/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6690859
If American : Vote democrat
If not American : Vote for whatever party cares about this issue more

Simple as that OP

\thread

Accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord & Savior.

>>6690864
The best course of action as a society. Not personally.

>>6690867
Get rid of pets.

>>6690867
That is the best course of action either way. When we have more top-people giving a shit about this issue, only then will it get solved.

The end goal likely being a massive overhaul of our industrial factories and production of more "green" power sources/technologies.

>>6690879
>top-people giving a shit
top lel

>>6690864
not all republicans deny climate change. Just don't vote for a crazy person...from either party.

>>6690883
Agreed. However, the amount of "crazy republicans" far outnumber the amount of "crazy democrats". Republicans often "run on crazy", especially in the South and Midwest. Plus the biggest faction of the republican party (the tea-party) has a platform that straight up includes climate change denial (the main republican platform probably does to).

People tell me it's a waste of time to vote green party. But is it a waste of time only because people think it is? I don't feel like any candidates in the field can do what is necessary. Whatever that may be. Much more than we're doing.

>>6690859
>What is the best course of action to survive/stop climate change?
Maybe it's my limited view, but I don't see a way we can stop it. I don't see a way we can cut our greenhouse emissions before it's too late either.

>>6690859
I think not giving a fuck about it is a good way to deal with climate change.

>>6690924
I attempt to take a cosmic view of reality. It helps to think how small we are. But part of me wants the human race to continue. I don't know why, but I do.

>>6690859
I think we should give iron fertilisation another look personally . . .

>>6690859
monetize it

>>6690859

Move inland.

>>6691000
Turn the system against itself.

>>6690927
I think we all want the human race to continue because we all part of the human race. I certainly wouldn't be pleased to see the human race perish within my life-time that's for sure.

>>6690968
http://planetsave.com/2014/07/02/ocean-fertilization-dangerous-experiment-gone-right/

>>6690864
>Vote Democrat
Hahaha. No.

>>6690879
>top-people giving a shit
>voting

What are you, a nigger?
Democracy isn't going to get anything done. Democracy is just a popularity contest for fools and faggots. Are you a fool or a faggot?

Build new reactors, fuck the cost. Cut off the supply then clean up the remaining mess

[thorium intensifies]

Also:
>supporting authoritarian cockweasels to regiment every aspect of our lives because of this
Humans can adapt

>>6690859
If you are only interested in your mortality then I wouldn't worry, you will survive it even if you don't do anything. The world won't magically be uninhabitable in 10 years. It'll probably take a couple centuries to start seeing the more severe ramifications of it such as the complete melting of the ice caps. You will die before climate change ever poses a danger to you.

However if you are a forward thinker interested in saving future generations then you are best off try to lower your carbon footprint and getting others interested in that and greener energy as well. Write to politicians and throw your support in for people and or parties that are willing to shift energy dependence away from fossil fuels.

There are probably a host of other things you can do too but these are some of the most accessible and are very social ways to propagate change.

>>6690859
genetically engineer ebola to spread as easily as flu

>>6690859
>to survive climate change
"SURVIVE" climate change? Seriously? You have watched too many Hollywood disaster movies (like The Day After Tomorrow).
It will be an inconvenience, sure. But a threat to human survival? Hahaha, you gotta be kidding me.

>>6691098
You may wanna do some research on your icecap statement. Ice sheet loss is accelerating. We're gonna have ice free Greenland in the summer months within a decade.

But otherwise, yeah, you live in a first world country, the price of food will get insane as you get into retirement but you'll be dead before your kids and grandkids get all the real suffering.

>>6691244
Let me know when you figure out how to rehouse 634 million people when the sea levels rise.

When food prices rise and rise and rise, and purse-strings get tighter and tighter.

The next decade or so is going to suck economically, we already have vast swathes of countries in mass protest or civil war due to their government not delivering, and it will only get worse out there.

>>6691244
>even if this guy is trolling, people actually think like this

1) Replace all coal power with wind power

2) Stop driving pick up trucks with 6 liter gasoline engine and start using public transport. If a car is absolutely necessary, then a Volkswagen Polo 1.2 TDI or something. Increase fuel tax so much that nobody will want to drive a huge car.

3) Stahp eating meat. Cows, sheep etc fart methane thats even worse greenhouse gas than CO2

>>6691300
But if age related death is cured in my lifetime I'll still be around

Stop the sun from orbiting the earth.

>>6690859

move south

The free-market.

Why would you wan to stop it?

>>6691021
This.

You can't stop climate change. All of human culture and history has told us this undeniable fact. Humans can try to control our environment as hard as we can, but the environment will always win in the end.

We must focus all of our efforts on surviving and outlasting it. We must adapt to a changing world, as we have always done.

>>6691378
>implying that isn't a photoshop of a 2007 cover about global warming

http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20070409,00.html

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

Turn off the faux news buddy. They are straight up lying to you at this point.

>>6690876
Kangaroo meat is carbon neutral

>>6691302
>Let me know when you figure out how to rehouse 634 million people when the sea levels rise.
Well, you speak as if the sea levels will rise all at once overnight. They will not, it will be a long, slow, extensive process over time.

Rehousing 634 million people over the course of 20 years isn't that huge a problem. That is only 32 million people a year, there are more people moving than that every year normally. Building an extra 15-20 million residences a year is not a huge impossible task, in fact it will stimulate the economy. Hell we can move a few million of those into all the empty real estate in China and already make a big dent in the problem.

>When food prices rise and rise and rise, and purse-strings get tighter and tighter.
Well, I don't really see food prices rising all that much when more and more farmland is in warmer, more productive arable land that can be farmed to produce a higher yield, sure there's some cost involved in relocating the farmland but in this case more valuable farmland is being created so it's not a negative.

>The next decade or so is going to suck economically,
It's not going to happen in the next decade you moron, stop drinking the al gore koolaid. The next 30-50 years, sure, it's going to be a problem, it's going to keep getting slowly worse in the next decade as it has over the last. But it is still happening at far too slow of a rate to seriously hurt the economy.

>>6690864
>vote democrat to stop climate change

>>6691394
>6691394▶
> >>6691021
> This.
Still we should take any action we can to mitigate the coming changes. Giving up is so disgusting.

>>6691442
Where do you think all those coastal cities are going to move to? The central areas of the continent have a lot of farmland people are going to want to live on. The forests will probably be cut down to accommodate movements of populations and changing of arable areas.

>>6691080
Short of overthrowing the US government there is little meaningful action except voting. Voting for politicians with true ideals, not the same old career politicians who will say anything and be anything to gain power.

>>6691562
>Where do you think all those coastal cities are going to move to?
A city takes up a miniscule amount of space.

New York City has a land area of 304.8 square miles. It has a population of 8,405,837. Montana has a land area of 147,040 square miles. You could fit New York City into Montana approximately 482 times. Doing that in terms of population would put 4,055,099,319 people in the state of Montana. That's over half the population of the world. Over half the entire world, in one state, in one country, on one continent, completely ignoring the fact that every continent has its own inland areas and coasts and its own populations and its own economies.

Alaska has a land area of 663,268 square miles. You could fit NYC in Alaska over 2000 times, you could fit over eighteen billion people in Alaska at that density. Granted much of that land is coastal and the area actually includes 13.77% water area anyway but most of it is not. And that is over two and a half times the current world population.

Fags who think land area matters are completely fucking clueless and have clearly never looked at back of the envelope calculations. Forests aren't going to be cut down, mass areas of farmland aren't going to be developed, we aren't going to run out of farmland and living space. That is completely ludicrous. Resources and wealth running thinner, certainly. Economic difficulty over a 50-year span, sure. But catastrophic deforestation, loss of farmland, overdevelopment, inability to provide housing or lack of living space? The numbers simply do not add up like that.

>>6690864
>If American : Vote democrat
Are you retarded?

Going to another planet?

>>6690864
oh yeah, climate change trumps all other issues. or something.

>>6690882
Perhaps top-people should leave their estates and jet off to New Zealand for a conference on the issue.

>>6691579
You are a god among men. Thank you.

>>6690859
Why do you want it to stop?
Remain indifferent, it will eventually return to its equilibrium state according to thermodynamics

>>6691579
The fact that we have cities like new York with ultra dense populations is part of the problem. And you assume that land that are currently inhabitable will still be so in the future. Imagine tornado alley, but several times worse. Will that be something we have to worry about? Extreme weather events. Areas to hot or cold for practical habitation.

What is the current projected timeline for warming? I see different sets of numbers everywhere. Some people seem to think this is all centuries away and others say it will start to get really bad over the next decade or two.

>>6691916
Yeah, millions of years after we're all dead...

>>6690859

Extreme investment in carbon capture then a full rollout of the technology.

Gas should be stored in the disused north sea oil fields.

>>6690968
Any other promising carbon sequestration methods out there?

>>6690859
Kick out the republicans

\thread

>>6690910
If no one votes green, then no one votes green.

But your one vote doesn't matter anyway. 45% will vote A and 45% will vote B, every time.

But voting green does something that voting A or B doesn't. It lets both sides know that x% care enough about a subject to vote for someone that can't win.

It's a protest vote which identifies the source of protest, because fuck it, it's always going to alternate Dems Reps, all we can change is the policies these groups fight for.

>>6691442
I'm English, so Al Gore hasn't been near me, and in fact I despise the man for profiteering and fear mongering.

BUT facts are facts. The picture is just a graph of sea level rise, it's nothing serious, but each inch is several billions extra liters of water that flood defenses have to deal with. It's a rather undeniable evidence of icecap melt that can be measured from anywhere in the world.

Rising temperatures are leading to more and more flooding and droughts as hotter air shifts water around more aggressively. This is leading to farming becoming harder and harder as weather becomes less reliable and water for irrigation is having to be found somewhere.

America is rather insulated from these issues at the moment, with its vast stockpiles, I on the other hand am experiencing these changes first hand.

https://timetric.com/index/uk_price_bread_white_loaf_sliced_800g/

Since the year 2000 the price of bread has doubled. The price of bread had tracked inflation rather nicely until then.

https://timetric.com/index/VlWL8sXDSGqWn2GO44xSjw/

Beef mince has done a very similar thing. Farming is getting harder and harder and is only going to get worse.

Our current model of agriculture is not adapting to the climactic change.

Couple this with rising oil prices and the price of everything is going up and up.

We are paying hand over fist to fuck ourselves with our current setup.

>>6692200
I've been thinking a lot about phytoremediation lately. It's only being considered for cleaning up super-fund sites and other toxic hot spots, but I think the idea could be taken much further. Using plants bred or modified to sequester carbon or break down/store toxic substances.

The problem with global warming is that there is too much disinformation on both sides.

Is it real? Yes, it definitely is. Will it cause the end of human civilization? No.

It will cause many species to die out but ultimately humanity will continue at a small economic cost.

>>6691579
You could, but we're not trying to build a complete dystopian future here.

We could house everyone underground and use the surface of the planet for agriculture, but we'd all go insane and stir crazy.

Putting the entire population in buildings that can float on rail tethers. Putting all our housing on stilts, build massive dikes.

All these are options but all of them fuck our way of life if we do them all in one go.

The population of the world isn't going to move to Montana, not only due to border issues and resource issues, but because people don't change until it's already too late or they've been hurt by something they could have avoided.

My local township didn't build flood defenses until AFTER we were flooded, even though all the local business got fucked by big storms 4 years in a row, they didn't agree to build long-term defenses until the damage was already done.

If we don't start shifting and changing now, we won't be ready in time. It doesn't matter if the problem is 10 years or 30 years down the line.

Al Gore ran for presidency wanting to do something about global warming. That was a long time ago, and America has always been WAYYY behind the science ball in politics. If we'd started making changes back then there wouldn't be economic damage from going green, because the changes could have been slow enough. We're decades down the line and we haven't managed to change anything. When the time comes it will be too late and we will lose everything.

>>6692285
It's going to completely fuck our way of life is what it's going to do.

>>6692285
People say climate change activists are alarmists. Which is true. They're telling everyone that it's time to be fucking alarmed. Act now. Act decisively.

>>6692301

It will be a slow change over hundreds of years. As rain patterns migrate, agricultural areas will migrate. As the oceans rise, flood defenses will be built or cities will migrate inland.

The real concern would be highly vulnerable/sensitive ecosystems like coral reefs. They will be lost but humanity will continue in a relatively okay manner.

Should we do something? Yeah sure. The thing that gets me though is the disinformation distributed by some pro-green groups. It pisses me off to no end.

>>6690859
>best course of action
denial is easiest, and always works
Just Say No

>>6691579

Montana is in the middle of fucking nowhere and Alaska is a frozen wasteland. That's why they're Montana and Alaska and not New York.

>>6692352

His post was a simple example to display how small city regions are. It wasn't meant to be taken at face value.

>>6692359
>It wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
FTFY

>>6690910
Irish here.
Do not trust the Green Party.
The coalition with Fianna Fail brought the country to it's knees

>>6692325
Again I have to question whether this will be gradual or quick. I suppose that depends on if we change course or not. But what effects will be seen and when?

>>6692375
Tell me more. Is the Irish green party affiliated with american?

>>6692352
So what your graph is saying is we should all live like Cuba.

What a bright future we all have to look forward to.

>>6692389

The effects are SLOW. For example just look at the predicted sea level rises from the IPCC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#IPCC_Third_Assessment

These results are a bit outdated but they give a good enough indication. At 2100 the sea level will be between 110 to 770mm higher.

The economic damage this will cause can easily be negotiated over the period of a century. Just think how quickly economic areas can change and adapt in 20 years, let alone 100 years.

>>6690859
Learn what the scientific method is.

>>6692407
OK, but what about changes to weather patterns and intensification of weather events. As far as I can tell that's happening presently. Droughts, floods, and nasty storms.

>>6692426
Wut.

build one of these !

>>6691556
It's foolish to try to fight a war you can't win, though.

If I had millions of dollars to invest in a geographic region, I would do so in one that isn't going to be underwater in 100 years.

You can build as many barriers as you want but it's still not going to be enough. Venice is nice and all but all things are temporary and it's just an exercise in futility to try and prevent it. You're much better off working with the change, and adapting to it.

>>6692444
The less you have to adapt the better.

>>6692325
slow change, rain patterns,flood defenses will be built, coral reefs, hahahahahahahahahaha...
you are funny.....

We've been on a gradual warming trend for millennia. This is what ancient cultures talked about. Humans have always settled near water. Water has been rising. It stands to reason that many great human civilizations have been lost due to rising sea levels over the course of our long history. This is what Noah's flood, and the many other flood tales have been about, this is not news. It has been ingrained in every culture in subtle ways, all over the world. It can't be stopped, it's always described as an impossible to overcome force. All we can do is adapt and try to make it through.

Population reduction would go a long way to reducing carbon emissions. USA vs China gogogo.

Population reduction would go a long way to reducing carbon emissions. USA vs China gogogo.

>>6692359

You know, constantly rotating our workers from GigaTex City to our copper mines in Chile is a huge drain on resources and a major logistical headache. I think we should build some type of permanent settlement and associated amenities right next to the mines and have all our miners live there permanently.

>>6692438

Yes, we will see weather patterns effected at a faster rate than ocean levels. Again though, not equate this to an end of the world scenario.

Some areas are expected to see lower levels of precipitation and others are predicted to experience higher levels. Overall I think you underestimate the power of the economy. Agriculture will move to more favorable areas.

>>6692450

What do you propose instead?

Can we anticipate where favorable areas will be? Will there be a time gap where little food is grown due to shifting of growing regions?

Change won't come from the top. Our leaders won't take action unless they perceive support from constituents. The best thing to do is keep talking about all of this and convince as many people as possible of the seriousness of this issue and encourage others to speak out on the same way. Society must change its ways, you can't legislate that.

>>6692451
Mythology on the science board... Next it will be ancient aliens.

>>6692325
Examples of disinformation?

>>6691302
>Let me know when you figure out how to rehouse 634 million people when the sea levels rise.

Global warming will cause a net increase in habitable land. The rise in sea level will be completely overshadowed by the increased land available at high latitudes. And since this shift will occur over centuries, relocating will be relatively costless. A significant sea level rise this century would require warming far greater than the current IPCC estimates (which are already seeming to be a bit on the high side).

Global warming may cause net harm rather than net benefits, but it is by no means clear which is the case.

There's no stopping it now. Lots of people are going to die (mainly due to wars, I'd say). If you want to survive personally, I'd recommend learning stuff like how to fight, how to climb, how to swim, how to shoot a gun, how to cook, how to fix things, stuff like that... I think it's hard to say exactly which skills will be the most valuable, though.

>>6692505
The acidification of oceans is what worries me. Fishing is a major source of food for many populations.

>>6692573

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9YOVuEQugE

>>6692505
What a bunch of crap

>>6691074
Are there any more iron fertilization experiments being done? Ones where the data will hopefully be recorded?

>>6690859

Ride a bicycle, live in a tiny house, and vote for greenie socialism. Subservience is the way to go! The fact that this give FedGov much desired power is purely coincidental.

Anyone who doesn't believe in Climate Change is an evil denier.

>>6694146
You realize you are showing your bias as well? You dislike climate change because of the political implications. Your interpretation of the data is meant to fit your preferred conclusion that climate change isn't real, because if it were real the state could use it as a justification to expand its power.

Why is the answer we get from the libertarians denial? Why don't libertarians ever try to put forth a free market solution to global warming? The free market can fix anything, surely it can fix global warming.

>>6694146

>Anyone who doesn't believe in Climate Change is an evil denier.

And they're not very good at math either!

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-fire-tornadoes-firenado-science-20140515-story.html

>>6691790
climate change trumps petty squabbles that most repub/democrat is

unless you wanna have us all die in 2030

>>6690859

That's quite a question. The global system of climate has a load of differing factors, including tectonics, albedo, thermohaline currents, Milankovich cycles, global ice volume, ocean composition, foliage density, etc... There are so many different systems that play a role, it's hard to say what we might accidentally do if drastically change one. We simply do not have a good picture of how all of these different systems tie to together to produce global climate.

That's even assuming the climate change is going to be an extreme negative. With humanity's track record in dealing with crises, I predict that there will be more damage from agencies/governments trying to stop/change the climate then if we just did nothing and bear the consequences of rapid industrialization.

The usual answers though, do apply. Reduce, reuse, recycle. If we are more efficient and waste less, we produce less garbage, pollutants, and other ecology destroying byproducts. The biggest culprit for climate change is thought to be CO2 and methane levels. Cheap, easy to produce alternative energy to fossil fuels would certainly be a big help in slowing down CO2 release into the atmosphere.

>>6694301
Like other people said. Incentivize good behavior like recycling and such. Stop giving polluters money.

>>6690898
Democrats are staunchly anti-GMO, anti-nuclear power, favor extra taxes on medical devices and their development, are opposed to education reform of any kind, oppose pension reform of any kind even when the current system is bankrupting major cities, and prominent left-wing advocates like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. have been and continue to be some of the loudest voices in the anti-vaccination and anti-fluoridation movements.

Republicans, on the other hand, gave us NASA (though Clinton gutted its budget by 25%), the first moon landing, the EPA, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Super Conducting Super Collider (that Clinton canceled), the EPA, and the National Park Service.

There is no party of science in the US. There is only a great big pile of whiney, feuding lawyers that think they're smarter than they really are.

>>6690910
Don't vote for the Green Party. Their candidate in 2008 was an outspoken conspiracy theorist. Cynthia McKinney is a 9/11 troofer and claimed the Red Cross rounded up and executed young black men during Katrina and dumped their bodies in a swamp. And the Pentagon was in on it for some reason.

That's not a joke.

>>6690859
Move to a different location on the planet.

>republicans
>democrats
>etc.

Fuck off.

>>6694763

>>6694763
>gnosis is a policy
See: Vatican City.
>communism has state
Nope.
>fascism = eugenics.
Nope.
>monarchy is worse than fascism.
Dude, my sides!

>>6694775
>making those objections
>no mention of the left side of the chart

>>6694775
> has tinfoil hat dude
> taking it seriously

>>6694778
>Implying I need to object this when
>Erisianism can't exist and neither can syndicalism.

>>6694791
>implying you need to object to anything
>implying it isn't clearly a joke
>implying anyone who takes it seriously would understand or have any interest in reasonable objections

>>6694796
>Implying implicatorial nigga yo sup

>stop climate change?

>>6694986
good job keeping up with the conversation.

http://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Australian%E2%80%93US_team_of_scientists_finds_Atlantic_warming_causes_Pacific_climate_trends

Man this shit is complicated.

>>6694273

>And they're not very good at math either!

Did you even bother to do the SIMPLE math?
You know calculating slope*time to get the change in temperature as of now, 2014?

DO IT! The total change is 0.0753 degrees Celsius ADDED to the temperatures. That means that the graphed temperatures have been given a net positive amount. Meaning the temperature anomaly (and actual slope) is
COLDER that that depicted.

Your silly buddies over at Simpleton Science can't even calculate y = slope*x
What a joke!

>>6695690

We already knew you weren't very bright. There's no need to provide any more evidence.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17655/does-this-graph-show-climate-change-predictions-dont-meet-observations

>>6694993
>denialists
>ever being part of the conversation

>>6690859

Build a colony on mars and don't invite any retarded people along. Then sit back and let the Earth sort its own bullshit out.

>>6696223

>I know I'm not very bright
That's OK, you will learn. Look here. The predictions of UN IPCC AR4 with updated temperatures and regression lines. Funny, it looks very similar to
>>6694146

Even the UN IPCC thinks you're wrong.
>nb4 Rejected from AR5!
ITS FROM UN IPCC AR4!

The shame of their failed predictions prevented them from republishing the truth in AR5.

>>6697440
Not that guy.
>Central predictions
Why didn't you say you were fucking retarded? Drawing a line though the middle of a distribution tells you nothing, the credibility regions on the other hand give you lots of information. It doesn't even guarantee that is the most likely prediction.

Secondly the last data point has no error bars.

Leave the graph alone.

>ITS FROM UN IPCC AR4!
No it'snot. That graph is equally retarded. No errors or uncertainties and it selects data which is completely at conflict with more traditionally valued data with no explanation for this censorship.

>>6696223

Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Gavin Schmidt, "While errors in maths undoubtedly exist, the failure of models to match real world far more likely due to erroneous assumptions”

Even NASA says you're wrong.

https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/340784995436199936

>>6697448

You know the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? Yes its from UN IPCC AR4.

Questions.
Do you even know what a regression line is?
Do you even know what the bounding values are at the right of the graph? Hint: Confidence Intervals

Let's do the math (but you look up linear regression). There are 4 points below the CIs.
As I've said before:

>Statistically speaking, the models have failed. The 4 data points are all below the confidence intervals. They are 95% CIs, so that there is only a 2.5% probability of things being beyond that. (0.0025^4) = 0.0000004. Less then 1 in a million!

>Now yes, you can argue, what about the error bars! Well the error bars (about 1/3 chance beyond) are still at the edge of the CIs except the lowest ones. So you can grind through the (very rough estimate) calculations (2/3 * 0.025^4) + (1/3 * 1/3^4) = 0.01 (this is the most generous interpretation.)

>Yes these are very quick and dirty, but they illustrate the point. The models are total statistical failures.

>>6697463
>Yes its from UN IPCC AR4.
My mistake, I though't you were quoting someone about the other graph.

>Do you even know what a regression line is?
That's not what is shown for the prediction which was my point. You have no idea what the shape of the distribution is. You can't fit a line without the distribution.

>Do you even know what the bounding values are at the right of the graph?
Which you ignored with the lines.

>There are 4 points below the CIs.
A climate model predicts trends, not year on year points.

>>6697440
>linear regression
>anchored to first data point

Suspicious.

>>6690864
>Voting for the right politicians will fix everything
>there's nothing else that we, as citizens, need to do
Consider suicide

>>6697440
>>6697449

Spencer used the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 predictions for all the models. RCP 8.5 represents the highest CO2 emissions, thus the greatest climate change, making it clear that he intentionally selected the RCP value which results in the greatest predicted increases because that will maximize the difference between predictions and observations. He wanted people to see and share the chart as-is, hoping that they wouldn't dig too deeply into what it's actually saying.

>>6691394

>The environment will always win in the end

I think the agricultural revolution, the modern usage of airplanes, and the space shuttle all represent instances where we made the environment our bitch successfully.

I suppose in an abstract sense you're right, eventually the sun will explode and if the sun's an element of the environment the environment wins by default, but you put no faith in human ingenuity to solve a problem once it actually becomes pressing when we've always dealt just fine before.

>>6698874
There is enough kinetic energy hitting 10 miles of coastline in an hour to launch a shuttle beyond high earth orbit. Closer to 2 shuttles, but I'm watching a movie.

We will always be the bitch of the environment.

>>6690859
I think the best course of action is by not giving a shit. Yes, just ignore that climate change even exists, and you should be fine.

>>6697591

Reference?

>>6697591

So you trust Simpleton Science more than NASA GISS?
>>6697449

Please provide two primary references (not simpleton science)
1) Show that Spencer used RCP 8.5
2) Show that current greenhouse gas concentrations are significantly less than RCP 8.5

screw you guys, I'm going to space

>>6699220
How does going into space solve anything?

>Surive/stop climate change.

Ho ho ho

http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change/

>>6699219

>1) Show that Spencer used RCP 8.5

It says so right on his image in >>6694146 ; the little _rcp85_ appended to each of the lines on the graph.

>2) Show that current greenhouse gas concentrations are significantly less than RCP 8.5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways

If only all my enemies could be as dumb as you are.

>>6691795
kiwi here. are you implying we are green?

If america and china didn't exist global warming literally wouldn't exist. We need to get these two nations to acceptable energy numbers. Especially america since china has the excuse of having a billion people.

>>6699478
america and china is in the top 5 most populated countries.

>>6699370
> The graphs don't go negative

Well there's your problem. Fear mongers conveniently forget about the possibility of carbon sequestration. Once solar power is based on nanomaterials rather than rare earths (2030-2045, IMO), electricity prices will plummet. With that, sequestration also becomes cheap. After that, it's only a problem of economic incentives, which the EU is currently trying to set up.

>>6699478
Limiting ourselves to suit the needs of the environment is beneath us. If the world inconveniences us, we reshape the world. That is what separates man from beast. We outgrow our chains, rather than conform to them.

The last one was the first.

>>6699454
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathways

>Hurr durr RCP 8.5 so Spencer and NASA GISS are wrong.

You're about as stupid as they come.

There is no meaningful difference in the RCP paths up to 2014! Where the data end in the graph... So the RCP level has no relevance whatsoever!

You've really got to stop slurping the kool-aid over at Simpleton Science. Or just admit that AGW is an unfalsifiable pseudo science.

Answer these two questions (though you won't because you can't)

1) For a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. What plausible scenario would falsify climate change theory?

2) Since you believe climate change is so proven, name a single substantive prediction that has come true for climate change.

Substantive = based on a causal connection to anthropogenic CO2 and clearly distinguished from normal climate.

Prediction = before-the-fact, not hindsight or after-the fact.

>nb4 Simpleton Science says wait 'centennial' years for falsification...

>>6699370

Where in the wiki article does it way which RCP path has occurred up to the present time? That is the relevant question.

>>6699454

We're at almost 400 ppm CO2 right now, throw in the other greenhouse gases and that puts us on RCP 8.5!

>nb4 Aersols. There haven't been any recebt major eruptions and the majority of Chinese coal burning output aerosols stay local.

>>6700719

>2) Since you believe climate change is so proven, name a single substantive prediction that has come true for climate change.

Pic related.

>Substantive = based on a causal connection to anthropogenic CO2 and clearly distinguished from normal climate.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

>>6701996
>http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

Didn't answer the falsifiability question, because AGW is not falsifiable.

And the iopscience article is a load of crap. But that is all you can do because you have such a low level of understanding of AGW "theory." Hurr durr, link to article... Hide behind authority.

I repeat, NASA GISS said that the models are wrong
>>6697449
And NOTHING in the article you linked to demonstrates a causal link predictive link to anthropogenic AGW.
I quote your article:
>In conclusion, the rise in CO2 concentration and global temperature has continued to closely match the projections over the past five years,
There Has Been No Temperature Rise in the Past 5 Years. They are flat-out lying!!!

You have failed to provide a successful causually based prediction of AGW.

You have failed to provide a falsifiability criterion.

>>6702456

>And the iopscience article is a load of crap. But that is all you can do because you have such a low level of understanding of AGW "theory." Hurr durr, link to article... Hide behind authority.

There’s no light the foolish can see better by.

>>6702555

Oh boy, Simpleton Science draws a diagonal line through 15 years of flat temps. Contradicting AGW predictions
>>6694146
>>6697440

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." - Kevin Trenberth

Since then, there have been many different excuses for "the pause" in global warming; see attached pic. Now you're saying there isn't a pause. You've really got to get your story straight.

>>6702555

You win the Cherry Picking trophy.
See temp history (attached) from Liu et al. (2014), The Holocene temperature conundrum, PNAS.

You are foolish indeed.
>nb4 But look at Marcott!
Marcott has been debunked. His proxies actually decline in the recent past, but he redated them (way off) to create an incline.

>>6702624

Pic here.

>>6694155
Libertarians aren't afraid about Global Warming. Even if they were, they would have to be free to create efficient systems. If the government requires certain regulations be adhered to, contradicting an inventor's solution -- especially if they're not crafted by experts -- then there can't possibly be anyone that would be allowed to create their own solutions unless it complied to said regulations. Of course, that would mean that we're not in a free market society.

But if you would prefer to place the burden on the idea of free markets rather than the idea of government control -- seeing as they get their money and stay in existence no matter how bad they screw up -- that's your business.

>>6692222
>45%/45% every single election
>third parties don't exist

Friendly reminder there is no meaningful difference a single country can make
Friendly reminder any economy killing measures you can put into place will only hurt the poor driving up food/gas/energy prices
Friendly reminder that even if you could somehow get every western country on board and stop emissions without somehow completely destroying the economy the People's Republic of China will pump out enough shit into the air to block out the sun in China completely undoing everything you have done
Friendly reminder India is only two steps behind the PRC
Friendly reminder there is no point in throwing yourself on this economic sword when it will do no good

>>6690859
>survive climate change
well find a way.
entropy man entropy
us dying is counteracting.

>>6702625

I always thought AGW skeptics didn't believe in the "Hockey Stick."

>>6702597
>Since then, there have been many different excuses for "the pause" in global warming; see attached pic. Now you're saying there isn't a pause. You've really got to get your story straight.
There's no pause. A small linear increase with strong random fluctuations will inevitable contain periods that look like stagnation. But they are never real, over longe enough timescales, the trend is always there.

>they are never real, over longe enough timescales

>>6702909
>the clashing time axes
Ah
Hahah
Aahahahahahah

>>6702909
>Data becomes more detailed as we approach the current time

>>6703376

true dat

>>6702597
Oh great, another woo spewing ideologue.

>>6702821

You're cherry picking which proxy you like. And as stated before in
>>6702624
>nb4 But look at Marcott!
>Marcott has been debunked. His proxies actually decline in the recent past, but he redated them (way off) to create an incline.

Marcott got caught fraudulently redating his proxies to get the uptick. The correctly dated proxy has a downturn, see attached. But you've got to "hide the decline," right?

In any case, when push comes to shove, he admitted that the uptick had no statistical significance.

" the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/f our conclusions."

And that was in an AGW believer website!!

>>6702892

Yeah, that explains why the talked about "the pause," and "the missing heat." Then they came up with several different explanations like "the ocean swallowed the heat."

Anything for the unfalsifiable pseudo-science, eh?

>>6703392

Oh great, a believer in the secular religion of AGW. But wait, there's been no warming for 15 years, so now its called Climate Change. Does that shake your faith?

In a letter to the editor of Astronomy & Astrophysics, IG Usoskin et al produced the "first fully adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity". They found that during the past 3000 years the modern grand maxima, which occurred between 1959 and 2009, was a rare event both in magnitude and duration. This research adds to growing evidence that climate change is determined by the sun, not humans.

Yet during the past 20 years the US alone has poured about $US80 billion into climate change research on the presumption that humans are the primary cause. The effect has been to largely preordain scientific conclusions. It set in train a virtuous cycle where the more scientists pointed to human causes, the more governments funded their research.

search: We-re-ill-prepared-if-the-iceman-cometh