/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6226873
>Do you have strong onions on the issue.
No OP. I don't like having strong onions, for they tend to make me cry.

>>6226873
>I've heard reasonable arguments from both sides.
I don't think you're very good at identifying credible sources of information. It's not as much a "controversy" as some people would like you to believe.

>>6226929
> It's not as much a "controversy" as some people would like you to believe.
>this
The relationship between CO2 and the temperature of the Earth has been known for quite some time. The existential controversy is purely political.

Climate change is a problem, the more immediate being ocean acidification as if it continues at its rate we'll see a massive ecosystem change in our lifetime.
The biggest issue of it all is policy change to prevent all aspects from becoming worse, however with the fracking boom and carbon taxes being laughable, there's no real push from policymakers to do something worthwhile.

>>6226873
It is happening and there is nothing that can be done about it. If we research more energy efficient machines and tools and more effective renewable energy sources, that will mean we will just use more energy and still consume tons of fossil fuels. Only a fraction of the energy "saved" will go to reducing carbon emissions, and for every person who is willing to save energy, there will be more people willing to take advantage of the lower fuel prices.

>>6226933
don't forget about the melting permafrost and the impending methane death ray that's already starting. We are pretty fucked

>>6226948
but muh air conditioning and cheap gas

Climate has been changing since the beginning. However seeing the scope of human impact, its pretty fair to assume that we do have a part in all of this.

But what really grinds my gears are the "models". Climate is an insanely complex system, thinking that some guys can predict sea levels in 100 years to come is potato level retarded. I'm working on all sorts of financial models all day long, it's hard to get any results with several thousand orders of mag easier things than there is with climate. And the climate 'scientists' are making predictions 100 years into the future. That makes more than skeptical on whatever the shit they spew out.

TL;DR

Climate CHANGING?
>yeah
Fault of evil humans?
>some of it, sure
Al Gore said that mod...
>you fuck right off

P.S i remember some guy saying that earth is getting more greener and greener due to higher CO2 levels. Anyone remember that?

Keep in mind:

-The process of determining the causes and perpetrators of global warming are far removed from the formulation of solutions to global warming which in turn are far removed from the political bullshit/corruption from both sides in regards to global warming
-Global warming still isn't as important as vanilla pollution, even in Western nations

>>6227037
That's why climate models are not considered definitive authorities; at the moment, they don't need to be, even if they were highly accurate. The models are being developed to answer "which communities should be evacuated in the next few months" decades from now whereas the more important (and much more politically contentious) questions are "what habits should we be adjusting right now to avoid shit like this".

>>6226873
Earth has been sequestering carbon in ecologically devastating ways for millions of years. Recently the azolla event caused a global mass extinction event. This devastating carbon reduction trend would eventually lead to a frozen over earth, death of almost all live and would take billions of years for continental subduction and mantle based consumption and eventual volcanic release to restore the climate to an above freezing state.

Luckily we came along during a temporary lull in the cooling cycle and have the ability to restore earth's carbon levels. We have a long way to go before we are even close to the paradise earth that existed during the eocene but I have faith this cancerous mentality that earth's climate should be frozen into the state it existed in during the 1400's.

>>6226873

HEY!

Just what the fuck kind of orwellian ass backwards talk is happening here anyways!?


How would people feel about Global Freezing because that seems to be what's actually nappening? yeah!?

>>6227051
It's a definite trend if we don't do something to restore all that sequestered carbon.

>Global Freezing

It will come, always has. It looks like sunspot cycle 25 will be decisive. The current one (24) is already very, very weak. NASA solar physicist David Hathaway: If the trend holds, Solar Cycle 25 in 2022 could be "off the bottom of the charts."

The importance of insolation has been underestimated and the tiny influence of 'anthropogenic' CO2 (how much of the 0.04% is it?) hyped up for political reasons.

>>6227049
>>6227052
>>6227173
faggotsame

>>6227180


>>6227049
and
>>6227052
are me

>>6227173
and
>>6227051

are not

Your populist notion that self flagellation of economies is required to set the earth back in a mythical stable state that existed before the industrial era is ridiculous and unfounded.

No amount of name calling will validate your viewpoint.

>>6227045
but they don't answer any political questions

Is it a good or bad thing?
What is the cost effective effluence charge for CO2?

and some people say that the past 15 years of no warming are just the eye of the storm. do they have more confidence than they did when they forgot to predict any lack of warming?

Imo you get less accuracy and more grant-writing rhetoric from this culture of single-source funding.