

>Humans are not adapted for cold climates either and nearly went extinct in those conditions multiple times.
You seem to be confusing a glaciation with a glacial period, not surprising considering you have no idea what you're talking about. Humans are definitely adapted for the cold climate of the last 2.5 million years.

>>10571052
Replying to >>10570981

>>10565962
Niggers are a much more pressing issue than global warming

>>10571061

>>10571052
You are going to have to cite a study showing that most mammals evolved in cold climates with 2.5 mya. Modern bird families appeared tens of millions of years ago, most holometabolic insects are much older than that as are most reptilia and amphibia, flowering plants and microbes. Humans evolved in east africa and spread out to eurasia only in the last 300,000 years before that they were living tropical and temperate climates and their primate ancestors were almost exclusively found in the tropics.

Temperature variations in tropical climates doesn’t then lend support to the idea that most live is adapted to the colder periods by virtue of the appearance of specific species appearing during that same time frame. The ancestors or many megafauna aren’t don’t even originate in arctic climates either.

If you have evidence that this is the case im more than happy to read the papers otherwise its just a form of incoherent argument and the point is lost when you change what you’re saying.

>>10570666
yeah cops get a salary too, guess crime doesn't exist then huh

dumb reasoning even in general, and especially dumb when Big Oil moves more money than anyone

>>10571063
really makes me think big

>>10570403
Look at this lame shitposter, and pity him.

>>10565962
Of course not! Scientists say we have 12 years left for bold, transformative change. We need something like the Green New Deal

>>10566064
t. Community college dropout

>>10565962
I'm pretty depressed about.

Even among people who believe in climate change big time, I see very very few who are genuinely willing to fight for the changes that are required.

No one wants to do work to prevent climate change that will result in a substantial lowering of their living standards.

>>10568035
>try this
>South Americans either break the mirrors, steal them, or hold them ransom

>>10571011
t. malignant cancer, happily gorging itself

>>10571087
>You are going to have to cite a study showing that most mammals evolved in cold climates with 2.5 mya.
Not him, but hjsus fuck.... You literally do not even understand natural selection. Now just FUck off.

>>10572467
Climate change has a good side, equatorial regions will be hit the hardest and there are only savages there. The world will be better off if the Africans and Middle-Spics were to die out. If you think climate change will affect your life in a 1st world country in your lifetime, you're a fucktard.

>>10568019
Yeah, but it's massively overblown. Pic related is a thing that went extinct in 2016. Practicallity/functionality wise it's no different from a house mouse. Stop caring if 1 eetsie beestie different thing goes extinct that needs Microscopic research to indentify in the first place. If someone introduced house mice there, nobody would be able to tell the difference. Not even the ecosystem.

>>10572605
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_York_melomys

would be a better fit than the house-mouse, but I'm just saying that to strengthen your case.

>>10572605
>t. another person who fails at understanding the exponential function

>>10572548
evolvability is determined by genomic and environmental factors, the tropics and their evolutionary dynamics are largely isolated during glacial periods, the temperature difference is negligible, additionally if a glacial period, one only a few million years in length (<2mya) is enough time to cause most mammal species to be “cold adapted”, which it isn’t, then the warmer interglacial periods should also have marked effects on the evolution of these organisms. Every part of the argument is incoherent, and they’re also wrong, biodiversity is negatively correlated with cold temperatures, so most species evolve in temperate or warm climates, they are adapted to mild or higher temperatures, not to cold climates. The thread that has been lost is in the very notion that if one were to significantly accelerate a cooling period that is supposed to take 20-50k years to occur most life would just adapt. Strong changes in temp have serious disruptive effects on ecosystems and tend to coincide with mass die-offs as selection pressures change. I think he was referring to megafauna when he said this which is somewhat valid as they were the primary source of protein and fat in the diets of eurasian hunter gatherers but a large number of megafauna subsisted in temperate or even in some cases tropical climates, they were not all cold adapted and there is no telling how modern megafauna, most of which is found in the tropical, subtropical and temperate climates of the earth, would respond to rapid glaciation and temp drops. They are also just wrong about birds, insects, amphibians and reptiles, almost none of which are found at high densities north of the tropics. Europe has some of the lowest biodiversity on Earth besides the polar regions for instance.

>>10572630

Y=n^x

get fucked.

>>10572598
What about after my lifetime though? We're do you think those Africans and Middle-Spics are going to move to?

>>10572638
whoooshhhhhh
thats the sound of something going way, WAY over your retarded little head

>>10572649
I accept your concession, thanks for another win.

>>10572647
owh…. well, let's hope the Singularity rises and atomizes every single shitskinned ape?

>>10572636
>few million years in length (<2mya) is enough time to cause most mammal species to be “cold adapted”

i believe it actually is. all they'd have to do is essentially evolve thicker fur, along with a few other minor alterations.

are you stupid?

>>10572657
How about behavioral changes? won't these come way sooner? Or aren't these ''evolution''?

>>10572636
so what you're trying to say is that global warming is good, and will lead to increased biodiversity.

I'm not buying it. I think you're just another bloated consumer, desperately trying to rationalize your destructive behavior.

>>10572664
>behavioral changes
those are not evolution.

>>10572677
I'm not going to give up quality of life for something that will only affect untermenschen.

>>10572679
how about innate nehavior? you know, raising an earthworm-eating bird in solidarity and placing it on wet ground, it will still trample to get worms out the ground.

>>10572683
>I'm not going to give up quality of life
the cost of this way of thinking is that your descendants will have lower quality of life

>>10572693
This

>>10572693
>Descendants

Humanity is a failure that still makes the same mistakes as we did in Mesopotamia. i'm not going to curse anyone with life. That's cruel.

>>10572746
Your parents will hate you for not giving them grandchildren.

>>10572750
>Implying i got no extended family

also, inflicting life is the worst thing you can do. Humanity should end and singularity should rise.

>>10571087
>You are going to have to cite a study showing that most mammals evolved in cold climates with 2.5 mya.
It's well known that the average species lifespan for mammals is only about 1 million years. I don't feel like looking through a textbook for you. And you still don't seem to understand that I'm not saying they evolved in "cold climates." I'm saying they evolved in a glaciation, a colder global climate. Global warming is pushing us outside of that range, higher than an interglacial. Normally this would simply mean that species have to migrate or adapt to the new environment created by this change, but the change is too rapid for this to occur without causing major harm and extinction.

>Temperature variations in tropical climates doesn’t then lend support to the idea that most live is adapted to the colder periods by virtue of the appearance of specific species appearing during that same time frame. The ancestors or many megafauna aren’t don’t even originate in arctic climates either.
None of this has anything to do with what I said. Where did I say anything about "colder periods" or "arctic climates?" Species are adapted to the environment they evolve in. That environment has been in an ice age for the last 2.5 million years, cycling in a particular range of temperatures. Global warming is rapidly pushing the environment outside that range. It's really that simple.

no, it will increase regardless of human intervention (milankovitch cycles), the best we can do is throttle the rate of increase to allow a larger length of time to deal with its effects

the only legitimate solution would be the implementation of a planetary sun shade. a mass of object(s) that can orbit the earth and periodically block the sun's radiation.

makes you wonder why the moon perfectly blocks the sun during eclipses...

>>10573085
Or you could just pump sulphur or whatever in the air. A little simpler.

>>10573085
… not that climate change will affect us first wordlers in our life, but i'll bite. How about poisoning the sun bly flinging iron in it? the kuiper belt would have that covered.

>>10573110
Where is the energy for this flinging going to come from?

>>10573108
no one in their right mind would do that

>>10573112
Nuclear engines? ion engines are toys for children.

>>10573116
Why?

>>10573117
That's a LOT of deltav to burn for many trillions of kg of iron.

How bad is global warming going to get?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GjrS8QbHmY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xplesDv5hl0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqgbR3UK0es
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWoiBpfvdx0

>>10573123
heck, desu I just shot a ridiculous idea at another ridiclous idea. I'm not saying we kill the sun, that could, uh, be bad. Even though frost is comfy. How much do e need to weaken the sun by even, say, 10%?

>>10573131
we're all dead or mehcanical when the heavier threats hit anon, if they do at all, which I doubt.

>>10569405
this but unironically

>>10573138
seriously?

>>10573085
Please read the wikipedia page on Milankovitch cycles again you're really fucking embarrassing.

>>10570111
>https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-intermediate.htm
Warming from increased CO2 in the atmosphere was offset by Aerosols from unregulated industrial activity and volcanoes.

>>10573379
Glad to see that this was actually addressed by someone. Don't have the time to read it right now but will over the course of the weekend.

What exactly is questionable about climate science?
>Humans emit lots of CO2
>CO2 traps heat from being radiated back into space
>Trapping heat causes climate temperatures to rise
>Rising temperatures can lead to ecological collapse
Like, which of these is flawed according to deniers?

>>10573420
BUT BUT BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE A CONTROL EARTH SO YOU CAN'T PROOOOVEEEEEE IIIIITTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>10573049
Do you understand that many biological systems like temperature regulation, adiposity, behavior, immunity are preserved for far longer than a single speciation event and that many species have not diverged significantly from their earliest ancestors in these respects? You also understand that meaningless temperature change in tropical climates where most mammal species adapted and temperate climates where the rest evolved are not grounds for suggesting most mammals are adapted to cold climates like those during the glacial periods not the interglacial and that if you literally mean adapted to a slight temp drop you’re a pedantic autistic faggot and not making a point at all? the anon asked why you’d want a much colder climate like that during the glaciation of eurasia which is far different than what you are now claiming. Produce a single study suggesting most mammal families appeared during a cold period in Earth’s geologic history, i guarantee this is impossible because warm periods are associated with species radiation and increase in biodiversity, weakening of latitudinal stratification of biodiversity

>>10573138
this but ironically

>>10570185
holy fucking shit btfo
>>10570151

>>10565962
Yes.

>>10566057
I'm interseted to see how the decrease in mass at the poles contributes to earthquake/volcano activity going forward. The crust at the poles is going to be wanting to "rebound" as mass moves away into the oceans. I suppose the Earths tilt and rotational velocity could also be affected from this. With sea level rise there will be more surface area for water evaporation, increasing the amount of water vapor that wants to enter our atmosphere and land systems. Add that to an adjusted tilt, and maybe we are creating all the recipes for another glaciation period (colder norther temps + more water being dumped on the land -> a run away system that keeps adding more and more ice/snow to northern areas every year).

>>10573420
>>Rising temperatures can lead to ecological collapse
Temperatures aren't rising that high. There will be adjustments, but nothing "huge". People think life should be static with no change or something, but that has never been the case. Ya, it might be changing faster than it would have if we didn't burn up so much Carbon fueling our growth, but we did and now we have to deal with the changes that are coming.

>>10571063
pirates prevent global warming!

>>10573563
temperatures are rising more rapidly than at any time in the last hundred thousand years and every time any change like this has occurred a major extinction event has coincided with it.

>>10573577
That isn't telling the entire truth. A change like this has never occurred due to an intelligent species burning up the fossils of old species. Previous changes like this were all connected to other major events that contributed to the major extinction event, and not just a bit of rising temps/sea level. Will systems need re-adjustment? Yes. I'll concede though that if it goes to fast, then many organisms might not be able to keep up, but many will. Are we, as predators that have already decimated many species, going to start caring now that our actions have consequences?

>>10565962
The warming is logarithmic not exponential, no reason to worry. We went from about 260 ppm CO2 to 400 ppm CO2 and that only saw about a .8 degree increease in temp. To get another degree increase we will need to go to 800 ppm CO2. And to get another degree after that we will need to get to 1600 ppm, we will have exhausted all fossil fuels by then.

>>10573679
@450 ppm CO2 the sea warming forces co2 out of the water and the permafrost melting releases ch4, which is a tipping point.
The warming goes on even if human emissions dropped to zero.

>>10573694
Oh there is definitely some more warming to come, that is 'locked in' already. It just isn't going to be exponential. Positive feedback loops with exponential increases are incredibly rare in nature, for the simple fact that they tend to go off on their own rather quickly. If earth was going to experience run away global warming from all these feedback loops it would have done so long ago, as we have had numerous times in the relative recent global history, (past million years) where there has been much higher temps, and much higher CO2 concentrations.

>>10573679
It's a nice feel good story but unfortunately it's an overly simple model of climate that ignores every factor but atmospheric CO2.

>>10573708
Very few people think runaway warming equivalent to Venus will occur, but 4 degrees of warming is all that's needed to cause catastrophic economic and ecological damage, and 4 degrees is a very conservative prediction based on our current path.

The only way to stop this is to force developing nations around the World to stop or slow down their growth. Good luck finding a peaceful way to pull that off.

>>10573131
Earth will turn in to a Venus. Even if stop emission of the greenhouse gasses (which we aren't doing) the effects of current gasses will keep warming climate for hundreds of years to come.

Which is fine. Fuck future generations, I will enjoy some more sun while the mega-zoomers will slowly burn to death.

>>10573860
>Growth requires emissions
But that's wrong retard.

>>10573869
>But that's wrong retard.
Actually that's correct. With current technology steady state requires steady state emissions. Growth requires growing emissions.

There is a not a single product on the market today (with the exception of some neolithic barter society isolate tribes) that doesn't require fossil fuels at some stage in the logistics required to manufacture it.

I honestly don't know how one can be so completely brainwashed as you are.

>>10573878
Current technology allows us to replace most sources of emissions and offset the rest. Failing to mitigate emissions decreases economic growth.

>B-b-but muh status quo
Oh well I guess nothing can ever be changed then. Since cars run on fossil fuels they must forever run on fossil fuels.

>>10573861
>Earth will turn in to a Venus
no it won't, it will go to +6C and then the heat will go into space no matter what.
BUT, that is enough to kill 95% of us.
Not from heat per se, but from starving and the political unrest that comes with it - food production falls by 10% for every 1C rise of average global warming. Failing rain being the main reason.

>>10573963
This once the Americans face burger shortages the world will burn with nuclear fire.

>>10566041
liberal retarded sheep btfo

>>10570185
Agree with your attack.. but you sound like an immature college student... maybe high school...

Do you think a professor would waste his or her time arguing with someone who it is obvious has no idea what he talks about?

>>10565962
Use more nuclear to cut emissions, invest in carbon capture technology (or even just plant some more trees - that helps with falling oxygen levels, too), and set up a geo engineering project like a sun shade. The earlier we start, the less severe the attempt has to be.

>>10570185
lol, whole lot of retard shit here.
>muh professor
Go suck him off while he sings to you about THE ELITES, and then parrot more conspiracy rhetoric (which happens to come from fossil fuel elites, hmmm..).
>go read the constitution
lol, deranged and pathetic

>>10567316
Knowing the exact circumstances of your future death seems scary at first, but eventually you get used to it, and it actually becomes kind of soothing.

Eliminate capitalism

>>10565962
They claim their labors are to build a heaven, yet their heaven is populated with horrors. Perhaps the world is not made. Perhaps nothing is made. A clock without a craftsman. It's too late. Always has been, always will be...too late.

>>10572525
You are subject to more radiation from bananas than from nuclear reactors even if you live next to one

>>10572657
You don’t know what you’re talking about and neither does he.
>>10572677
No my issue is with the claim mammals are cold adapted in the sense that the ideal conditions for them are much colder than now when the opposite is the case. All warm periods in evolutionary history are associated with radiation events and much lower metabolic stress on animals. This warming period is artificial, has a higher rate of change than is typical and happens to be accompanied by massive habitat destruction by humans which makes it closer to a natural disaster than most other cooling or warming periods.

I doubt that mammals adapted to specifically colder climates in the sense that it makes a huge difference for their fitness to inhabit colder climates, I think the opposite is the case, and that body size is not a good proxy for fitness nor is a statement that mostly applies to polar and boreal climates and not the tropics or temperate climates useful.

>>10572679
yes it is evolution, its the evolution of complex behavioral traits and in humans is one of the distinctions between anatomically and non-anatomically modern humans. Behavioral changes lead to pre-zygotic segregation and allopatric speciation, they drive changes in energy acquisition and can in aggregate change the fitness of a population relative to competitor species. Its very significant, and behavior changes are usually found with small changes in physiology and morphology which typically also confer some advantage, speciation is often very subtle and difficult to spot visually.

>muh first world countries won't be affected anyways
Are you all retarded? The migration waves alone will collapse Europe. The US is better off, but not by much. You wanna know why? Because the moment a heatwave or famine kills off x% of the population in a given developing country for the first time they will start building nukes (if they don't have them already, hello India and Pakistan) and fucking point them at us and force us into refugee agreements and sending humanitarian aid.

Also, the US will probably annex Canada when their own fertile bread-baskets become unusable. Get ready to say your last "on guard for thee", canucks.

>>10574121
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/heat-wipes-out-one-third-of-flying-fox-species/10632940

This was one event. One third of a species gone, in an instant. Now imagine something like this happening to a million strong city in the southern hemisphere or near the equator where people don't have air conditioning or easy access to water.

>>10565962
Nope. The US will ignore every effort to fix the problem until it hits them personally. Then it willl be too late to do shit.

Unless somewhow someone managed to locally magnify the consequences of GW in conservative states without fucking up the rest of the planet, we're pretty much bent.

>>10574126
>migration waves
that's political ain't it? Not your area of work if you are in science. It's a fault blamed on weak leaderships that the EU and UN keep in place. destroy them and you'll see hope there.

>>10574143
What if we get fusion down? we got more energy than we could realisticly spent. couldn't we use the most inefficient brute force to DESTROY CO2? Electrolysis! not only is it badass, but O2 can be sold for a nice fee too. The high-purity Carbon is not worth it's weight to be sold and thus transported. Throw it in the river, at worst it becomes a graphite grain.

>>10565962
If we kill off right wingers and China we might be able to do something.
Well, Boomers are dying off and white people are becoming a minority so with the corporate bootlickers dwindling hopefully that'll have some effect. As for China, hopefully Japan will go back to their imperialistic ways and do us a favor.

>>10574143
>What if we get fusion down?
Yeah this is practically how it will happen. We'll just throw ultra-clean free electricity at the problem until it isn't a problem anymore.

>>10565962
Exterminate east asia. Sorry for pol-tier reply but that would actually wok.

The amount of seething faggots in this thread is making my eyes bleed.

>>10574434
Ebolarate.

>>10574355
We need to delete the EU and UN. then it won't affect the first world. If someone gets any ideas we'll unshelf Project pluto - a Doomsday device that can destroy a third of the world in one go.

Good idea? It sure is the Chad idea.

>>10574126
>The migration waves alone will collapse Europe.

Migration is trivial to stop if you are willing to built up an actual border barrier backed by military might. It will be unarmed tired migrants vs. modern first world military on their home soil.

Lack of political will is the only issue here, and that may change when migration waves become large.

>>10574399
Um sweaty the point of environmentalism is to keep places nice for me to hike in and punish poor people in the USA, not protect the environment.
We need to ideologically justify moving manufacturing to the third world

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb_8DJF6Hp0
We litterly have the solution to the carbon dioxide problem rigth here right now.
We have plants that take the Co2 out of the air and make fuel out of it that can be used in everyday cars that run on fuel.

>capture excess Co2 from air
>no need to do the costly switch to electric cars that will create a massive impact on everything from econemy to heavy metal mining
>get to keep superior combustion cars, something humanity has perfected.

with 100000 of these plants spread world wide could litterly bring down the Co2 levels down to pre industrial revolution levels in a few years and completly take away the need for fosil fuel.
This is scfi levels of GEO ingeneering.
We should be building these right now but because of politcal&greenfag lobbying bullshit humanity will take the electric switch instead.

Force all companies with high CO2 emission operations to move their shit to the Moon. They can come back here if they switch to nuclear.

https://youtu.be/bMr-5HHnAmU
WE ARE ALL DEAD BY 2046 CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING IS TO SLEEP AND PROFIT FROM THE MASSES. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

>>10565962
You can't do anything with it because we have just small impact on it. It's based on cycles not on polution.

Why the fuck is /sci/ riddled with climate change deniers?
Sad and pathetic place.

>>10574143
Pretty much every nations is doing that. In general, they're failing miserable to meet even the Paris Agreement targets, which are already too little too late.

>>10574609
Because it doesn't matter either way? It's like arguing wether Oxygen or Nitrogen makes the sky blue - it's irrelevant to your life and doesn't change a thing.

If you're one of those people that think first worlders will get flooded by immigration, well, that IS relevant. all we can do is hope for the EU and UN to be dissolved and for us to uphold enough bombs for Mutual Assured Destruction. Then we are safe.

>>10565962
kill 90% of niggers

>>10574640
It's a matter of trillions of dollars in damages to our countries.

>>10574496
Where does the power to run these plants come from?

>MUH NUCLEAR THIS
>MUH NUCLEAR THAT
>I PARROT WHAT I READ ON LE REDDIT

Ptotip: there are no scientific consensus actually pushing for mass nuclear energy adoption, because it would be economically, financially, politically and technologically unfeasible.

>>10574645
First world though, we won't be affected if we keep our fusion weaponry on hot. GMO's and fusion reactors could resist or reverse the effects. I suggest a purge of enviromentalists. I'd say penal labour.

>>10574654
>Nuclear
>Financially unfeasable
>Technologically unfeasable

Plutonium is the brainlet's fuel, it's easy and cheap (relative) but it makes the most waste (which we can drop over Africa, who cares) but there's also Thorium Mox and a handful of other long time options. MOX and Plutonium totally eclipses anything else cost wise, plus you can mine Pitchblende everywhere on Earth. Solar panels are the TRUE reddit energy source: Highly Toxic, expensive and fickle as the weather is fickle. whomever thinks arsenic is ''green'' (well, technically it is... olive green.) should be shot on sight.

As for political? yeah, you're correct there. That's the weakness of Democuckry rearing it's head once again. That idiots and smarters have an equal amount of voting power is terrifying. We should round up all the anti-nuclear hippies (as I never found a physisist against it, and I met a dozen) and shoot them to death.

>>10574661
The fuck do you think I'm talking about? Fucking Zambia?
Every study has predicted trillions of dollars in damages IN THE US.
Stop being a brainlet.

>>10574670
>who cares
Is not a solution. Stop being a brainlet.

>>10567650
>We are gonna make it to Mars before the shit really hits the fan.
>We
you keep using that word. i dont think it means what you think it means
breakaway civilization of the elites does not include most of the rest of humanity

>>10574674
>>10574677
I accept your concession.

Go farm rice if it floods, or GMO corn. purple with turquase dotted corn!

>>10573574

>>10574654
>there are no scientific consensus actually pushing for mass nuclear energy adoption
The IPCC compiles the consensus of climate research and has found that nuclear energy is a viable and important part of mitigating global warming.

>it would be economically, financially, politically and technologically unfeasible.
Then how has France done it?

>>10573574
well, they don't buy physical copies of software so?

>>10574708
The IPCC says that it might be a viable solution in some locations, which if correct and I'm not disputing that.
But some people are pretending that it can be THE solution everywhere, which is ridiculous.

>>10574726
Where does the IPCC say nuclear is not viable? It is not only viable, it is necessary if you want to significantly reduce emissions while not having people periodically live in the dark.

>>10574653
Nuclear energy.
In a perfect world.

>>10574738
Why not cutout the middle man and just electricity directly then? It's not absorbing and re-releasing carbon that's reducing emissions in your scenario, it's replacing fossil fuels with nuclear.

>>10574737
Your questions shows a lack of understanding. Do you realize that the energy options are location dependent?
Imagine a nuclear plant in conflict torn Libya. Would that make sense to you? You know the same place where sunlight is abundant?

>>10574746
The purpose of these plants would be to take the Co2 out of the air, the fuel is just a bonus.

>>10574753
The fuel releases CO2 back into the air, so how is it a bonus?

>>10574748
>Imagine a nuclear plant in conflict torn Libya.
Oh I can't possibly imagine that.

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

Time to stop posting.

>>10574779
>>10574753
How efficient are biofuel or bio-plastic farms anyway? AFAIK sugarcane got chosen as crop for this. how far could GMO elevate this? Hydroponics could help too but I think that costs more CO2 than it saves.

>>10565962

>>10574931
Kek man, based & redpilled.

anyway, how is Geothermal power? I see it as ''nuclear-lite'' no waste, continous process, extremely reliable but expensive to get into.

>>10565962
It was too late in the 70s

>>10574794
The link confirms my point regarding political unsuitability.
Did you even read it?
No of course not. You know everything better than everyone.

>>10568512
You know why your brother-in-law does this? Because of Al Gore and countless others who made absurd and hyperbolic claims of disaster within time frames that have since passed. I'm sure their intent was to spur on action but it has backfired horribly.
It's like the boy who cried wolf, and to many regular people it seems like the boy has cried too many times for them to believe anything anyone says anymore. And in the end, the boy gets eaten by the wolf because he alienated everyone who might have otherwise helped him.
Good job assholes.

>>10574931
I seriously doubt you live in an idyllic European valley where you only walk places and your electricity is 100% renewable.

>>10575078
>You know why your brother-in-law does this? Because of Al Gore
Prove it.

>>10575070
So it's politically unsuitable... but it's been operating for almost 40 years and Libya still doesn't have the bomb even though it was lead most of that time by an insane dictator who wanted one. If this is what you call politically unsuitable then I see no reason to care about "political unsuitability."

>>10575086
>prove the moral of an Aesop's fable
Al Gore was go-to example but this is the kind of sentiment I get from people I talk to about this. People just aren't willing to trust scientists like they used to, and a lot of it has to do with this kind of reckless behavior of alarmism in the media.

>>10575118
>people just aren't willing to accept evolution and it's because of Christopher Hitchens making fun of them

The choice is ours.

>>10575122
I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here, aside from a reduction to absurdity.

>>10575124
Humanity is a sickness and keeps repeating the same mistakes, I choose joos.

>>10573907
>Current technology allows us to replace most sources of emissions and offset the rest.
What an absolutely laughably ridiculous statement.
> Failing to mitigate emissions decreases economic growth.
It's always all about perpetual economic/population growth to you people. You just cannot accept that that is impossible. I mean, I think you understand the exponential function and how it works, so your irrational beliefs must be the result of some sort of severe mental illness.

>>10575124

>>10575118
People just use Al Gore as a pretext. Not trusting scientists because politicians spout bullshit ? Come on.

>>10575109
It's a fucking 10MW research reactor I could enrich uranium better in my fucking garage. Are you legitimately retarded or just a fucking liar?

>>10575361
I don't trust scientists because bill O'Reilly doesn't understand the tides.

>>10575361
>Not trusting scientists because politicians spout bullshit ? Come on.
Why not?
... when authority figures are blatantly full of shit

>>10574143
>Nope. The US will ignore every effort to fix the problem until it hits them personally. Then it willl be too late to do shit.
the US is doing a LOT more than India and China. be fucking serious.
hurr duur Paris Accord amirite?

>>10575393
China's emissions per capita are less than half of the U.S, and let's not forget that most of China's emissions are from making crap for American consumers. Because America deindustrialized to avoid labor laws and environmental regulations. Oh and India has lower emissions than the US despite having massively more people.

>>10575347
well, Earth cannot support exponential growth… IN THIS FORM! I'd say we kickstart it. The big one, the cleansing. The grand restart. World War lll!

or we could tell NASA to put priority on colonisation instead landing on comets and making low-poly images of things we can't even reach.

>>10575416
what about India polluting seafood worldwide by their fecal neglegence?

''fecal neglegence'' wow, that's one I thought I'd never use.

>>10575420
Climate change will trigger ww3 it'll be a massive free for all for farmable land

>>10575425
I'm 25, will I get to see death and suffering before I die of old age? (assuming?) I've got a very troubled mind, so don't ask why I want to see the death of billions.

>>10575423
I thought this was a thread about climate change?

>>10575433
that was purely to point out the Indians aren't clean either

We could have solved climate change back in the 80s, all you need is lots of nuclear power and synthetic fuels. No need for photovoltaic panels or electric cars even.

But no, nucular is baaad..

>>10575436
I never said they were but their global environmental impact is less than the U.S despite having a billion more people

>>10575438
Great for NATO but what's your answer to the proliferation issue?

>>10575389
Because scientists and politicians are blatantly not the same thing. Lumping them all together is absurd, and the only way any one tthat is not completely retarded could come to do so is if they decided beforehand to drop logic and common sense to better dismiss ideas they dislike.

>>10575439
Yeah, but whenever I bring up that caste systems could be a good thing and that food stamps can be too, I'm a antiamerican fascist. Typical! You know about the Amazone destruction just to make America even fatter?

>>10575448
>Because scientists and politicians
You missed the point. Politicians, scientists, doctors, lawyers - they're all "authority figures" as far as your regular people are concerned, and there's less trust in them these days (and for good reason imo).
Also, you really have no idea how much politics most "scientists" do on a daily basis.
And finally yes, people are completely retarded.

>>10575389
Destruction of the American middle class would reduce CO2 emissions greatly but that's not exactly worth it for anyone but the rest of the world.

>>10575474
If you believe authority figures you're a part of the problem. If it isn't published in a reputable peer reviewed journal it's typically not worth listening to, and even then don't believe it because it was published but because there's no room for backtracking or hyperbole if the argument isn't good enough it can be torn apart.

>>10575474
>they're all "authority figures" as far as your regular retard or hypocrite are concerned
That's my point. Lumping them together is absurd and only done out of idiocy or malice. And in most cases it's the latter because no, people are not usually retarded.

>>10575442
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-nuclear-energy-likelihood-proliferation.html

>>10575487
>muh peer review
>muh reputable
>muh bla bla bla
>muh I LOVE SCIENCE

No, you're part of the problem

for being too retarded to understand the point even after having it explained to you.

>>10575494
>>10575487
stop it you bickering brainlets, unless we can live observe the science being done we're just Occam's razoring who is legit and who is malicious.

>>10575494
Just read the fucking paper, it's not hard if the argument is sound and the evidence supports the conclusions what's the issue?

>>10575502
Someone who is blatantly full of shit and in a position of authority recently said "there's been an erosion of trust"

I'm sure the irony is completely lost on him

>>10575509
>>10575502
Owh fuck it, keep going! TEAR EACHOTHER TO SHREDS! I love not being involved in a dramaposting for once.

>>10575502
>Just read the fucking paper
How can you blame people for losing trust in scientists, when politicians use their work and twist it to suit an agenda?

>>10567346
>Reversing it would be like un-burning a log of wood.

That's a bad analogy. First of all carbon can be reabsorbed. Second you don't have to un-burn the log. You just have to cool what it heated. This is physically possible but vastly more expensive than prevention. It would be the largest attempt at engineering by humans ever and it would be the dark ages for standard of living. But if the alternative is extinction it could happen.

>>10575502
Dont even get me started on economists, an equally vaunted authority figure to scientists in our society... journalists are silent on issues that matter. etc. etc. etc.

hence no we have flatearthers and anti-vaxxers.

It's not out of malice or retardation. It's a defense mechanism. Many of our institutions have become highly corrupt and agenda driven. If you don't see it then you actually are "part of the problem".

>>10569357
>if you dont have controls in your experiments, then its not science

Science isn't just experiments. It's also about models and making correct predictions with them that are unlikely unless your hypothesis is true.

Dyson thinks the models are shit for future prediction. He didn't say it wasn't science.

>>10567973
Aerosols to reduce global warming is like buying cheap OTC medication to stop the cold symptoms you're exbibiting when you're actually drinking yourself to excess with alcohol and compromising your immune system. The real solution is to stop the excessive drinking, not mask it. The aerosols would make it more difficult to diagnose the problem, or even created worse/more complex ones.
>>10568000
>PICK YOUR POISON
>Let global warming happen
>Or make it even harder to fix long term
How are you so binary on this? Aerosols are not the only solution or none at all. The best solutions are likely to increase energy production and storage research, economic incentives for businesses to convert from the combustion where possible (all except peak load plants), convert as many power consumption devices to non-combustion sourced, and when nothing else is left, start instituting political pressure to encourage consumption reduction via artificially inflating energy costs until people adjust their life styles while we make this concersion. Once we've hit a conversion point and increase production capacity, we can lower costs again.

>>10575493
>The findings suggest that international efforts to manage the proliferation risks of nuclear energy programs have been quite effective," says author Nicholas L. Miller, assistant professor of government at Dartmouth. "Even when countries become more technically capable of developing nuclear weapons due to an energy program, they can often be restrained by timely intelligence and the prospect of sanctions."
Good article, but it kind of proves my point, current regulatory bodies are very effective, but their success is possible at the current utilization of nuclear energy. If literally every developing nation has a modern nuclear power program good luck regulating that. If you have a full scale power plant the only thing you need to enrich weapons grade material is a hatch.

>>10575534
>Many of our institutions have become highly corrupt and agenda driven. If you don't see it then you actually are "part of the problem".
This claim is made often, but always without examples of lies making it through the peer review process unscathed. If you have evidence supporting your claim include it, otherwise there's no reason to think you aren't the one with an agenda.

>>10575474
>and there's less trust in them these days (and for good reason imo).

The public only distrusts scientists on global warming and evolution though

What good reason do you have in mind? The only explanations that make sense is global warming is highly politicized and evolution conflicts with religious canon

>>10575601
No point in responding to someone who thinks mainstream economics is a legitimate field of scientific research...

>>10575601
>If you have evidence supporting your claim include it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Georgescu-Roegen
This guys work should be the basis for the entire field of economics, but its not because it makes your religious belief in perpetual economic/population growth look pretty stupid.

>>10575671
I followed this conversation backwards and you're the only one who had anything to say about economists

So why don't you produce an example of what your claiming instead of red herrings

>>10575671
>>10575682
Naturally you can only argue against social "sciences" and even then saying someone isn't appreciated is hardly an argument. Oh and thoughts on this
>Georgescu-Roegen's work was blemished somewhat by mistakes caused by his insufficient understanding of the physical science of thermodynamics. While working on The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (see above), Georgescu-Roegen had the firm understanding that the entropy law applies equally well to both energy resources and to material resources, and much of the reasoning in the opus rests on this understanding.

>>10575698
You're like the inquisition...

>>10575713
We're talking about "authority figures" here
try to stay on topic

>>10575725
>>10575487

>>10575733
>>10575534

>>10575682
>This guys work should be the basis for the entire field of economics
Why?

>but its not because it makes your religious belief in perpetual economic/population growth look pretty stupid.
You have a mental disease by the way. You're obsessed with opinions you don't like, then you tangentially bring them up in conversation and assign them to complete strangers that haven't revealed their opinion.

Just get it over with and tell us everything we're wrong about right now.

>>10575735
>>10575698

>>10575737
>assign them to complete strangers that haven't revealed their opinion
Thanks for admitting you don't think the perpetual economic/population growth is possible then?

Why are you not doing anything to change the current trajectory?

>>10575737
>Why?
Because it attempts to incorporate actual science into the field

>>10575751
Science he wasn't very good at

>>10575746
>Thanks for admitting you don't think the perpetual economic/population growth is possible then?
Thanks for giving me my opinion

>Why are you not doing anything to change the current trajectory?
You mean I get to decide that for myself?

>>10575746
It's not infinite eventually all resources in the solar system will be depleted but that's a long ways away.

>>10575754
And your point is? I don't know of anyone else who tried to incorporate actual science into economics. Do you?
His work should at least be a starting point for later economics/scientists to polish and refine.

>>10575758
>in the solar system
are you sure you don't mean the galaxy? Heck why not the entire universe? Its only economics afterall.

>>10575751
Well this premise is so obvious I would hardly value it more than reasonable economic axioms. The earth has finite resources. That's mainstream thought at all education levels inside and outside the field.

The conclusion, that mankind will consume all these resources causing a catastrophe, can't be proven with scientific confidence. Because technology changes our materials/energy sources. What would he say if we achieved fusion power and replaced dead dinosaurs with sea water and lithium? What would he say if we started colonizing other planets and mining asteroids? Could a small slow economy do this? Shit is expensive and requires high productivity to pay for.

>>10575760
His work breaks the unspoken rule of science, be useful or be ignored. Applying entropy to economics is nothing special any economist will agree economic growth will cease sometime between now and the heat death of the universe. The problem is getting useful predictions out of this means you need to accurately predict the progress of technology. Which is impossible, so predicting when the end of growth will occur is impossible as well.

>>10575756
>Thanks for giving me my opinion
Well, you could have taken that as an invitation to share your opinion rather than make assumptions.

Why don't you go ahead and share it. Because it seems like you seem to think we should always listen to every authority figure.

>>10575774
cope
>>10575775
cope

Enjoy your consumption, mate

>>10575776
>Well, you could have taken that as an invitation to share your opinion rather than make assumptions.
I don't follow red herrings

>Because it seems like you seem to think we should always listen to every authority figure.
I'm not the anon you were conversing with. But "seems like" instead of outright telling me what I believe is an improvement.

>>10575784
glad you have no response to reality, enjoy name calling I guess.

>>10575786
>I'm not the anon you were conversing with. But "seems like" instead of outright telling me what I believe is an improvement.
gee thanks doc,
but what I'd really like to know from you is whether you think we should always listen to every authority figure or not.

lol

>>10575784
You're funny

Imagine if a growing civilization were stranded on an island, and someone wise pointed out that the island has finite resources that would eventually be exhausted.

Then sometime later, on the messages written in sand message board, some retard brands inventing and building a boat as "consumption".

>>10575794
no

>>10575794
Listen to arguments and evidence, not authority. The best source for arguments and evidence is reputable peer reviewed sources.

>>10570251
That cartoon doesn't properly show the point of view of scientists though. More accurately, it shows the fringe views of politicians who misrepresented the science.