/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10839201
There are 2 problems with most of your graphs (the ones that can be taken seriously. The one by Roy Spencer has been debunked so many times it's shocking people like you still bother)

1. Nobody has ever claimed that the temperature is higher than it ever has been in the past. The problem with modern climate change is Humans never lived on the Earth during the Eocene Thermal Maximum. Besides you're referring to times when the ice caps were gone and the tropics were an unlivable dead zone. You're not making the argument you think you're making.

2. The rate of change is faster than ever before seen or known in Earth's history. While lifeforms once had tens of thousands of years to adapt to changes in climate we're doing it in a hundred.

>>10839237
>The rate of change is faster than ever before seen or known in Earth's history
False see
>"The first pic shows rapid periods of melting and re-glaciation over periods of a few thousand years. There is nothing abnormal about current melting rates"
Also see how sea levels have been rising for 10000 years with little impact from humans

>>10839248
That's not evern remotely true
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/

>>10839201
This is idiocy. Deliberate delinquency. If there is even the SLIGHTEST possibility that climate change is man made it should be taken with the UTMOST seriousness. People who denied it or didn't take it seriously would be the ones to blame if it did bring about the next great extinction event.

>>10839323
Great rebuttal

>>10839334
It doesn't need a rebuttal.

>>10839248
>>"The first pic shows rapid periods of melting and re-glaciation over periods of a few thousand years. There is nothing abnormal about current melting rates"
It shows changes of a few degrees over a thousand years while today we are seeing a few degrees over a hundred years.
So current warming is an order if magnitude faster than interglacial warming.

>Also see how sea levels have been rising for 10000 years with little impact from humans
Sea level rise is currently much faster and accelerating.

Try actually comparing one to the other instead of posting graphs that don't have modern warming on them.

>>10839201
there is no reason to be against unlimited free energy by replacing all energy producing infrastructure with renewable sources and farming/resource optimization.

>>10839323
>the next great extinction event
Typical climate alarmist.

>>10839201
we've alredy fucked ourselves
natural resources and biosphere are exploited beyond revovery and when the imminent civilisation collapse happens there will be nothing to build up from
might as well sit back and enjoy the show because we cant do anything about it at this point

>>10840903
Even without climate change the rate of extinction due to humans is so high that it can be reasonably be labeled an extinction event.

>>10839201
Picrel: CO2 levels since last ice ago.

>>10841218

>>10839237
>While lifeforms once had tens of thousands of years to adapt to changes

citation?

https://weather.com/science/nature/news/2019-07-24-climate-change-animals-adapt>>10841272

5 seconds on google. The amount of evidence says you're not even trying.

>>10841304
I was asking about animals that "had tens of thousands of years to adapt to changes" not current ones. Can you point me to a study that confirms your claim that

>lifeforms once had tens of thousands of years to adapt to changes

>>10839248
>"The first pic shows rapid periods of melting and re-glaciation over periods of a few thousand years. There is nothing abnormal about current melting rates"
Nope. It doesn't show anything discernible on the scale of a few thousand years, considering about an inch on that is 10 MILLION years.

>>10841226
>Temperature from Antarctic ice cores
What exactly is this measuring? The temperature over a giant block of ice?

>>10840903
great argument there

>>10841272
read your own fucking graph, it takes tens of thousands of years for any significant changes in temp

>>10839201
It doesn't mean burning dinosaurs environment doesn't make you faggot.

>>10839201
The only one worth debunking is the one on climate model predictions, as it's a great example of cherrypicking data the rest are the same utterly stupid "if it was hot 10 million years ago it's fine if it's that hot in 50 years"

Anyways the graph provided compares models which are predicting global average blended land and sea temperature. It's comparing this to ONLY mid troposphere measurements in a very specific latitude to hide as much warming as possible. Pure lies and you eat it right up.

>>10842458
Here's what an actual apples to apples comparison of models and measurements looks like. Amazing what cherrypicking can acomplish.

>>10842452
fossil fuels aren't made from dinosaurs.

>>10842214
Essentially, we can measure the ratio of oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 and deuterium to hydrogen in the ice. Both are proxies for snowfall temperature. "When it rains it pours." When it's warm, there less water wapor fractionation but when it's cold the ligher water vapor turns into snow first

>>10839342
>It shows changes of a few degrees over a thousand years while today we are seeing a few degrees over a hundred years.
>So current warming is an order if magnitude faster than interglacial warming.
There's no way to measure the temperature variation year to year that far back in the past. So if rapid changes did occur, we would have no way of seeing them.

>>10842490
Interesting, thanks

>>10839237
More importantly, it's illogical to assume that a 3% annual change (the amount of CO2 humans contribute to the atmosphere) in a trace gas (CO2 constitutes 0.04%) of the atmosphere is somehow going to cause catastrophic irreversible damage to the planet, is patently absurd.
1. Life has existed, and thrived, with far higher CO2 concentrations and far higher temperatures.
2. Every single disastrous prediction about the melting of the ice caps has turned out to be incorrect. And yet every year, new predictions are made that we only have X number of years left before Y city is under water. And once that deadline passes, a new deadline is manufactured. And yet you all still believe.
3. The climate is incredibly complex. The idea that we can accurately model what will happen 50 years from now with a computer model built upon a massive number of wild-ass assumptions, is fucking absurd.

>>10842536
1) >muh tiny percentage of the total atmosphere
Image a bathtub full of water, which is being trained and filled at the same rate so that they balance out. Now start pouring a small stream into the total. It's gonna overflow.
2) Wrong.
3) Argument from brainlet

>>10842536
1. utterly stupid argument, just because 10 million years life was adapted to extreme temperatures doesn't mean life can do the same thing in 50 years

2. Provide a specific example of a published paper's prediction that hasn't come true.

3. utter stupidity literally just crying IT'S TOO HARD

>>10842536
The trace gas you mentioned (CO2) has atmospheric evasion time of 200-300 years so it's well mixed over the atmosphere. CO2 is the most significant greenhouse gas because unlike CO2, water vapor is a function of temperature and temperature only following Annherius equation. Water vapor is an amplifier while CO2 is a driver. CO2 also activates other amplifier in earth's climate system, such as albedo effects.

>>10842524

>>10842540
The earth is not a bathtub, dipshit. There are such things as natural carbon sinks. Plants, for one. Jesus.
I give up. Have fun believing that we're all doomed in a few years because of what plants need to breath. I hope that the small satisfaction you get from feeling smarter than "science deniers" makes you happy. It must be hard believing that humanity is inevitably doomed to extinction.
You've fallen for a new religion. It's sad really.

>>10842547
>doesn't understand what an analogy is
You should probably learn a bit about the Earth's energy balance and how changing the inputs and outputs will create new equilibria before you continue making a food out of yourself

>>10842544
I assume "meteoric" just refers to precipitation here?
Also, are you a climate scientist of some kind?

>>10839201
>Russian poster
They run well made propaganda machines given they are using a foreign language and all.

>>10842210
>>10842503
Honestly, how is this not obvious to anyone? The resolution of the scale is no more a million years.

>>10842536
Why are you pretending like you are following up on a post when it's clearly from a different poster? Who are you trying to fool?

>>10842543
No offense, because you at least responded to me politely. I appreciate that, truly. But you make all of these points as if they're incontrovertible facts. They're not. It's all theory. Science is only valid if it can produce accurate predictions. Climate science has failed to do so. Dramatically. To the point that some climatologists have talked about massaging the data to fit their predictions (Phil Jones, for one). https://youtu.be/fA5sGtj7QKQ

>>10842565
I wasnt trying to fool anyone. I was following up on my own post to rebut an argument another person had made. >>10842503
>>10842536
>>10842547
>>10842566
All these are my responses.

>>10842565
>Russian poster
You should take a look at /pol/ climate change threads sometime. There's absolutely no doubt that there are a number of dedicated spammers.

>>10842547
>>10842566
I can see that you are a bias confirmationalist: picking a conclusion and finding "evidence" to validate it. Unfortunately that's not science, nor is it logical. Any other argumentation from such a shoddy foundation is just hair on the ball.

>>10842542
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442

>>10839201

>>10842542
Amd again, we have no idea whether life can adapt to rapid changes in climate, because we cant measure variation decade to decade in the distant past. Plus, the idea that a few degrees of temperature difference would make all the polar bears disappear is ridiculous. You have a very inaccurate understanding of how chaotic nature is, and you fail to realize that despite this, life manages to endure.

https://news.yahoo.com/unprecedented-more-100-wildfires-burning-190810850.html

>>10842572
This is not an argument. Sorry.

>>10842573
>WSJ opinion paywall
fuck off

https://youtu.be/vqmCu854rHc?t=2m13s

>>10842580
>we cant measure variation decade to decade in the distant past
We can measure the changes on the scale of millennia and the current (human caused change) is far FAR faster. There's no biologist or ecologist who actually believes that things are going to be fine for the ecosystem with such extremely rapid change. It's recognized that we're already in the midst of the 6th mass extinction and things are set to get exponentially worse.

>>10842585
Sorry, I have a subscription and forgot that their articles are hidden for non subscribers. Here's another one. https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-scientists-wrong.html

>>10842573
>Ignores >>10842462
>But links to an opinion piece on a financial journal newspaper
>Made by a renowned climate change denialist in the pockets of oil industry
Hard to think some of these people are not actually shills in the traditional sense, but do it for *free*, without compensation. Literal NPCs programmed by the boot they lick.

>>10842590
Think about what you just said. We have accurate temperature data on an annual scale for what, a few hundred years, tops? The temperature data we have for the past operates on a scale of several thousand years per data point. It also shows wild changes in temperature over those time periods. So how do we possibly know that this temperature change is unprecedented?

>>10842584
Telling you you are cherry picking your information input to frame your prefered "conclusion" is not just an argument, is an example of illogical behavior which seem to have no self-awareness about.

>>10842601
So it allows us to see that the current change on the scale of decades is faster than what took thousands of years in the past.

>>10842594
Yes, Im a bootlicker because I dont believe what rich assholes like Al Gore tell me about the government. And I must be getting paid for my efforts because why would anyone ever have an opinion different from your own mainstream one. Yeah man, you got me pegged.

>>10842607
Last time. You cannot tell if it took thousands of years in the past. There is literally no way for you to know. It could have happened overnight, and then the temperature remained stable for 2000 years afterwards, and you would see the exact same data as if it had gradually increased over the same time period.

>>10842615
You can tell the changes over say, 10 thousand years and compare that to changes within decades today.
I dunno enough on the topic to say whether you can tell if changes within a given thousand year period happened gradually or suddenly, but I'd guess that things like fossilized tree rings and other indicators would give us some idea.

Or are you saying that when climate scientists comment that our current change is unprecedented, they're just lying?

>>10842591
>The research, published in the journal Nature, said oceans are warming much faster than previously estimated and are taking up more energy than projected by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [Climatewire, Nov. 1].
>The overall conclusion that oceans are trapping more and more heat mirrors other studies and is not inaccurate, but the margin of error in the study is larger than originally thought, said Ralph Keeling, a professor of geosciences at Scripps and co-author of the paper.
>"These problems do not invalidate the methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based, but they do influence the mean rate of warming we infer, and more importantly, the uncertainties of that calculation," said Keeling in a statement on RealClimate.org.

Not a prediction, simply an error which doesn't even invalidate the conclusions of the paper. And no one will tell you errors can't occur, but that isn't even close to what you claimed so could you please move the goalposts back where they belong?

>>10842622
Yes. I'm saying that they're lying. Whether its out of a combination of ignorance and arrogance (which would make them mistaken, as opposed to liars) or whether its intentional, I couldn't tell you. But they are misrepresenting the data to push an agenda. It comes from a good place, I think, for most of them. They genuinely see humanity as a major threat to the world (and in some ways they're right) and so they cherrypick data and make massive assumptions in order to push their policies.

>>10842633
If the numbers don't match your prediction, your prediction was wrong. You guys do this all the time. Its not working very well anymore. "Well we made an "error", and the warming is no where near what we predicted it to be, but it is still getting slightly warmer, so that doesn't matter." Bullshit. Any other field of science and youd be laughed out of the room for this kind of shit.

>>10840903
What exactly is your argument here? Ice ages, mass floods, and meteor impacts arent catastrophic extinction events?

>>10842657
You realize that climate scientists aren't come insular cult? They are quite distributed and decentralized all over advanced nations and don't interact in secrete meetings where they get their agendas in line.
Hell, the data is all public and it would be easy to show that they're lying. Yet, every time someone shows me a source that claims that the climate scientists are lying, it almost always turns out that the source is actually misrepresenting things and is usually somehow connected to fossil fuel companies.
The claim that climate scientists are lying appears to be the real lie here.

>They genuinely see humanity as a major threat to the world
That's only actually true IF they aren't lying in the first place.

>>10841317
>what is the fossil record
>what is holdover organs and attributes from wildly divergent species
>what is our entire understanding of evolution

>>10842547
You actually are a science denier though, you cant even conceptualize the energy balance of the earth and your reason is muh plants. You also literally used the cant know nuffin argument. You points are logically invalid and your argumentation is non sequitur.

>>10842566
>But you make all of these points as if they're incontrovertible facts. They're not. It's all theory
The greenhouse effect is an experimentally proven fact. Set up 2 vacuum chambers, one with methane and CO2, the other without.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

The evasion time of CO2 is also a proven fact. We know the evasion time of CO2 from the bomb pulse experiment. When people were testing nuclear bomb it spiked atmospheric radiocarbon beyond natural level. We know how radiocarbon decays, and correcting for the decay the rest is how fast CO2 is removed from the atmosphere (pic related).

Finally the earth is 70% ocean. There's nothing we can do about the water vapor feedback. You can't put a lid over the whole ocean to prevent water from evaporating.

> Science is only valid if it can produce accurate predictions. Climate science has failed to do so.
The models are not perfect, but they represent the best we know about fundamental physics, chemistry and biology. Here's a question, if climate models are wrong how come deniers can't make their own models? The fact is, if you build a model from the ground up, implementing all we know about conservation of mass energy and momentum (for air mass movement) and chemistry, get it pass a peer review process then you'll get similar result to most climate models. Saying that "models are innacurate" is one thing, but it doesn't benefit the science. Show us where the models parameterize certain things wrong. Most climate models are available publicly, even their nightly snapshots for example NASA's GISS ModelE
https://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots/

>>10842615
>Last time. You cannot tell if it took thousands of years in the past.
Yes you can, you are retarded.
>ice cores
>fossils
>current ecology
>sediment
>geology
>glaciers and mountain snowfall
>sea bed
Now cross reference all of this with our understanding of evolutionary biology, anthropology, orbital mechanics, historical ecology, some basic physics. That you are too much of an idiot to conceive of something doesnt mean its impossible.

>>10842660
not a prediction, it's a paper observing ocean temperature, you still haven't provided a single example warming being less than predicted.

>>10842679
Aren't most climate models actually conservative because they don't take certain positive feedback mechanisms into account?

>>10839237
fpbp

>>10842660
>If the numbers don't match your prediction, your prediction was wrong.
The resplandy et al. paper discussed in the article is not model study, it is a data study. Check out the actual paper on sci hub, Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition by Resplandy et al.


They provide analysis on the O2 (atmospheric oxygen) concentration. Atmospheric oxygen dissolves as the ocean warms. The mistake they made in the calculation was pointed out immediately because it was relatively simple calculation. Mistakes on models though are harder to find, because you have to sieve through hundred thousands worth of fortran code.

>>10842690
the IPCC has a history of underestimation due to political interference.

>>10842700
Does that include the most recent report that says we need to have made massive changes by 2030?

>>10842704
of course not, political interference disappeared from the world in 2016

>>10842547
Hey retard, you know the drain he was talking about? The one that causes the amount water to... I don't know... sink? Yeah, that includes plants you fucking moron.

>>10842700
>>10842690
The fundamental problem with state-of-the-art model runs is that we cannot afford to include errors, because each model run takes so much computational time. Each IPCC report corresponds to a model that is 5 years old because it takes 2-3 years real human time to run state-of-the-earth model to 2100. To asses the error, we just average model runs from different countries and institutions with the same forcings.

There is no such thing as "IPCC models." There is CMIP (Climate Model Intercomparison Project) project, each associated with IPCC report. The number at the end of CMIP corresponds to IPCC AR reports. So CMIP4 for AR4, CMIP5 for AR5, and so on.

SOME models are run conservative not because scientists are conservative, or afraid of political interference. IPCC models are always out of date and not cutting edge because reasons I explained above. It just happens that the more recent science (for example, nutrient limitation on plant growth reducing plant's ability to take up atmospheric CO2) happen to point towards worse effect of climate change and hence IPCC models are considered "conservative" because it doesn't include state of the art science at the time.

>>10842708
Well, to what extent are they underestimating things?
And how are people not absolutely panicking, considering that these kinds of predictions are essentially going to lead to collapse of civilization if they aren't averted?

>>10842700
there are several mechanisms, sluggishness of science, working via consensus, and yes, politicians restricting what gets in the summary.
Here's how it goes:
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=8m30s

>>10842715
>people not absolutely panicking
too busy following the kardashians

>>10842580
>Plus, the idea that a few degrees of temperature difference would make all the polar bears disappear is ridiculous
Imagine a freezer. It's pretty decent, keeps the food frozen well, at around -6 degrees Celsius. That's a bit below freezing, if you don't know.
But every year, just for a bit, it heats up. Sometimes to -1 (freezing), 0 (just freezing) or even 1 degree (above freezing.) This only lasts for a week.
But now it's starting to heat up. When it should be -1, it's 2. When it should be 0, it's 3. When it should be 1, it's 4. And now it's getting hot earlier, and getting cold later. Now it's above freezing for two more weeks. Now, the food is starting to spoil.

>>10842712
Thanks for clearing that up.
I'm curious: how concerned are you about the stability of our food supply in the next 1-3 decades? And are you doing anything to prepare for what is likely coming?

>>10842722
Seems like it. Yet I'm barely seeing anyone talk about actually taking action to try to ensure their personal survival (and that of their family). It's pretty obvious by now that we won't do anything substantial to avert the coming disaster.

>>10842547

>>10842727
>I'm curious: how concerned are you about the stability of our food supply in the next 1-3 decades? And are you doing anything to prepare for what is likely coming?
Not really. There is not much an individual could do. There's no reason to start buying Alex Jones' survival equipment. Just vote the right way within your respective political process and hope for the best.

>>10842748
Well I mean, you can move to an area that's projected to not be impacted as severely and learn to be somewhat self-sufficient. Of course there are practical limits to what you can really do, but it's not exactly an all or nothing proposition.
It just seems to me we're pretty much on the path to collapse (do correct me if I'm wrong here).

>>10842754
>It just seems to me we're pretty much on the path to collapse (do correct me if I'm wrong here).
If humanity can survive the black death it can survive climate change, as long as you're not a poor Bangladeshi making less than a dollar per day living in low-lying areas. Just do common sense stuff like not buying a house in Florida or in Hurricane areas. Generally further up north you go the better.

Scandinavia for example would not see the effect of sea level rise, because the continental crust underneath them is still rebounding from having 2 miles of ice during the last glacial maximum. https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/151/a-subtle-effect-of-climate-change-uneven-sea-level-rise

My parents' house in Maine is having a good time with climate change. Warmer waters bring record lobster yield. Currently Maine is too cold to grow wine, but by 2050 and beyond it would be as warm as Southern France and would be prime for wine growing.

>>10842768
I'm not so much concerned about sea level rise and extreme temperatures (not where I live at least). I'm concerned about the changes in rainfall patterns (well, and extreme temperatures) in major crop producing regions.
There are more and more stories about crop yields taking hits like in Europe and the US due to drought, flooding and extreme heat.
You don't have to have an exceptional amount of foresight to realize that this could lead to mass starvation on a global scale, comparatively soon when you look at the levels of yield loss we're already seeing.

And this doesn't even take into account the loss of pollinators, aquifer depletion, as well as a host of other factors that are all converging to put our food supply at risk.

>>10842778
There's nothing an individual could do to tackle the problem you described other than voting the right way. Muh lobster tho. Traps have stayed steady since the 2000, but we got more than double yield thanks to climate change.

>>10842768
Sea level is a 2100 problem in the 1st world.
2030's will see a 50%-75% fall of rainfall in the subtropics (lat. 23...40, Miami to New York).
This will hit the world's bread baskets big time.
Death in the 3rd world, prices shooting up in the 1st, political mess everywhere.
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

>>10842793
The anon asks what can (You) do as an individual. These problems are beyond us as individuals, so there's nothing we can do as individual. Working with climate models I already know what uncertainties are not represented in the models. Economists take our outputs, and propagate the uncertainties even further because unlike climate models, economic model do not have solid basis on physical science (like conservation of energy, momentum, chemical reaction rates, etc) and full of empirical parameterizations such as ""law"" of supply and demand. So just see what happens and take it easy knowing you did the best you can do as an individual.

>>10842791
>lobster
You'd expect exceptions, but the overall trend is a decline.
I'm not talking about tackling the problem. I'm talking about realizing that we collectively won't. And positioning yourself to be one of the people left standing.

>>10842791
Also:
https://umaine.edu/news/blog/2017/06/02/despite-record-breaking-harvests-study-finds-baby-lobster-population-continues-decline-gulf-maine/

>>10842802
>propagate the uncertainties even further
always pooh-poohing

>>10842802
>The anon asks what can (You) do as an individual.
Incorrect.
>>10842805

>>10842810
>I'm talking about realizing that we collectively won't. And positioning yourself to be one of the people left standing.
Congratulations, you succesfully grandstand as a woke individual in an anonymous anime imageboard. Any serious economists and state officials (including Department of Defense) already take the effect of climate change into account the best they can, Republicans or Democrats. What more do you want

>>10842822
>you succesfully grandstand as a woke individual
I have literally no idea what the fuck you're talking about anon. The projections are showing unmitigated disaster and I'm just wondering why people aren't taking actions to at least better their chances. Considering the responses I'm getting, I'm starting to think that most of you have defense mechanisms up that prevent you from thinking clearly about this topic.

>>10842826
>I'm just wondering why people aren't taking actions to at least better their chances
People do. Insurance rates in coastal areas are more expensive than ever. Maple syrup farmer are transitioning into other crops as climate changes. Do you expect the 160 million people in Bangladesh just abandon their houses and family to move up North? Do you expect everyone in Florida just abandon their job and evacuate the state 20 years early? Societal changes are slow, it is what it is. You don't need to do extreme things like set up an off-grid cabin in Northern Canada. All you need to do is to stay above average on the curve.

>>10842832
I'm not sure what I expect the average normie to do. I don't think most people are aware of what the dangers really are, beyond some vague notion that they shouldn't buy a house at sea level.
But when I see case after case of major crop yield decreases in places like the US and Europe, I start to wonder how safe simply being ahead of the curve really is.

I guess the point here is that I'm seeing a disconnect between the level of risk and how well informed people appear to be reacting to the danger. Though that could always be a sign that I'm over-estimating things.

>>10842850
Everything is relative. You're "doing well" if you're doing better than other humans around you. Everyone's well being is graded on a curve. If humanity goes for the worse because of climate change, as long as you're ahead of the curve in reality you're better off.

>>10839201
>>10839237
>OP's bullshit gets refuted
>>10842536
>Some fag, maybe OP immediately invenst a new argument
>Mfw it's "when you climatists turn out to be wrong, you just manufacture new hoaxes that hold out again for a short time"
>>10842542
>>10842543
>His bullshit gets refuted
>Mfw

>>10839248
By "little impact to humans" I presume you mean when humans were no longer able to walk from Siberia to Alaska, or Europe to Britain, or Victoria to Tasmania... When thousands of square miles (or kms) of land once populated by animals humans could hunt were under the sea... When generations of carefully passed down hunting, trekking and survival lore became obsolete...

The climate isn't changing guys. The ice sheets aren't melting, there isn't a net loss per year in ice sheet mass across the globe, one of them grew more than it shrank one year. We haven't had consistently record breaking heat waves and hottest years, that's all climate scientists shill propaganda.

Actually I mean maybe the climate is changing, and the sea level is rising steadily, but it's not our fault at all. We don't have to worry about the changing climate or adapt to it at all because it's natural and everyone knows there's no such thing as a "natural" disaster. The people on the coast whose homes might end up underwater can just sell their houses and move inland. The warming we're experiencing is natural, it's just what the Earth does.

All the extra carbon we dump into the atmosphere on a worldwide industrial scale has NO effect on the climate at all. It's just a drop in the bucket. The Earth has a natural carbon cycle that removes excess carbon from the atmosphere and we're just moving towards equilibrium, it won't be that bad. The trees will solve the rising carbon levels for us, we don't need to do anything different than we already are. The Earth has many many acres of huge forests that are handling this carbon load, our meager human action of cutting down millions of acres of forest per year and releasing billions of tons of excess carbon into the atmosphere per year has absolutely no effect on the balance of the carbon cycle.

We'll be totally fine guys, we can't possibly affect something as large in scale as our planet. We're just tiny men on a big flat disk flying through space.

>>10843732
ice melting 100x faster
https://www.livescience.com/66036-glacier-melting.html

permafrost thawing 70 years sooner
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/18/arctic-permafrost-canada-science-climate-crisis

>>10842793

>>10843817
450ppm --> +2C --> >>10842793

>>10840524
This
Shilling for energy companies when you don't even work for them or only make a few million dollars a year by working for them is pathetic

From what I can understand, the reason apocalyptic climate change predictions from the 90s haven't held up is because those predictions can only describe what will happen if NOTHING is done, and in fact as the climate did indeed gradually change over decades, land surveyors found better sources of arable land, shipping routes were changed to adapt to changing air/sea currents, construction companies planned for eroding coastlines, etc.

And I imagine the same is true for the doomsday propheteering now.
Used to be a hardline environmentalist, but in the early 10's i couldn't help but feel a little manipulated by the scare stories being published and at this point I'm downright disgusted seeing leftists that once preached environmentalism having tantric orgies and littering everywhere, wasting fuel and power and resources because "we're all fucked anyways"

I live in Northeastern Brazil. How fucked am I? (apart from living in a shithole, of course)

>>10844367
Provide a specific example of a published paper's prediction that hasn't come true.

>>10844367
You don't sound like you were ever an environmentalist in the first place.

>>10844367
Do this >>10844377

>>10844367
The reason apocalyptic predictions don't seem to be coming true is that we keep redefining "normal" as the climate deteriorates.

>>10844367
I would argue that a series of yearly increasingly record-breaking heat waves, a series of increasingly unusually powerful hurricanes tropical storms and general weather events, and the greatly increasing rate of species extinction and endangerment across the planets ecosystems,
counts as apocalyptic climate change predictions somewhat coming true.

Also I totally agree with your disdain for people who don't practice what they preach, but it's worthwhile to note that on the scale these climate issues are discussed individual action really doesn't do much. Most of the actual problem practices are on an industrial scale and require massive changes to industrial operations and supply chains and generally common practices across a whole lot of industries from fishing to manufacturing to energy production.
The solution, or at least the way to mitigate some of the damage that will be done, is only really effective on a public policy level. Asking people to "do their part" won't do fuck all if current legislation remains.

>>10842547
Fucking braindead spastic. The 97% natural CO2 output is what will be absorbed by nature again. It is actually 1. The human 3% is the interest rate. 1.03^n. After 24 years, you have already double the CO2 emission.

>>10842580
Ok, you have no idea whether life can adapt to rapid changes in climate. And this doesn't bother you the slightest? Are you not part of life? If life cannot adapt then what? What will you do? Just step into your space ship and fly to a different planet?