/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10750959
I can’t wait for earths climate to change and kill billions of people in the process. Humanity needs to be made extinct

>extrapolating from an n=115 years

Related thread addressing the question of "when will the catastrophe happen?": https://twitter.com/SISeneviratne/status/1138487368837685248

>>10750972
Sorry, wrong url. Correct one: https://twitter.com/SISeneviratne/status/1142825458200928256

>>10750974
Thank you, good thread

>Message to fellow climate scientists & #ClimateTwitter: After seeing many variations on theme "Are we going to reach a catastrophe in 12 years?”, I think it could be more helpful if we were focusing instead on: "How much climate change can still be considered safe?”

>>10750959
>Climate change
>>>/x/

>https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-coal-oil-subsidies
>US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually
They forgot to include the $2.5 trillion that the Iraq war cost.
The American tax payer is getting robbed blind to enrich a few evil billionaires while simultaneous destroying the planet.

$8500 was stolen out of the pockets of every American just to fund that illegal war for oil, not to mention the thousands of lives lost, the destruction of a whole country, the terrorism that spawned out of that region.

Immense evil has been committed by the US government and US elite. And that's just one war.

How come global warming starts after al gore and not after industrialization?

>>10750988
>They forgot to include the $2.5 trillion that the Iraq war cost.
They also forgot to mention that if not for subsidies, the US government and US citizens would be dependent on the oil of what are basically our enemies.

Want to end oil subsidies? Then support the war effort to get rid of our enemies. No enemies = no security risk and thus no incentive to keep domestic oil competitive.

>>10750959
>far rights are hotheads
Seems accurate to me

>>10751017
It's already clearly happening in 1935.

>>10751032
Oil without subsidies is MORE expensive than alternative energy without subsidies.
Alternative energy gives us TOTAL and COMPLETE energy independence and BANKRUPTS OUR ENEMIES.
Alternative energy with $2.5 trillion in subsidies would have spurred a new era of American technological dominance.

But whatever, I don't even know why I'm replying to you because you are obviously intellectually dishonest but you're also too low IQ to have any kind of effect on this board.

>>10751042
Changing your entire energy supply carries it's own risks. If you think those risks are worth taking (and maybe they are), you are free to become a politician or otherwise support politicians with this goal. And yes, I'm sure that you jerking off and sharing tweets helps a lot.

>>10750974
>after constantly being wrong about the coming catastrophy, lets instead use a more vague term
>like how many babies would you be willing to kill before you give me more money?

>>10751052
Risks of transition are low.
Risks of non-action are extremely high.
Rewards of transition are moderately high.

Economically it's an easy choice. The only problem is rich people and corrupt politicians.

>>10751066
>I lie on the internet.
>BELIEVE ME
>MY WORD CARRIES THE SAME WEIGHT AS THAT OF AN ACTUAL SCIENTIST THAT HAS SPENT HER LIFE RESEARCHING THIS FIELD AND IS RECOGNIZED BY HER PEERS AS A TOP EXPERT
Yeah no. Go back to your basement you fucking nutjob.

>>10750959
>3 degrees per century
Unless it was absolute zero only a few millenia ago I don't think we need to worry about it.

>>10751070
>I'm a faggot on the internet
>I TRUST AUTHORITY
>AND AUTHORITY TOLD ME TO GIVE THEM MONEY
By now you should know that every scientist thinks of his field as the most important

>>10750959
Why isn't the Netherlands under water, then?
Unironic question, I'm not denying climate change, just wondering why we don't see any consequences first hand.

Ever since I was a wee young lad, people were talking about how shitty a position the Netherlands is about water. What gives?

>>10751081
Netherlands has walls to keep the water out.
Right now the sea is rising at a rate of 3.3 mm/year, although in the most recent decade it's started to accelerate.
And sea level rise projections don't take ice sheet collapse into account, which will more than likely happen multiple times in the coming decades. The melting of Greenland for example, has been accelerating recently.

>>10751079
>I TRUST AUTHORITY
That's literally what science is. There is no way to do science otherwise. Trust in inherent in everything we do as a society.
>AND AUTHORITY TOLD ME TO GIVE THEM MONEY
$8000 just for the Iraq war and you dare pretend that money is not exactly why the evil people you support are doing this.

>>10751081
It is. They just have dams to keep the water out.

Here's what's projected for the future. No, it hasn't been delayed, climate change was never projected to be significant in the 2000s or 2010s.

It's always been like this:

2000-2009 very subtle, for your average joe there's no change
2010-2019 subtle, some people notice
2020-2029 subtle turns to noticeable, most people notice
2030-2039 noticeable turns to significant, some people affected
2040-2049 significant turns to very significant, most people affected
2050+ very significant turns to extreme, everyone affected

>>10751110
>2010-2019 subtle, some people notice
How the fuck is it AT ALL subtle? Do people never look out the fucking window?
The seasons fucking changed. Long summer, barely any Spring and Autumn. There is no fucking snow anymore. The summers are fucking hot. There is drought in places that used to be wet. Houses in Europe are now intolerable in the summer because they were not built for such extreme heat.

Skeptical Chaos Theory expert here. AMA

>>10750988
The problem is that we need cheap energy to drive our economy, which includes our food production. We have no way of ever surviving if we suddenly stopped using oil.
And it's getting increasingly energy intensive (and costly) just to extract.

>>10751094
>Appeal to authority is science
That is literally the opposite of what science is.
>>10751110
>nobody said it would be significant in the 2000s and 2010s
Are you serious, or do you just have no memory of the 70s, 80s and 90s and assume the people who do are making it up?
>>10751119
>>2010-2019 subtle, some people notice
>How the fuck is it AT ALL subtle? Do people never look out the fucking window?
Do you never go outside? Do you just sit in your modernist commie block apartment in the middle of town
>The seasons fucking changed. Long summer, barely any Spring and Autumn.
Where do you live? Cause where I live in the mid-atlantic we had a wet spring and only a few days of hot weather until just the last couple of weeks or so.
>There is no fucking snow anymore.
We got snow as late as March and April. I'm not even that far north or that high in the mountains.
>The summers are fucking hot.
Not so far this year.
>There is drought in places that used to be wet.
Droughts happened regularly before Industrialization, are you suggesting climate change caused those too?
>Houses in Europe are now intolerable in the summer because they were not built for such extreme heat.
Maybe your modern commie block apartments are. Older houses had higher ceilings, more windows and Cupolas to let the air flow take the heat out.

>>10750959
can I see some datapoints on a similar chart that extend beyond the last century... like I dunno, maybe to the past 15,000 years or so?

>>10751528
Sure, here you go. As you can see, shit's fucked

>>10751691
>Measured
>Shit's fucked
>In a chaotic system
Abandon thread. Saged.

>>10751951

>>10751962
That's what you look like trying to push those bullshit graphs. Good day.

>>10751966
>THE ACTUAL SCIENCE IS BULLSHIT!!!

Thank god, we need a culling.

>>10752050
Who are you quoting?

>>10751339
Wrong, false, lie, illogical opinion, literally WTF.
Your IQ is too low for me to engage with you, retard.

This is how war happens. Both sides will never agree, yet the situation will keep getting worst. At some point they will come to blows and then we will have war. Perhaps it will be the catalyst of WWIII.

>>10750959
>implying it's a bad thing
Well, my country is apparently going to get higher yields so I'm kinda okay with it. Africa, Pakistan and India won't be feeling so good, but honestly so what? 90% of them could die and they still would have more people than my country does.

Equal human worth dies at equal human growth.

>>10750974
If they REALLY know, why do they have to deflect the question?

Also: when is the north pole supposed to be ice free again?

>>10751119
This. Central Argentina here. We had our winter in late May and now it's like 22 degrees again. Last Saturday it was so hot we went swimming with the boys.

>>10752128
you, retard
that's what you just said

>>10750959
The Americas, spanning across equator, reaching into the arctic, is rather uniform.
Europe, extending from a bit above the polar circle to the Mediterranean, is less uniform then the rest of the planet.

Why?

why even care for a climate change? It's not like there's a different endgame than extinction for humans. Really, what else can happen? At one point we have to stop existing. It would be better than something unexpected, we could prepare for it. you wouldn't have to go to work once we found out, you could do whatever the frick you want, kill people, rape, walk naked, steal. seriously, better something like this than something that would do it in 5 seconds

>>10752423
Why even try not to drive into oncoming traffic then?

>>10752436
great question. One will kill me in ten seconds, the other in a still unknown number of years. Also, i could become a cripple and that's worse than being dead and i could kill someone directly (and if you think killing someone with a gun is the same as killing him by not caring about environment you're a retard) Also, my parents/wife/whoever would have a harder time living without me and also would have to get a new car.
But basically if you could get all the people on earth in one car crash with 100% chance of all of them dying i'd say you have a point

>>10752403
I never questioned real science.

>>10750959
I unironically believe that humans have a significant impact on the atmosphere and environment, but the "analysis" done is using an unimaginable small sample of the Earths history.

Fucking thing is billions of years old, what is a 1.15 e-7 amount of data going to honestly tell you?

>>10752472
I guess then the answer is: yes, we're all doomed to die and so is our entire species, sooner or later. But why not try and postpone it? The meaning of life isn't on the far end of eternity, it's what you get out of living your life. Why should we all just collectively roll over and die?

>>10752696
You did in this thread

>>10752767
>We measured data from 10k years ago
>Science or math
Pick one buddy

>>10752794
Science and math is what allows us to measure that data, retard. Do you also have a problem with our prevailing theory on the formation of our solar system, or the Earth being 4.5 billions years old?

>>10752808
No.

>>10752840
Great argument retard.

>>10752897
Thanks.

>>10751067
>doesn't quantify risk
>doesn't quantify reward
>doesn't quantify cost
>doesn't quantify anything
>blames the rich
I'm pretty sure you don't know anything about economics.

The past 100 years have been very notable for humanity. We've increased our total population sevenfold, and industrialized rapidly, but both population and industrialization are topping off now and developed nations are slowly reeling back their emissions and switching to more efficient forms of energy than coal (the worst offender). It isn't going to heat up infinitely, it will slow down by definition and probably pull back a bit. It's fine to support positive environmental initiatives and practice eco conscious behavior yourself, but don't buy into alarmism and the current wave of charlatan chicken littles trying to sell their shit politics off the back of this issue.

>>10752904
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/
happy reading let me know what you think when you finish.

>>10750970
>extrapolating
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

>>10752955
Extra - More
Pole - polarized
Extrapolating - adding extra poles.

>>10753013
>the earth is warming
>the poles are the coldest part of earth
So you propose adding more poles on the equator. that way the earth will cool down. This is genius.

>>10753013
I don't think immigration from eastern europe is really going to help

>>10752949
If you're citing this, you clearly haven't read it.

>>10753039
some parts more than others, which was your favorite?

>>10753039
>If you're citing this, you clearly haven't read it.
Usually after you write something like this you would quote a passage from the report that contradicts the post you are replying to. Maybe you should read first.

>>10753060
My favorite part is the list of Drafting Authors.

>>10753020
Thank you. Give me my Nobel now please.

>>10753065
Usually, if you were citing something, you would summarize it or quote it to explain the part which is relevant. Since you didn't, I assume you can't. There is no expectation that uncharitable arguments should be treated charitably. Maybe you should take your won advice.

>>10753076
>>doesn't quantify risk
>>doesn't quantify reward
>>doesn't quantify cost
>>doesn't quantify anything
Well you asked for a whole lot of information, I'm afraid I don't have the time to summarize the entire AR5 because you're too lazy to read it.

>>10753087
If you'd read it, shouldn't it be pretty easy to summarize? They've even provided a summary for you, which if you'd read, you could summarize. Why bring it up if you don't want to talk about it? If this was your source from the beginning, why didn't you lead with it?

>>10753098
I still don't see you pointing out anything wrong with it.

>>10753098
pretty solid summary right here desu
>>10751067

>>10753103
Why should I? You've yet to say why it's relevant? After all, if I don't agree with them in principle, which particular disagreement could I give that would convince you to change your principles? Why should I mention the absurdity of identifying the the threat of urbanization, and then arguing for policies which increase the pace of urbanization? And why should I point out to you that there is almost no actual quantified economics in the report itself? Is it really worth either of our time to go into the absurdity of their confidence scale? If you really want to talk about the document, you bring up the specific thing you want to talk about.

>>10753109
I think you've confused solid with specious.

>>10753126
How so? please extrapolate

>>10752944
>don't buy into alarmism and the current wave of charlatan chicken littles trying to sell their shit politics off the back of this issue.
If you aren't gravely concerned about global warming and the snail's pace of decarbonization, it's because you don't understand the facts of the matter, or you just don't care what happens in the future.

>>10753134
The risks are unknown, the rewards are unknown, and alternative solutions haven't been considered; that's all accepting the problem as given, which is still up for debate. You can't describe any of the economic considerations he brings up without comparison either.

>>10752395
>metric units

>>10753159
that's not what I got out of the report at all, could you reference the pages you felt conveyed this?

>>10753171
You didn't get anything out of the report, because you didn't read it.

something something jews and liberals

>>10753181
An odd thing to accuse me of, why not reference exactly where we disagree so we can discuss it further?

>>10753188
You're making the positive claim, I'm making the skeptical claim. I already provided general criticisms, and some more detailed points of criticism if you can follow the thread. Unless you mention a specific position, I can't address a specific criticism. Am I to take it that you find the entire report to be 100% perfect? That literally nothing in it can be improved? Do you find it completely without flaw? Can you even name a single risk factor?

>>10753213
>You're making the positive claim, I'm making the skeptical claim.
Ignoring massive amounts of scientific evidence is not skepticism. The burden of proof is on you to show how all of this evidence is wrong.

>>10753217
Whatever specific point you are interested in, I'll address specifically.

>>10753213
Given my knowledge of the topic I'm certainly not in a position to improve upon the report myself.
As for risk factors I find impacts on ocean systems, food security and food production systems, and impacts on coastal and low lying areas most worrying.

>>10750986
>denialtard still posting this in every climate change thread

>Another Climate Change thread

>>10753213
If you have anything substantial to say, you can publish it. Go on.