/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3474883
>How much longer will we be able to uphold our current society with the rising temperatures?
Indefinitely.

Even the worst projections only have average temperatures going up by a few degrees. You'll wear shorts a little longer, and summer will be less fun, but unless you live in a third world shithole with no air conditioning, the heat won't kill you.

>>3474895
it's not the heat that's going to kill people...

it's the humidity...

jk,jk.

actually it's the changes in rainfall patterns that we're worried about. loss of precipitation, breadbaskets turned to dustbowls, all migrate north and become canadians eh?

I wonder how countries like Africa will deal with this however.

>>3474981
>Africa
>Deal with anything
>mfw

too many unknowns there OP.

we do know that at about 6 degrees C warmer our agriculture will collapse. At about 10 degrees C warmer most life on Earth should die.

Historically the planet's warmed up to those levels at about 8 and 25x current atmospheric co2 levels respectively. So we have a long ways to go if we want to destroy civilization via that route.

the variables that will harm us are our tendency to grow our populations to whatever limits it first, and our capacity for highly efficient war over resources.

those are kinda independent malthusian problems though. Climate will only add to the difficulties. I'd give civilization a 50/50 chance of making it through the next century, and even if we do billions of humans will have to die every time we have a particularly warm dry spell.

there'll be plenty more where they came from though.

bump for interest

>>3475008

And they're all coming from Africa

My main concern is that the same factors which have made Africa a shithole might develop throughout the world due to global warming, with similar results.

The question is really whether the technology of the developed world will be enough to offset the impact of climate change to a degree great enough to prevent environmental pressures from causing the collapse of civilization.

A new Dark Ages--or worse--could easily be the result of climate change if it is not properly addressed.

I believe Africa is a doomed continent even without global warming.

yeah NYC is fucked as well as any other coast metropolis

>mfw I live 610m above sea

> mfw nasa satellites find out all that global warming is simply being released into the

mdpi(dot)com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

>>3478269

into space

>screwed within the next century
Even with modern science, I doubt I will live into the 2100s.
Let our future generations deal with it.

Feels good man.

>>3478269
>>3478286

Did you even read the paper?

There's nothing to "adapt" to, thus we will all be fine.

/thread

>>3478307

> 2011
> /sci/
> offering nothing of substance one way or another

I certainly hope you are doing this.

Seriously, shit's on fire all over the map. Russian is burning again, West Texas is about to go up and the Alaskan tundra is on fire as we sit here.

For more shits and grins, George Friedman, the founder of Stratfor, a highly rated private intelligence outfit, has recently written a book of projections in which he estimates a major war with Mexico (!) in 2040, due in part to climate change and the collapse of society south of the border.

The future is not bright, friends.

>>3478320
>The future is not bright, friends.

I don't fear a war with Mexico in the slightest. Say it happens. What're they gonna do other than get completely destroyed?

>>3478337
Nuke a few cities.

>>3478363
>Mexico
>nukes
...

>>3478337
>no fear of Mexico
You obviously don't live in Los Angeles, Arizona, Texas or New York or Chicago.

>>3478385
>fear
>of Mexico
As a country? In a war? No.

>>3478400

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

>>3478269

> mfw nasa satellites find out all that global warming is simply being released into the

That's only being said by one guy. He's a creationist funded by the Heartland Institute, a Libertarian thinktank.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in
-global-warming-alarmism/

>>3478310
>thinks saying /thread makes him witty

goback2fawxnews

>>3478406

See:

>>3478421

Median earth temperatures are not rising. Nor ocean temperatures.

>>3478400

http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html

New research suggesting that cloud cover, not carbon dioxide, causes global warming is getting buzz in climate skeptic circles. But mainstream climate scientists dismissed the research as unrealistic and politically motivated.

"It is not newsworthy," Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.

The study, published July 26 in the open-access online journal Remote Sensing, got public attention when a writer for The Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank that promotes climate change skepticism, wrote for Forbes magazine that the study disproved the global warming worries of climate change "alarmists." However, mainstream climate scientists say that the argument advanced in the paper is neither new nor correct. The paper's author, University of Alabama, Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, is a climate change skeptic and controversial figure within the climate research community.

"He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer's new study.

We are actually headed into a new small ice age.
Problem is: We'd better off with a warming planet

www.yahoo.com/news/us/2011/new-nasa-data-blows-gapping-holes-in-mexico

>>3478435
>We'd better off with a warming planet

howdy retard

However, no climate scientist contacted by LiveScience agreed.

The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. "What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear."

Other researchers pointed to flaws in Spencer's paper, including an "unrealistic" model placing clouds as the driver of warming and a lack of information about the statistical significance of the observed temperature changes. Statistical significance is the likelihood of results being real, as opposed to chance fluctuations unrelated to the other variables in the experiment.

"I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Several researchers expressed frustration that the study was attracting media attention.

"If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime," Schmidt said. "Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record."

Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming. But he dismissed research on the ancient climate, calling it a "gray science."

The science of Spencer's work proved inextricable from the political debate surrounding global warming. The paper was mostly unnoticed in the public sphere until the Forbes blogger declared it "extremely important."

Dessler, the A&M climatologist said that he doubted the research would shift the political debate around global warming.

"It makes the skeptics feel good, it irritates the mainstream climate science community, but by this point, the debate over climate policy has nothing to do with science," Dessler said. "It's essentially a debate over the role of government," surrounding issues of freedom versus regulation.

Spencer himself is up front about the politics surrounding his work. In July, he wrote on his blog that his job "has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism," and said he viewed his role as protecting "the interests of the taxpayer." When asked why his work failed to gain mainstream acceptance, Spencer cited funding as a motivation for climate change researchers to find problems with the environment.

>>3478441
Never heard of the 12th century ice age right giantor retard?

>>3478400

>"The study, published July 26 in the open-access online journal Remote Sensing, got public attention when a writer for The Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank that promotes climate change skepticism, wrote for Forbes magazine that the study disproved the global warming worries of climate change "alarmists."

>The Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank that promotes climate change skepticism

>>3478444
trips by the retard himself

>>3478434
The Heartland Institute is funded by the petroleum industry.

>mfw it was 44 degrees in july 1922. it was so hot the steel rail way lines where bending and had to be replaced.

no fucking such thing as global warming.

>>3478457

>The Heartland Institute is funded by the petroleum industry.

I know that. I'm on your side.

>>3478458

>no fucking such thing as global warming.

Or evolution, right? Them scientists be lyin', and gettin' you pissed.

Lemme see here. If the IPCC paper is wrong, then all the world's government meteorological offices got together at a Bilderberg meeting and forged a global hoax.

Sounds about right.

>>3478458
>It was hot then too!
And therefore all the dumping of greenhouse gases means nothing?

Where do you honestly think all our fossil fuel emissions go? Does the invisible hand of the market wave all that stuff away?

>>3478477
Evolution and global warming do not have the same amount of support in the scientific community.

>>3478458
you seem to have trouble constructing coherent sentences, let me help you:
>mfw I have autism

>>3478523

>Evolution and global warming do not have the same amount of support in the scientific community.

Yes they do. What you mean to say is that you, personally, don't consider them equally credible and you assume the scientific community reflects that.

>>3478523
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-hu
man-activity?_s=PM:WORLD
90-97 percent of scientists believe Global Warming is real
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
95-100 percent of scientists believe Evolution is real
Within the margins, you're wrong.

>>3478523
>>3478523
>>3478523
>>3478523
>>3478523
>>3478523
>>3478523
>>3478523
>>3478523
What's the matter troll got nothin' to say?

I live on the religion belt. Everyone around here believes that the warmer temperatures is related directly to the End of Days.

I myself am a non-denominational Christian, however, not even I am that superstitious.

Earth Sciences and religion should never like that.

>inb4 i'm told to gtfo

>>3480424

*mix and match like that.

>>3478533
It's also good to note that, depending on how you're talking about them, evolution and global warming are both facts of nature.

>>So what do you think /sci/, are we going to be able to adapt to the changes in time or are we screwed within the next century?

Saw Waterworld. I am not worry.

>>3480430

Sure they are facts of nature. But on what time scale is the globe warming? How long will it continue to warm? Is it entirely anthropogenic? What can be done to curb warming in the event that it is?

The simple fact that the globe is warming is useless without accompanying information describing how and why. Such information remains elusive and THIS is the problem.

Migrate. Evolve. What living organisms have been doing since forever.

>>3474981

>countries like Africa