/sci/ - Science & Math

Question: how can we realistically expect climate change to affect the world in the coming years? It has become increasingly hard to parse through the mountains of bullshit told by politically motivated entities, I just want a clear answer from an expert in the field.

>Thoughts on the Paris accord
>Keep discussion /sci/ related
This is inherently a /pol/-type question. My general thoughts are this:

>Climate change probably exists
>Climate change is probably caused by humans
>Anyone bringing up "muh 97%" is doing more harm than good because this suppresses differing opinions, which is the antithesis of science. People in general are more concerned about fitting in than they are about the truth, so this makes people who might otherwise dissent keep their mouths shut.
>Given that the Paris Accord is non-binding for everyone involved, it's utterly pointless and retarded. We'd just end up keeping our end, and "developing nations" breaking theirs. But hey, at least they got billions of dollars of taxpayer money!! Pretending to do something to feel good isn't the same as doing something.

>>8954596
fruits/vegetables available earlier, maybe more mosquitoes.

>>8954562
>Thoughts on the Paris accord?
Waste of money for less than 0.1°C in the best case scenario. Only a total faggot like Veritasium would mourn this garbage.

>>8954596
Exactly this. Our ice caps were supposed to be gone by now.

Even if there actually is going to be severe damage in the future, climate activists are losing a lot of credibility and doing more harm than good with their constant doomsday-is-JUST-around-the-corner meme-ing.

For example, I remember right at the end of the 2004 hurricane season, such seasons were to become "the norm" for every year to come. We have yet to have a season *anywhere near* that bad.

>>8954614
Sorry, I meant the 2005 season

>>8954598
97% is not "opinions," its 97% of published research. That's how science works.

>>8954619
Nevertheless, legitimate scientists who may have something different to say are now less likely to say it because doing so is becoming increasingly career-suicide. This is not how science should work.

>>8954614
>climatologists are losing credibility because of these predictions I made up
Uhuh...

>>8954633
Utter nonsense. If someone could scientifically debunk any part of AGW it would be published in Science. Don't mistake your inability to do so for persecution.

What should can I do as a layman to help the environment? It's getting hotter every year here in the middle east and I don't think it's because of the sand people

I'm all for climate preservation but I refuse giving my dollars to big governments like the UN to do it. I bet all that money for the paris accord deal went 70% to admin fees and only a tiny amount on actual research or target institutions.

This climate meme should be solved through local solutions by local communities.

>>8954658
Which desert country do you live anon?

To start with you should start by SORTING yourself out first, then your family. Use less plastic bags when doing groceries, dont leave the lights on at home when you leave for work, turn off the shower when you're shampooing to save water etc. Teach your kids to do the same. Give them STEM education instead of chem engineering.

SORT YOURSELF OUT SLAY THE DRAGON WITHIN YOU

>>8954666
Because everyone knows local government is highly effective at regulating global industries.

>>8954708
>local government is highly effective at regulating global industries
Yes?

Do big governments? How do you quantify "effectiveness" of regulation? Can you prove to me PCA was/is effective at doing what it sought to do?

>>8954718
The US and several other countries including China and India were starting to phase out coal power plants after the agreement.

>>8954596
>>8954598
>>8954602
>>8954605
>>8954614
>>8954617
>>8954619
>>8954633
>>8954641
>>8954650
>>8954658
>>8954666
>>8954698
>>8954708
>>8954718
>>8954753
https://youtu.be/0CnR8sJ61iQ

>>8954753

That was more to do with fracking decreasing the cost of natural gas below coal. It did more to reduce co2 emissions than any government green initiative.

We need at regulations and technology reducing the cost of green technology. We don't want governments picking winners for billion of dollars of tax money.

>>8954755
>everyone that disagree with a flawed climate deal is a climate change denier!!1

why do brainlets do this?

How does one stay motivated to care about climate change when one individual can do absolutely nothing to change the outcome. It can not matter one bit if I fly 20 times per year or - on the other end of the extreme - literally kill myself, the CO2 emissions will be QUALITATIVELY the same!

This is starting to look more and more like a "tragedy of the commons" situation --- no one has any incentive to do anything about this shit.

"Climate change" is scam.

We do have the problem of fossil fuels running out.

>>8954562
>What can one do to reduce co2 emissions.
Cut back on your meat consumption. The meat industry is an enormous greenhouse gas producer. You probably can't afford a more efficient car, or a set of solar panels. But you can definitely afford to not eat so many burgers. You'll end up healthier in the long run, too.

>What are common misconceptions about climate change?
The idea that because predictions of the past were wrong, current predictions must be wrong now. It's a pretty common strawman I see. The data and the methods are always improving and refining themselves.

>Are we doomed?
yeah

>Thoughts on the Paris accord?
A nice sentiment, but had no actual teeth. Nothing prevents countries who sign it from just ignoring all the provisions. Which is why leaving it sends such a bad message

>>8955110
>>What can one do to reduce co2 emissions.
>Cut back on your meat consumption. The meat industry is an enormous greenhouse gas producer. You probably can't afford a more efficient car, or a set of solar panels. But you can definitely afford to not eat so many burgers. You'll end up healthier in the long run, too.

not op, but - how the hell does that matter? So what, the temperature will go up 1.999999999C instead of 2.00000000C? That doesn't change ANYTHING. And don't give me that crap "If everyone thought like that.." it doesn't matter what any other hypothetical group does - whether you join them in their efforts to reduce emissions or not, the change will be the same.

>>8955122
To a point you're right, which is why I offered the individual benefits as a bonus. But if you prefer, think of it the other way around instead. Eating less meat will save you money and make you healthier, and as a side effect can also reduce greenhouse emissions

>What can one do to reduce co2 emissions.
Nothing.
>What are common misconceptions about climate change?
That it exists
>Are we doomed?
No
>Thoughts on the Paris accord?
At least Turmp was man enough to say no
>Keep discussion /sci related.
You first

>>8955130
Actually vegetarian diets aren't even that healthy. This is a big recent study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743516304479

>>8954596
Within 20 years earth is probably a dust bowl

http://www.climatechange-foodsecurity.org/uploads/Drought_review_Dai_11.pdf

>>8955151
learn to eat bugs for protein

>>8955151
yeah, I'm not saying you have to go vegetarian. Just that the amount of meat us 1st-worlders eat is way too much.

>>8955176
Actually, it is not. Big brains needs protein.

>>8955180
I'm not joking, eat a lot of bugs, you can fill all your protein needs with insects

entomophagy is the future

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=56&v=mYw3Z73z0xE

Is anyone else content to sit back and watch to see if the climate change disaster happens?

People aren't inclined to take actions unless the effects are plain and visible. Nothing will change with oil consumption unless we truly start running out of oil (or other sources of energy become more attractive), and nothing will change with CO2 emissions until shit gets fucked beyond some ice somewhere melting.

>>8954562
Taking a course in renewable energy engineering, it's really interesting - should be useful when I eventually build/retrofit a house. Pretty excited to see how much PV solar improves in the next decade.

Using pic related as a textbook if anyone's interested. It's pretty good. Doesn't spend a whole lot of time on global warming, but it does address a lot of meme arguments like in >>8954755, and also some more technical rebuttals, against AGW.

>>8954562

Climate change doesnt exist and its all liberal propaganda.

When will you guys just stop bashing Trump? Its been fucking 6 months, get over it already you guys lost.

>>8955418
You didn't get over it when Obama won, twice.

>>8955204
>eat a lot of bugs
Not gonna happen.

>>8955418
While I agree that the U.S. should dump the Paris Agreement climate change is real. It's observable, quantifiable, and evident. The issues are:
1. How much have humans accelerated the process?
2. How should we adapt to a changing environment?
The climate is changing and will continue to change regardless of human interaction, and history has show that. The real question is should we collectively be putting forth the capital and effort to stop this inevitable change or invest in adaptation strategies instead?

Can we please focus on the bigger issue that we should ban guys of moderately attractive or above looks from getting PHDs in high iq subjects?

My insecurity can't take the fact that they're allowed to be seen as both attractive and highly intelligent.

>>8955043
to be fair, tons of people who were against the accord don't even acknowledge climate change exists. It's why reporters have been trying to get Trump's actual take on it; he previously would dismiss it as a hoax. So, the problem is that there are a lot of idiots running around and we don't know who has a genuine argument to make and who's a retard. I guess some folks on either side just forget the other team isn't all retarded.

>>8955418
Trump can be free of criticism when he stops taking actions worthy of critique.

You shouldn't silently suffer what you disagree with merely because 6 months have passed. Not when you think you can cause positive change by highlighting where you think the other guy is wrong.

>>8954596
> Question: how can we realistically expect climate change to affect the world in the coming years?

https://youtu.be/M1cMnM-UJ5U

>>8955025
No, it has more to do with the regulatory atmosphere.

>>8954598
>suppresses opinions
You can have the opinion that water boils at room temperature, but you'd be wrong. You'd also be bad at cooking pasta.

>inb4 someone brings up vaporization at room temp and tries to say it's boiling as bait

Whether or not climate change is real, is an actual problem, and is something we can actually do about isn't the important part.

What is important is what action will upset liberals the most. I'll pick that regardless of other considerations.

Weird, i've started filtering every /pol/frog i've seen for the past few days and the amount of climate change denying trolls I see has gone down by about 80%
really makes me think

>>8954562

>>8955204
honey im home. what's for dinner tonight?
bugs again? oh well let me go blow my brains out

>>8954562
>What are common misconceptions about climate change?
MUH 98%...
Nobody has been able to show me the study that came from.

>>8954562
Is his vlogs accurate for every person getting a PhD thesis? Looks cozy hanging out for a few more years until you get a job.

>>8956063
you show those dirty commies, son!

>>8955161
I wonder, can solar powered Desalination plants with graphene/perforene membranes solve the water scarcity issue?. Within 20 years, we should have pretty cheap solar tech like Perovskite and Id be surprised if mass manufactured High quality Graphene isn't is still a meme by then.

>>8958108
seems interesting

although there still isn't a good way to manufacture lotsa graphene from what I've heard

>>8958091
>Nobody has been able to show me the study that came from.
Wait, really? It's an incredibly commonly discussed paper:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

>>8954614
our ice caps are almost gone. in fact this year we may be having a blue ocean event in which the arctic circle will be free of ice for the first time ever. without this old white ice to reflect the sunlight, the ocean will heat up to release a 200 gigaton burst of methane. this summer, maybe the next. we don't have 10 years, we don't even have 5.

Wouldn't nuclear energy solve much of our problems? Is there some diplomatic reason why it's not even being discussed?

>>8959800
>Wouldn't nuclear energy solve much of our problems?
Mostly yes.

>Is there some diplomatic reason why it's not even being discussed?
Because so much of the population has been brainwashed to believe that nuclear waste is the worst thing ever, and nuclear accidents could end all life on earth, and use of nuclear power will definitely lead to nuclear war!

>>8959785
Ironically enough, when the oil prices were high, many oil companies saw the arctic as an opportunity for oil extraction once it becomes ice free. There have been made some interesting designs of oil platforms resistant to ice loads though as far as I know these haven't been built.

>>8959850
>brainwashed
>Chernobyl is still uninhabitable
>Fukushima happened just a couple of years ago
Although I think nuclear energy is a good option the dangers are very severe and very real so I understand people who oppose nuclear energy to some extent.

Especially if you take into account that some brainlet will be in charge of the atom splitting operation, accidents will continue to happen and significant parts of earth will be uninhabitable.

>>8954562
ocean loading, ice acidification, wave ice, ice albedo, black carbon, arctic river, and methane clathrate, jet stream waviness feedback, vertical moulins drilling well like shafts straight into the ice analogous to the clathrate in sea floor algae, turning the ice into swiss cheese. fissures in the antarctic 250 m. the peterson shelf, larsen c, charged potentional difference from a sun burning more helium causing increased uv and oblong earth, creating pockets and sinkholes earthquakes, unzipping entire fault lines like dominos

>>8959785
I literally just left the Arctic.
There was ice everywhere.
You're full of shit. The general ice coverage area has been reduced, on average, but this year is absolutely not going to be an ice free year in the Arctic.
You know there are people (like me) for whom dealing with Arctic ice is an annual challenge and whose livelihood depends on accurate ice forecasts? We didn't run around frantically picking up all our pots before they were driven under because of oil company propaganda. Look up the fucking ice forecasts before you blather horseshit next time, you fucking imbecile.

>>8960316
>charged potentional difference from a sun burning more helium causing increased uv and oblong earth, creating pockets and sinkholes earthquakes, unzipping entire fault lines like dominos
these seem unrelated to the increase in CO2, when did this become a part of the picture?

>>8955151
Imbecile. This single study doesn't descredit the benefits of a plant based diet. Second, it matters much what a vegetarian eats and even what someone who eats meat.

Consider that white meat and fatty fish are much healthier as red meat, and processed meat being unhealthy.

To get back to vegetarians, it matters all the world what they are eating instead of meat. If that includes a lot of other processed food, especially high in sugar, than the benefits won't be that great.

A vegetarian eating some vegetables, but mostly pizzas, white bread, cookies, sweets and soda is not healthy.

Please consider reading more than just one study. Or at least say "might not even be that healthy according to this study".

>>8955204
>entomophagy is the future
If I could choose it would be, but I am doubtful the general population is willing
Dutch supermarkets had some bug-based foods which I don't see anymore in the supermarket I go to, and I personally prefer non-processed bugs

>>8959859
The effects of fossil fuels are much more dangerous than nuclear, even ignoring the global warming it causes.

>>8960354
the arctic will continue warming until september. the arctic has been warming a ratio of 7:1 compared to the rest of the world.

all feedbacks in the arctic are accelerating feedbacks

>>8960534
That doesn't respond to a word he said. You're just as bad as deniers.

>>8960359
global warming is man made and caused by solar outbursts

>>8960354
there won't be any old (5 yr) ice for reflective albedo. the increased uv will melt ice at -15 centigrade. but arctic anomalies get as high as 20 degrees centigrade and caused increased rain. moistening of the upper troposphere takes weeks. the first thing will be floods and earthquakes then the planet will be turned into venus.

>>8960534
>the arctic will continue warming until september
No fucking shit Sherlock. That happens most every year. There's an ancient Inuit term for it. Some Err.
>all feedbacks in the arctic are accelerating feedbacks
The multi-year ice forms in cycles. There's still multi-year ice from the nasty 2010-11 winter floating around. It will slowly decrease until there's another hard ice forming winter, and if there's a few of those in the row the channels are back to staying clogged all summer. The general trend of lowering ice coverage doesn't equate to 'ermg ice free arctic guiz' anytime remotely soon. You don't know shit, and you can't be bothered to look up shit.
>>8960554
The Clathrate gun people belong in the flat earth threads

>>8955161
that's neat
they said the exact same thing 20 years ago

>>8954596
There would be less fish production because of disrupted marine ecosystems, less net crop production, and some flooding in coastal cities.
There is surprisingly many big population in coastal areas, and the flooding won't be very dramatic, but the cost builds up to quite a bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw

>>8960963
There will be more fish production in certain fisheries. There will be more crop production in many of the most productive areas of the planet. There aren't very many coastal cities whose flooding infrastructure is affected by a six inch sea level rise, if it was, they would have needed to upgrade it a long time ago.

>>8960869
Prove it.

>>8960998
it's 0.8 to 2 meter flooding.
>if it was, they would have needed to upgrade it a long time ago.
Why do you say so? An upgrade is certainly possible but it costs money.
>There will be more fish production in certain fisheries. There will be more crop production in many of the most productive areas of the planet.
The key term is 'net' or 'average'.

>>8961011
No rational person is forecasting a 2 meter rise in sea level, or a .8 meter one for that matter
>>8961011
It doesn't change the 100 year storm average, which is what proper systems are designed for. At those water levels the system is either modern or it has been neglected.
>net
You don't know anything about fisheries

>>8960998
>There will be more fish production in certain fisheries.
Overall the effect will be negative. The calcification of phytoplankton is harmful to everyone. The worst effects of warmer oceans and higher sea levels will affect the communities most vulnerable and reliant on fishing.

>There will be more crop production in many of the most productive areas of the planet.
False. Warming generally decreases crop yield. The largest agricultural producer is the US and will see yields drop. While warming can allow agricultural production in areas where it was previously too cold, this does not make up for by the loss of already existing agricultural infrastructure and the costs associated with setting up infrastructure in a new area.

>There aren't very many coastal cities whose flooding infrastructure is affected by a six inch sea level rise, if it was, they would have needed to upgrade it a long time ago.
This is very naive. Increasing the sea level by any amount means that the floods you got before are going to be that much worse. Saying that a city can withstand a six inch flood is irrelevant. Floods will be six inches higher than what they previously were, not 6 inches.

>>8961029
Do you really think flood level is the same as sea level?

>>8961029
>https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Pfeffer%20et%20al..,%202008,%20Science.pdf
>n the basis of calculations presented here,
we suggest that an improved estimate of the range
of SLR to 2100 including increased ice dynamics
lies between 0.8 and 2.0 m.

>>8960593
you're the only ignorant one thick in the skull. listen to your stupid potty mouth. it's obvious you're not a reader. pray you dont live in florida

>>8961030
What fisheries will increase and what fisheries will decrease? What is the economic value of each? The total production? The interrelated industries? Calcification of phytoplankton is proceeding at what rate since it began to be studied a short time ago? I'll wait for you to Google
>>8961031
You don't understand anything about flood protection
>>8961039
>We emphasize that
assumptions made to arrive here contain substantial
uncertainties, and many other scenarios
and combinations of contributions could be considered
>Certain
potentially significant sinks and sources of
SLR, such as terrestrial water storage, are still
absent altogether.

>>8961039
Also,
>5 SEPTEMBER 2008

>>8961096
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Declan_Conway/publication/257257562_Vulnerability_of_National_Economies_to_Potential_Impacts_of_Climate_Change_on_Fisheries/links/0deec52b073496d2ad000000.pdf

>You don't understand anything about flood protection
>>it's 0.8 to 2 meter flooding.
>No rational person is forecasting a 2 meter rise in sea level, or a .8 meter one for that matter
You don't know what you're talking about.

>>8961096
>>8961098
So, where are your sources for 6 inch slr anon.
Your claim here
>>8961029
>No rational person is forecasting a 2 meter rise in sea level, or a .8 meter one for that matter
Already makes you a liar. So I'm assuming you're pulling them out of your ass. I'm sure a random internet stranger is so very reliable that he has no uncertainties.

>>8957424
Oh wow, its fucking nothing

>>8961148
why would you post the arctic max

>>8961148
>Most of the ice melting north over China
hmmm really gets the neurons firing

can't wait until the thieving chinks pull out right before they're actually expected to do anything for the paris accord

>>8961230
whoops, meant for
>>8957424

Humans will gladly accept a serious and well-evidenced risk of leaving Earth inhospitable from runaway climate change by disseminating demonstrable nonsense for cash. Other humans will gladly gobble it up without a forethought as though it were a competition to win political points.

This debate has really sapped the last of my faith in humanity. If human civilization does produce runaway climate change, we probably deserve to collectively kick the bucket; I just wish our ecosystems and biodiversity, totally unique anything in the known universe, didn't have to pay the price too.

>>8961230
>can't wait until the thieving chinks pull out right before they're actually expected to do anything for the paris accord
yeah haha we sure showed them by preemptively doing something equally indefensible as this thing that they've shown no indication of doing yet.

>>8961148
>Posts the maximum extent (which is still a historically low extent)
>Fails to mention the drastic loss in arctic ice thickness
>Fails to mention the drastic reduction in multi-year ice
>Fails to mention that less ice in summer means increased water temps (because water absorbs more energy than ice, thus warming the arctic more), meaning more ice melt in summer.

There's always going to be arctic sea ice in winter because it's pretty much going to get cold enough for sea ice to form in the arctic even with a 2°C+ average global temperature increase, thus this really means nothing. What's important is that in summer the amount of sea ice present has rapidly decreased each year and the oldest, multi-year sea-ice has declined drastically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0rp6-BEur8

>>8961039
"We consider glaciological
conditions required for large sea-level rise to occur by 2100 and conclude that increases in excess
of 2 meters are physically untenable."
I read that, even if all the ice in the world melts, still no more then 2 meters rise.
"We find that a total sea-level rise of about 2 meters by 2100
could occur under physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables are quickly
accelerated to extremely high limits."
It won't happen.
"More plausible but still accelerated conditions lead to total
sea-level rise by 2100 of about 0.8 meter"
"Still accelererated" aka, it won't happen.
"These roughly constrained scenarios provide a “most
likely” starting point for refinements in sea-level forecasts that include ice flow dynamics."
More gibsmedat please.
Worst case scenario, humanity will be just fine.

>>8961238
>Humans will gladly accept a serious and well-evidenced risk of leaving Earth inhospitable
`What are you talking about? Co2 levels have been much higher in the past and no ice at all at the polars and there were animals and plants.
http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html
"Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, "

>>8961238
It is a competition to score political points, and among rational people your side is very slowly losing. Finally.

>>8961342
And how many large mammal species existed? Essentially zero.

>>8961354
>And how many large mammal species existed? Essentially zero.
Evolution is real, what is your point? You think big mammals can't breathe in that atmosphere?

>>8961335
>I read that, even if all the ice in the world melts, still no more then 2 meters rise.
Why would you read that. I've never read anyone saying that melting of all ice is possible in the next one hundred years, so why would you think that's the implicit assumption?, you have references for that?
>It won't happen.
Never heard of positive feedbacks loops I see.
>"Still accelererated" aka, it won't happen.
No, 'acceleration' means a variation in rate of melting. 0.8 is in case the acceleration is the same as today, which again is not likely because of positive feedback loops. So the most plausible scenario is between those two limits, exactly as the article says.

>>8961335
65 meter rise by 2025 is possible

>>8961367
That's true.
This article says 65 meters and that it would take 5000 years.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/
"There are more than five million cubic miles of ice on Earth, and some scientists say it would take more than 5,000 years to melt it all"
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm

" If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing."

I still fail to see the problem.

>>8961375
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/05/09/heres-what-earth-would-look-like-if-all-the-ice-melted/#2b21f3bac495
"The upper range of the ice sheet's stability is somewhere between 500 ppm to near 800 ppm CO2. At that point the Earth is on a path to being ice free for thousands of years. One upside is that while we may get to the 500 ppm tipping point in the next century, it will take thousands of years for all the ice on the planet to fully melt. Hence giving humans generations to adapt to a wildly different planet."
We need to co2 to give Mars an atmosphere.

>>8961342
Remind me again, did 70% of our civilization exist within 150 miles of coastlines back then? Did civilization at all exist back then?

Did a global economy increasingly vulnerable to water and food shortages from crop failures / droughts exist back then?

Did humans evolve in that sort of environment in the Jurassic, or did we evolve within the past few million years at which the Earth's climate has been relatively stable (in terms of CO2ppm)?

Were there over 7 billion humans on the planet back then, each vying for a western standard of living that is extremely resource intensive and wasteful?

CLimate change could have profound effects on our civilization. It won't end life on Earth, and it likely won't end humans as a species, but it has the capacity to inflict severe damage on our civilization and the global economy at large, setting back humans globally, causing mass migrations of people from vulnerable climate regions where resources become scarce, and inundating some of our most important economic cities with storm surges and increased tidal flooding.

Where I live in Louisiana, you can see the impact of humankind on our local ecosystem everywhere, the future of SE Louisiana is extremely grim due to not only what humans have done specifically in this region (thanks oil and gas companies that fucked us in the ass), but also due to SLR, saltwater intrusion and wetland losses. It's easy to ignore climate change when you don't live in an area where you directly see what impacts it is causing.

>>8961376
I don't see why you don't see a problem.
A 1 meter sea level rise affects coastal cities, it would have some sizable economic impact. Engineering solutions cost money.

>>8961385
>Remind me again, did 70% of our civilization exist within 150 miles of coastlines back then? Did civilization at all exist back then?
No.
>>8961385
>Did humans evolve in that sort of environment in the Jurassic, or did we evolve within the past few million years at which the Earth's climate has been relatively stable (in terms of CO2ppm)?
It has been stable in terms of co2, maybe, but certainly not in temperatures or climate. We survived ice ages and to this day you have different races living in different climates, from the negro in Africa, to the arab living in the desert in north-africa to the inuits living in ice-world.
>>8961385
>Were there over 7 billion humans on the planet back then, each vying for a western standard of living that is extremely resource intensive and wasteful?
No, but the problem is human population explosion of people that should have never breed. These people will kill eachother or die of starvation regardless. Pic. related. That has nothing to do with climate change, but these races inferior intellect.
>>8961385
>CLimate change could have profound effects on our civilization. It won't end life on Earth, and it likely won't end humans as a species, but it has the capacity to inflict severe damage on our civilization and the global economy at large, setting back humans globally, causing mass migrations of people from vulnerable climate regions where resources become scarce, and inundating some of our most important economic cities with storm surges and increased tidal flooding.
Learn to build walls motherfucker.
>>8961385
>Where I live in Louisiana, bla bla bla
Learn to build, adapt. Denmark went through a small ice age, we did just fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Europe
"The Little Ice Age brought colder winters to parts of Europe and North America.

>>8955943
You could easily make water actually boil at room temperature using nonstandard pressure, brainlet

>>8961396
>A 1 meter sea level rise affects coastal cities, it would have some sizable economic impact. Engineering solutions cost money.
You think it's cheaper to do what? Hmm? What is cheaper then to just build some dikes?
http://dutchdikes.net/history/
"The evolvement of dikes of carefully stacked clay to pile dikes into high-tech sensor dikes did not happen overnight. Already in Roman times, small dikes and dams were created. "
"In the fourteenth century, the combined effects of soil subsidence and rising sea levels meant, in many parts of the Low Countries, that sea level and ground level converged to the same height. This was the period that saw the first large-scale building of dikes. The population was falling in some parts of Europe, as a result of economic recession and a succession of epidemics, but the Netherlands, especially Holland, was doing relatively well"

Build some fucking dikes, what solution do you have that is cheaper?

>>8961382
forbes is speaking through the ipcc and ultra conservative. the computer models and published reports do not represent reality. once the feedbacks take place ice melt will happen overnight. sea level rise itself is a slow component to global warming.

something something remember your history lest it repeat something something

>>8961411
http://www.amnh.org/ology/features/askascientist/question18.php
I keep looking at different sources and they all say the same.
"However, all the ice is not going to melt. The Antarctic ice cap, where most of the ice exists, has survived much warmer times."
Also, two different sources here.
>>8961376

>>8961407
Yeah, dikes cost money. Dikes in all coastal cities in the world cost quite a bit of money. That cost needs to be factored in if we want good public policy. Going from fossil fuels to renewable energy might be the difference between 1 meters dikes and 2 meter dikes, 2 meter dikes are more than twice as expensive.

>>8961421
I asked you.
>>8961407
>You think it's cheaper to do what? Hmm? What is cheaper then to just build some dikes?
Still waiting buddy.
It's not that fucking hard to build dikes. They are not that complicated. Trying to stop co2 emission will have a greather impact on the world economy then building dikes. So that's that.

>>8961428
>Trying to stop co2 emission will have a greather impact on the world economy
If that's the case then I would agree with you. I'm not convinced that's true so make your case.
Estimated economic costs that I'm aware of are about 15~20 global economic gdp, including your dikes and decreased fish and crop production. I don't have any reason to believe that replacing oil with other energy sources is more expensive than that, but if you know otherwise give me your references.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it doesn't matter whether or not global warming is real. It will be manipulated by either political party for power. No one has any interest in actually preserving the planet.

>>8961437
For some reason I didn't post my sources, shitty proofreading on my part. See the video referenced here, towards the end. (15:15-15:40, it's a Stern review, sources in the video description)
>>8960963

>>8961419
we are due to lose at least the whole west shelf when greenland is melted, that is 40 percent.
things are long gone at that sea level, crops die out at plus 2 c

I get the disdain for people who outright deny the climate is changing

but do you really think we could "halt" it at this point? Do you really think it is entirely man made and not part of the natural eternal and observable earth climate change cycle that has seen us gone through regular periods of heat and cold?

I don't really buy into the hysteria anymore, and no I don't think China and India are "doing more" to help the environment even if they made a token gesture, they are full steam ahead for industrializing asap

>>8961439
>No one has any interest in actually preserving the planet.
Because that sentence holds no meaning. co2 levels can rise and rise and rise, it won't kill the planet, it won't kill life on this planet, it won't kill the plants on this planet. The planet will do just fine regardless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB7IYJQRkUk
>>8961437
>I don't have any reason to believe that replacing oil with other energy sources is more expensive than that, but if you know otherwise give me your references.
If it were cost effective then people would do it.

>>8961451
>If it were cost effective then people would do it.
Seems like a standard prisoner dilemma to me. Not overfishing is also cost effective and absent regulations people still do it.

>>8961451
Is that actually true? Are liberals so stupid that they completely forgot to ask the question if a temperature increase even matters?

>>8961461
>Is that actually true? Are liberals so stupid that they completely forgot to ask the question if a temperature increase even matters?
>>8961342

Why don't we just start employing climate engineering en mass. Carbon capture via bacteria, sulfur in air for temporary cooling.

>>8961461
This is the mind of a /pol/ / T_D user. Everything is "muh liberals," as if climate science is about political cheerleading. You fucks are pathetic, everything is politics to you. Can't even have a rational thought.

FYI, the science of climate change and the mechanisms of how humans are causing the current trend are extremely well known, and people like yourself are simply ignorant, or too stupid to actually go out and look at the literature to educate yourselves.

>>8961464
Literally replying to your own garbage posts, pathetic.

>>8961451
Again you stupid fuck, the planet isn't at risk, it's our civilization as I said earlier, and you completely missed the point. You have no understanding of the geopolitical and economic costs that climate change will require in the future. There is loads of research on that exact subject if you take the time to look in the literature. Literally type "economic impacts of anthropogenic climate change / global warming" into google scholar. It will cost trillions upon trillions in mitigation efforts, not to mention mass migrations as I mentioned before, such as what's occurring RIGHT NOW in North Africa / Middle East into Europe, it will continue to get worse in the future.

Third world countries are the most vulnerable, and are the countries that are growing the most rapidly in population, their resources are already stretched and changes in climate patterns will only make it worse.

>>8961477
That will happen if it becomes to big a problem.
>>8961456

>>8961456
>Not overfishing is also cost effective and absent regulations people still do it.
You have a point.
Overall, I still fail to see the big catastophe.
>>8961480
>This is the mind of a /pol/ / T_D user. Everything is "muh liberals," as if climate science is about political cheerleading. You fucks are pathetic, everything is politics to you. Can't even have a rational thought.
Good thing you know how to keep a cool head then. You debate like a woman.

>>8961487
>, not to mention mass migrations as I mentioned before, such as what's occurring RIGHT NOW in North Africa / Middle East into Europe, it will continue to get worse in the future.
Population explosion. The low iq fellaheens are fuckups no matter the weather.

>>8961399
>It has been stable in terms of co2, maybe, but certainly not in temperatures or climate.
The temperature has never changed this fast in human history. Interglacial warming and glacial cooling occurred over tens of thousands of years, not a few hundred.

>We survived ice ages and to this day you have different races living in different climates, from the negro in Africa, to the arab living in the desert in north-africa to the inuits living in ice-world.
Humanity has always been in an ice age. You are talking about glacial periods but you don't even know the basic terminology. The issue is not necessarily how hot it will be, it is how fast this change is occurring. Humans and the ecosystem we rely on cannot adapt in the same way they did to climactic changes that occured slowly over thousands of years. You are comparing apples and oranges.

>>8961414
Most of these are made up

https://skeptic78240.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/the-comical-conservative-6/

>>8961444
*+6c

>>8961498
>Humanity has always been in an ice age
No I understand we have been living in a historically cold period, and now people are freaking out that the Earth is changing back to normal. You argue completly hysterical, like a woman.

>>8961342
Five times or ten times more carbon-dioxide is essentially physiologically irrelevant. But it is extremely relevant when it comes to global temperatures and the greenhouse effect.

You could increase carbon dioxide concentrations by 10 to 100 times and probably still breath perfectly fine, but you will rapidly cook to death your crops due to the greenhouse effect unless your locality is unusually cold.

>>8961414
unfortunately for us, the quack holding the end of the world sign is right and it's just a matter of time. we are long overdue for a permian level of extinction

>>8961513
>Five times or ten times more carbon-dioxide is essentially physiologically irrelevant. But it is extremely relevant when it comes to global temperatures and the greenhouse effect.
Yes. And do you think the earth was a wasteland when gigantic dinosaurs roamed the earth?
>>8961513
>You could increase carbon dioxide concentrations by 10 to 100 times and probably still breath perfectly fine, but you will rapidly cook to death your crops due to the greenhouse effect unless your locality is unusually cold.
But we are not talking about increases of 10 to 100 times are we?

>>8961450
>but do you really think we could "halt" it at this point?
We can mitigate it. Most economists agree that mitigation, such as an optimal carbon tax, can save more than it will cost.

>Do you really think it is entirely man made and not part of the natural eternal and observable earth climate change cycle that has seen us gone through regular periods of heat and cold?
Did you actually look at the natural cycle of glacial/interglacial periods? Because the next change should be cooling into a glacial period. But instead we're getting warming. Not to mention that the warming is the fastest change in temperature we've ever seen. Not to mention that we know it's being caused by radiative forcing from the CO2 which we are the only net positive source of on Earth. If you actually look at the evidence it's not hard at all to think that it's not natural.

>I don't really buy into the hysteria anymore
You've bought into the hysteria against simple empirical facts. The hysteria that such facts must be denied to preserve your political ideology.

>>8961488
>Good thing you know how to keep a cool head then.
Nice tone troll.

>>8961505
>No I understand we have been living in a historically cold period, and now people are freaking out that the Earth is changing back to normal.
Yes, I can't wait for the Earth to be back to normal, no humans, barren rock... You are so so so very stupid. Only a moron would type this shit.

There is nothing "normal" about human civilization, or humans pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Maybe instead of Earth's "normality" we should be concerned with, I don't know... the effect on humans.

>>8961517
If it gets bad we will cool down the earth with technology. The people who been talking about this for such a long time shot themselves in the foot. You have people in this thread who thinks there is a chance of making the world unhabitable. Which is just pure nonsense.
>>8961517
>Because the next change should be cooling into a glacial period.
So his pic is right then?>>8961414

>>8961516
>And do you think the earth was a wasteland when gigantic dinosaurs roamed the earth?
Are you a gigantic dinosaur?

>>8961527
Listen dear, why don't you just leave civilization to the people with a y-chromosome?
http://archive.is/dBehg

>>8954562
The oceans will become about 10x more acidic, and that will have dramatic consequences along with the elevated temperatures.

Average surface temperatures will probably go up 3 deg C. Land though will generally go up 7 to 8 deg C in temperature.

Precipitation will increase only slightly, maybe 20% ish over land.

The sea will rise probably 50cm to 100cm. All by 2100.

Just reading off some scientific review literature.

>>8961528
>If it gets bad we will cool down the earth with technology.
Don't stop smoking, if you get lung cancer we'll just give you chemo. Maybe it will work in time, maybe it won't, but it can't be worse than not smoking.

>The people who been talking about this for such a long time shot themselves in the foot. You have people in this thread who thinks there is a chance of making the world unhabitable. Which is just pure nonsense.
And yet they look like geniuses compared to the guy who denies the problem exists at all.

>So his pic is right then?
Yeah, if you change "2000" to "thousands of years from now." Look I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand what the next glacial period means.

>>8961505
Stupid namefag has no idea what he's even talking about. Sweetie, you might want to actually educate yourself about climate change before you come into a thread to shitpost.

The current trend is known at a 95% certainty that it is caused by human activity, mainly emissions of CO2 that have increased each year for over 100 years. CO2 ppm is unprecedented and it is absolutely caused by human emissions, this isn't a natural occurrence, and the implications are massive. Denying these basic, elementary facts about climate science just makes you look like a fool. The Earth isn't "returning back to normal," it's warming DUE to humans emitting greenhouse gasses, there is nothing normal about what's happening now. Without human influence on the climate system, models show that the Earth's temperature would be relatively stable, to slightly cooling.

Read, learn, educate yourself. Stop being ignorant.

Start with AR5 as it's a good resource on a relatively recent understanding of climate change:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf

Then do research on google scholar and find highly cited papers and read them on subjects you want to learn more in depth about.

>>8961538
>CO2 ppm is unprecedented
Stopped reading right there.
http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html
"Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, "

>>8961342
250 mya with the insanely high CO2 levels is also when 90-95% of all life on Earth was obliterated dumbass, during the Permian–Triassic extinction event

>>8961516
The only time the dinosaurs experienced a climate change comparable to what we are currenty experiencing, there was indeed a mass extinction

>>8961541
Are you some kind of dinokin? Do you jack off to Barney?

>>8961541
Are you seriously this dense? How are you so incapable of understanding context? It is UNPRECEDENTED considering how rapid the rise has been, over such a short geological timespan, and unprecedented in that the primary driver of the changes is human activity. Both of these things make this unprecedented, how are you having such a hard time understanding these basic facts?

You can keep going back into geological history and finding some bullshit (which guess what, degrees of certainty for that kind of data is ALL based on proxy data for the time and doesn't have anywhere near the degree of certainty that anthropogenic climate change has), but it doesn't invalidate that what is occurring right now is completely abnormal in geological history. We are taking stored carbon that has been locked out of the carbon cycle for millions of years and placing that back into the system. This is not a normal event in any way. Humans are adapted to a low CO2 ppm, that's how we thrive. serious changes are going to take place as ecosystems shift towards the poles, growing seasons become unstable, and droughts cause crop failures.

But hey, keep talking about the Jurassic when we're living in the Holocene.

Also, I might as well bring it up since you're so obsessed with geological history, you should know that times at which CO2ppm has been extremely high in Earth's past is correlated with mass extinction events, including the P/T extinction which was likely due to massive bouts of volcanic activity spanning millions of years, dumping enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

>>8961543
>>8961544
It had nothing to do with co2.
http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html
"Huge amounts of this greenhouse gas made the climate during the Jurassic Period extremely humid and warm,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
"There is evidence for one to three distinct pulses, or phases, of extinction.[8][13][14][15] Suggested mechanisms for the latter include one or more large meteor impact events, massive volcanism such as that of the Siberian Traps, and the ensuing coal or gas fires and explosions,[16] and a runaway greenhouse effect triggered by sudden release of methane from the sea floor due to methane clathrate dissociation or methane-producing microbes known as methanogens;[17] possible contributing gradual changes include sea-level change, increasing anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change."
I agree that being hit by a massive meteor will be a problem. The ensuing massive volcano eruptions covering the earth will also be a problem. The earth getting a but more "warm and humid", not so much.
Very dishonest to give the blame for mass extinction on co2.

>>8961555
>It had nothing to do with co2.
Yes, it was the rapidity of the climate change, not the CO2. So how is our rapid warming good?

>>8961554
>dumping enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.
No the problem is the ash covering the sky cooling down the earth and making it impossible for life to exist. The least problem in the mass extinction is co2. Yes it is a problem to get hit by massive meteors. The co2 level, making it more "warm and humid", no, it is not a problem.

>>8961558
Um no. You again prove your ignorance on the topic, I actually have a degree in Geology.

First off, volcanism does drop global temperatures, but that is only for a short amount of time. For example, a case study of this is the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, which caused a global reduction in average global temp by 0.5 °C. This was due to aerosols, not CO2, it was mainly because of the small particulate matter that explosive eruptions place high into the stratosphere, which reflects sunlight and reduces the greenhouse effect.

But that is only part of the story, the CO2 that is emitted by volcanic eruptions stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, not a few months to a year like stratospheric aerosols, which eventually are deposited on Earth after a brief residence time. The CO2 stays, in fact a molecule of CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for centuries, increasing the greenhouse effect.

Again, educate yourself on the topic before being so confident that you have all the answers.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

>>8961562
>First off, volcanism does drop global temperatures, but that is only for a short amount of time.
Again, very dishonest. Very very dishonest. The cooling effect kills much life, yes?, or do I need to google it bitch? Because you wrote here.
>>8961554
>Also, I might as well bring it up since you're so obsessed with geological history, you should know that times at which CO2ppm has been extremely high in Earth's past is correlated with mass extinction events, including the P/T extinction which was likely due to massive bouts of volcanic activity spanning millions of years, dumping enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.
That it is about co2. The fact is this. First you have massive meteors hitting the Earth. Mass extinction happen. Then, you have volcanos going off, because of the meteors, that cools down the earth killing all life, EVEN if it is for a short time, it kills life, do I need to google it? THEN, after most of life is dead, you have the change in co2. The mass extinction is not caused by co2. Even though it also killed of life. Very very dishonest.

>>8961569
sh shh shheducate yourself bitch

>>8961569
You are so fucking stupid, and again you completely lack an understanding about how volcanism cools the atmosphere.

Stratospheric cooling is due not to CO2, but to gasses (SO2) and particulate matter (ash) in the stratosphere, and as I already fucking said, the residence time for these in the atmosphere is on the order of MONTHS to YEARS, not decades or centuries like CO2.

In the case of the Permian extinction, as I said above the volcanism was in the form of flood basalts, not explosive volcanic eruptions, these are fissure tyype eruptions that can last thousands upon thousands of years, with lava flow after lava flow, these types of eruptions aren't like explosive volcanic eruptions like Pinatubo, those are stratovolcanoes and the composition of the magma (andesitic) leads to their explosivity due to the viscosity of the melt. Fissure eruptions are much less volatile and emit much more CO2, take Mauna Loa in Hawaii as a classical example of a non-explosive volcanic eruption with numerous lava flows that build up over time. This type of volcanism is far more common in geological history compared to highly explosive, plinian /' ultra-plinian eruptions which are more rare.

Here's how it works, first off you have the massive bouts of volcanism, these block out the sun and lead to the start of the extinction event, plants are unable to photosynthesize and begin to die. Organisms that rely on plants for food begin to starve. A few months / years / decades pass if the volcanism is large enough, and then global warming kicks in as the atmosphere heats up due to all the CO2 that was placed into it, causing further extinction.

By the way, everyone in this thread sees through your pathetic ad-hom tripe.

>>8961582
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130321-triassic-mass-extinction-volcano-paleontology-science/
"There is evidence that the initial volcanic eruptions doubled the amount of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which led to increased global temperatures and ocean acidification, he noted. This happened quickly, which probably didn’t give organisms at the time much of a chance to adjust to the changes. (Learn more about ocean acidification.)

Life did show signs of recovery during later eruption episodes, Blackburn said, which he found surprising."

"Pushed Aside

All mass extinction events are correlated with major eruptions, said Paul Renne, a geologist who specializes in figuring out the age of rocks at the Berkeley Geochronology Center in California. But the significance of volcanic eruptions in wiping out major groups of organisms has been pushed aside in favor of hypotheses that hold asteroid impacts responsible."

>>8961554
we are not really in the holocene now. we are in the new anthropocene. the esoterics say the next age will be a golden age for trees.

>>8961587
natty geographic

>>8961582
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170517090638.htm
"This, they believe, is the product of large volcanic eruptions because Hg anomaly was also observed in other large igneous province volcanisms.

Huge volcanic eruptions can produce sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere. Sulfate aerosols are strong, light-reflecting aerosols, and cause global cooling. This rapid climate change is believed to be behind the loss of marine creatures."
Lol. As I wrote.
>>8961585
>You are so fucking stupid, and again you completely lack an understanding about how volcanism cools the atmosphere.
I get the gist of it. You are very very dishonest.

>>8961582
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/massextinct_09
"This sort of volcanic activity may not be as sensational as a top blown off a volcano, but it generates much more lava and affects vast areas, covering millions of square kilometers with lava, the bulk of which is released in a geologic instant "
"This type of slower, oozing volcanic activity seems to cause extinctions through secondary effects, not through the eruption itself. Although oozing eruptions do directly release gasses that poison animals and plants and contribute to acid rain and climate change, the real catastrophe is likely caused by the rock layers that the lava comes into contact with as it erupts.8 If hot lava comes into contact with rocks that contain organic compounds (e.g., coal deposits) as it erupts, this releases huge amounts of greenhouse and toxic gases, like carbon dioxide, methane, and sulfur dioxide.

The chain of events set off by such shifts in atmospheric chemistry could have been disastrous. Large amounts of sulfur dioxide lead to short-term cooling (on the scale of tens of years),"

>>8961591
You realize you dumb fuck that's exactly what I said above?

The only dishonest one here is you, keep on projecting your own insecurities for everyone to see though.

I don't even understand where this discussion led to volcanism anyways, it's not the driving factor of the current trend, not by a fucking longshot. Volcanism is pretty damn stable right now and human emissions are exponentially more massive than CO2 from volcanism.

>>8961594
Again, what the fuck does this have to do with anthropogenic climate change?

>>8961582
http://www.livescience.com/52017-catastrophic-volcanoes-caused-biggest-extinction.html
"The culprit? Catastrophic volcanic eruptions that spewed enough lava to cover Australia"
"Scientists knew that a key factor behind this disaster may have been one of the biggest continental volcanic eruptions on record. It occurred in what is now Siberia, currently called the Siberian Traps, and spewed out as much as 2.7 million square miles (7 million square kilometers) of lava. "
"These eruptions also led to acid rain that may at times have made the ground as acidic as lemon juice."

"One important question remains, Burgess said: Why did the mass extinction occur over tens of thousands of years even though the eruptions stretched over hundreds of thousands of years? That could be due to at least a couple of reasons, he said. Perhaps a specific cluster of eruptions was key to the mass extinction, or the die-off only happened after a critical amount of lava was spewed, he said."

>>8961594
it may have taken 35 million years for the winged creatures and the four legged, this earth to recover after said event

>>8961598
So again, as I already stated multiple times in this thread, volcanism is correlated with mass extinction, and large bouts of volcanism cause global warming.

Again, what the fuck does this have to do with anthropogenic climate change? What are you trying to show with this?

>>8961582
http://www.tohoku.ac.jp/en/press/large_volcanic_eruption_cause_mass.html
"Huge volcanic eruptions can produce sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere. Sulfate aerosols are strong, light-reflecting aerosols, and cause global cooling. This rapid climate change is believed to be behind the loss of marine creatures.

Kaiho's team is now studying the second mass extinction in the hopes of further understanding the cause and processes behind it."

>>8961598
volcanic activity due to solar outbursts has caused every extinction except maybe for the yucatan impact. they are climatic events not limited to our solar system, sometimes caused from supernovae chunks who knows

>>8961582
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/first-known-mass-extinction-may-have-been-caused-huge-volcanic-eruptions-australia/
">>Jourdan detailed how a much smaller eruption in 1991 by volcano Pinatubo decreased average global temperatures by a few tenths of a degree for several years due to the sulfur dioxide released.<< “If relatively small eruptions like Pinatubo can affect the climate just imagine what a volcanic province with an area equivalent to the size of the state of Western Australia can do,” he added.

The team also hypothesizes that lava intrusions in oil and sulfate deposits could have triggered the release of a significant amount of both >>sulfur dioxide<< and methane which, married with the release of volcanic gases, could have caused oscillations in the Earth’s climate. According to Jourdan, these climatic oscillations would have made it difficult for many species to adapt."

>>8961582
http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/ordovician-mass-extinction-volcanic-eruptions-04871.html
Very popular article this one.
"“Huge volcanic eruptions can produce sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere. Sulfate aerosols are strong, light-reflecting aerosols, and cause global cooling. This rapid climate change is believed to be behind the loss of marine creatures.” "

>>8961606
surely someone triggered you

>>8961601
> global warming is caused by volcanism
> what the fuck does this have to do with anthropogenic climate change?
It means that anthropogenic climate change is wrong. Volcanoes are what cause the global temperature to rise, not people.

>>8961615
in this case it's both. we are entering the photon band and burning fossil fuels while entering the photon band. both are causing the increased radiation and nibiruans love rad

>>8961569
women are natural alchemists. they are minds not brains. that's why women are mind games and that's why they rule the world

>>8961615
Holy fucking shit, can you not read?

>>8961595
How many times does this need to be explained to you? Are you a toddler? Volcanism is NOT causing the current climate trend, and volcanism is contributing a negligible amount to the increase of atmospheric CO2 ppm, human activity is the primary driver. Also, it's not the sun either, anthropogenic forcings are by far the most dominant forcing, and the degree of certainty is extremely high, see
>>8961480

You're talking out your ass with every single response you make, your argument is simply put, not based in the scientific literature, and has no basis in fact or reality.

You have a serious issue differentiating the argument that volcanism has caused global warming in the past, and what is causing global warming today. Protip, it's not volcanism. The entire point I was making is that volcanism CAN cause global warming, so at least you understand that, but volcanism is NOT the primary driver of the current trend, ask any fucking climate scientists, or read virtually any scientific paper on climate forcings to understand how fucking wrong you are.


Read, educate yourself from the actual, scientific peer reviewed literature, not pop-sci articles:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html

>It means that anthropogenic climate change is wrong.
By the way, you have proven absolutely nothing in this thread other than your own stupidity. You lack a scientific understanding of how to approach the issue in the first place, your train of thought is completely illogical, irrational and inconsistent. Again, study the literature you literal brainlet.

>>8961595
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Measuring_ancient-Earth_carbon_dioxide_concentration
"there is evidence for very high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm"

B-b-but that caused mass extinction! No, it was not the co2 level that caused mass extinction. In fact, the dinosaurs did just fine with a level of 3000 ppm. What cause mass extinction was, well, we already went through that, I educated myself.
>>8961555
>"There is evidence for one to three distinct pulses, or phases, of extinction.
Unless we are going to get hit by a massive meteor or massive volcanos outbreaks, higher levels of co2 will not cause mass extinction. That is just you being dumb dumb dumb. It might cause some extinction, but 99,9% of all species died, so...Then you have all the niggers and fellaheens and gooks breeding like mad. They need to stop that, regardless of climate change or not.
Fact is, there is evidence of the world having 3000 ppm co2, and there were an abundance of life and plants on the earth. Right now we are the 400.
B-B-BUT MASS EXTINCTION!, well, we just went through that? Did we not? The co2 level rising is the least problem in that regard. Even if it is a problem.
>>8961635
>>It means that anthropogenic climate change is wrong.
>By the way, you have proven absolutely nothing in this thread other than your own stupidity. You lack a scientific understanding of how to approach the issue in the first place, your train of thought is completely illogical, irrational and inconsistent. Again, study the literature you literal brainlet.
Who do you think you are talking to?

>>8961488
>You have a point.
Well, I'm glad I could convince you. That's really the central concern of global warming.
>Overall, I still fail to see the big catastophe.
That's because 'catastrophe' doesn't really mean anything, or it means different things to different people. For me a 20% permanent decrease in gdp can be characterized as catastrophic, for you catastrophic may mean the extinction of human race in which case you, me and the scientific community all agree global warming is not catastrophic, in reasonable timescales anyway. Of course a full on nuclear war won't eliminate humanity either, it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

>>8961641
>B-b-but that caused mass extinction! No, it was not the co2 level that caused mass extinction.
How many times are you going to repeat the same idiotic strawman?

It has been explained to you several times in this thread:

1. Rapid climate change caused the mass extinction. We are experiencing rapid climate change.

2. "high levels of CO2" is not what causes rapid climate change. *Rapid changes in CO2* causes rapid climate change.

How many times are you going to ignore this?

>>8961487
>hurr durr climate change is important!!!11
>just look at all these liberal sponsored studies saying so!!!!!11

>>8961538
>links a study from some liberal euro country that no one cares about and only exists because the US prevented it from being eaten alive by Russia

Kek

Climate is necessarily always changing, it would be weird if it didn't. Do humans have an effect on it? Most likely not

>>8961538

>(((models show)))

Data scientist here. I can interpolate any data set, slice and dice, arbitrarily throw out "outliers", etc and make it look like whatever trend I want

Please try harder brainlette

>>8961554

Sad!

>>8961909
>Everything is fake because I say so.

>>8961909
President of the United States here. i can bang whatever models i want. you're fired.

>>8961968
Don't respond to shitty /pol/ bait.

>>8961968
Global warming models haven't really made a prediction yet. So far, they've been less accurate than having a fortune teller do the job in predicting future though.

>>8954562
wtf
stop sullying simon's good name
jeez familio

>>8962462
Stop making shit up.

See 8:25 in https://youtu.be/qEylCS6-hBE

I was arguing with someone on /pol/ who said that a 1.5C change in temperature was negligible because, once you convert it to Kelvin, it only represents a 0.5% change, and that the effects of such an increase would be ".5% of a flood, .5% of a drought, .5% of a storm, etc".

I wasn't even sure how to respond

>>8954596
Depends on how bad it gets. Even optimistically assuming we can keep the change below 2C, we're in for more extreme weather events (droughts and floods) fucking up agriculture, rising sea levels damaging coastal cities and disrupting shipping, and marine ecosystems getting their shit fucked up.

Undeveloped countries will probably be hit the hardest, but starvation and mass migrations and the ensuing instability will probably hurt us too.

>>8954562
I'd stop even worrying about CO2 and look into how to reduce methane. Other than greenhouse effects, CO2 is pretty harmless, and methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas which human activity is causing to be released at high rates.

I'd also start small-scale experiments with getting salt spray into the air over oceans to increase cloud cover(reflecting heat back into space) and getting some volcano-mimicking sulfur into the stratosphere for the same reason. Small scale experiments that could be stopped if there are negative unintended consequences seem a worthwhile insurance plan in case political efforts to reduce CO2 emissions fail - and I see no reason to trust they will succeed.

>>8954614
I can't blame this entirely on the scientists.

Say two scientists on the same day release a study on rates of projected warming over the next 20 years.

One says that warming is happening, there will be some impact, maybe a degree and a half in the next century and maybe afoot rise in sea level, for example.
The other says we're all going to die as temperatures spike, oceans obliterate Florida, etc.

Which one gets the most press coverage the next day?

>>8955231
I think there is some value to this approach.

Humans seem to be better at responding to a crisis than they are at preventing one.

And, of course, the longer we can put off taking action, the better the chances that we will develop some new technology that makes addressing the issue easier and cheaper. Or, I guess, that something else will kill us all off anyway (asteroid strike, really cool plague) and at least we ill not have wasted the last years of our existence sacrificing to solve a problem that just solved itself.

>>8962868
>to increase cloud cover
If it were possible (which it is not, see explanation below), you would have to increase cloud cover over the equatorial regions, where the sun is most intense, while decreasing cloud cover at higher latitudes.

I suppose alternatively you could increase cloud over the oceans (because they absorb more of the sun's energy), but then you would decrease it over the land and therefore also decrease precipitation.

The reason is because clouds are controlled not so much by aerosols, but by the vertical motion in the atmosphere, which is conserved (i.e. net motion over entire globe always adds to 0) - where the air is rising, there are clouds. You can add as many aerosols as you like to air in a high pressure system where the air is descending, but it will not increase cloud cover.

>>8955444
Agree with this to some extent. A difficulty is that, at the moment, we can't have that debate.

It is assumed that there is only one way to address climate change -- adopt liberal policies that negatively impact quality of life. The other side, politically, is not engaged in the debate -- they are too staked out on It Is Not Happening.

Political opinion is so polarized that the debate can't happen. Without the debate, science can't drive policy.

>>8961497
international finance (BIS, IMF) has been encouraging this for decades, and people have mainly turned a blind eye to the route causes (save the children, etc).

We are well and truly fucked....

>>8960359
>oblong earth
Oblong flat or oblong sphere?

>>8962888
Quality of life is one thing.

The "growth" that we all need and love is a completely different matter.

>>8960518
This. If you fear radiation, buy the house next to the nuke plant instead of the one next to the coal plant.

>>8961477
That's waaaay more expensive than taking aggressive action to mitigate emissions.

>>8961217
Why not?

>>8961354
Not totally relevant -- how many big mammal species existed before any evolved? Not many.

But a pretty thriving ecosystem of big animals was around.

>>8961385
I can agree with that, since you started with "could."

But can you agree that the costs of starving society of energy would also have disastrous effects?

Reducing the use of carbon based fuels for energy to combat climate change seems too likely to swap one possible disaster for another certain one.

Eventually, energy technologies to replace carbon fuels will emerge. If we need a stopgap to deal with warming between now and then, direct action to ameliorate warming such as ocean cloud seeding and other geo-engineering projects need to be explored.

>>8954562
Climate does change and humans likely have some influence on the climate. However it's not possible to perform the neccessary experiments with current technology to accurately define how or by how much because of the scale of the experiment and the numerous factors which are outside of our control, science which can not be tested through experimentation is NOT good science. As such we can only guess based on correlations and try rudimentary experiments (pure observation with no controls) in real time.

That's where the science ends and everything after that is political bullshit.

The first problem is that everyone wants things to happen 'NOW' or perhaps more accurately 'BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION'. Not going to happen.
-Developing technologies take time.
-Deploying technologies take even more time.
-Field proving the technologies and gaining consumer confidence in them takes a lot of time.
-Mass deployment of technologies can take a long time.

Second problem is that green energy advocates pushed green energy tech in the same way that a snake oil salesman does, "Here's a problem you didn't know you had and we have exactly the solution for the small price of the world's GDP for the next 10 years"
-Despite the 'crisis' green energy folks are very particular about how to solve it; Nuclear power for example is not really ever considered for 'green energy'. "We have to do everything to stop CO2, except that!" Is the message conveyed.
-Wind and solar are the tech that is pushed for, most of the advocates haven't even heard of others like tidal power or geothermal power.
-They actually consider PV solar farms as a viable option; PV solar's ideal application is decentralized, at-location-of-use power generation PERIOD. Never any mention about solar thermal, the solar power generation technology which is ideal for a 'energy farm' scenario see above.
-Wind is all about huge megastructures. Very little thought or attention paid to small, scalable applications.

>>8961411
You assert that with conviction. I guess I could assert that climate change is not real with equal conviction. But I couldn't back it up. Can you back your doomsday predictions?

And, in any case, what do you propose to do about it? Solutions that are not economically technologically or politically feasible don't count. Things that we can and possibly actually would do only.

>>8962919
That's so cute how you like to pretend the awesome source of energy known as "carbon fuels" will not ALL be used to promote your new pet project, nuclear.

>>8962906
Spraying a little sulfur into the stratosphere would cost a LOT less than starving the economy of energy. Plus, it wouldn't take getting emerging economies to give up on their chance to emerge and go back to being poor. Which ain't going to happen.

So a simple geoengineering project is not only cheaper, but we have a chance of actually doing it -- would only take one country willing to take the heat (if you'll pardon the pun) for actually doing it.

>>8962881
You may be right -- why don't we try it and see? Lots cheaper than killing the world economy.

We already know "cloud formation" from contrails has a cooling effect, but there are likely cheaper and cleaner ways increase ocean cloud cover.

>>8954562
>>8962925
The Paris accord does not accomplish anything REAL that would not already be accomplished by the natural progression and adoption of technologies.

The only country's which will hit their targets are those who were already going to do so, I would certainly hope that no world leader was stupid enough to set a target beyond that at least. This is just a 'look we're doing something' move to appease voters before the next election cycle.

What is real however is the international wealth redistribution; developed nations are going to give poor nations money to skip the fossil fuels? Hopelessly idealistic, the money will just disappear. Putting all of that money into pure open source R&D in developed nations would have a far more lasting impact and a far better price/performance.

>>8962928
I have no idea what you even mean here. I have not mentioned nuclear.

A massive expansion of nuclear power is politically unlikely. That may change in the future, but I wouldn't count n it.

"Green" sources are not yet ready for large scale replacement of carbon fuels. It may be in the future, and to me it seems likely it ill be.

But at the moment we get to burn carbon-based fuel or convince a lot of well-off people to become poor, and a lot of poor people who are starting to emerge from poverty to go back to being poor. My sense is that this is also not politically feasible, it also is not an optimal choice.

Stopgaps to keep the lid on things while we burn what we need and develop better energy options seem to me the way to go.

But, for that to happen, the left has to get off of the "freeze to death in the dark" option, and the right has to stop pretending like there is no problem. Which I guess means my preferred solution is not likely to happen, either.

Though it may be easier to persuade political entities to shift positions, which they do all the time, than to ask the world to live poor.

>>8962946
You don't understand the difference between cloud seeding and geoengineering by adding sulfur dioxide at high altitudes.

Go right ahead and "geoengineer" the shit out of it, genius.

>>8961004
>Prove it.

Oh boy, the 2 words that kill every climate change denier.

>>8962919
Who said anything about starving? Nobody is saying we'll suddenly go cold-turkey on oil. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. We reduce our use of fossil fuels in favor of other energy sources. The economic consensus is that taking preventative action will ultimately be much less expensive than doing nothing.

This is, I think, the most comprehensive study of the economic impacts.
If you don't want to read all 700 pages, the tl;dr is
>Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm

Here's another study that estimates the impacts at 23%
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/what-are-the-economic-consequences-of-climate-change/

The cost of curtailing climate change does not equate to certain disaster. If you insist it would, I'd like to see a source.

Hoping for some magic carbon capture technology to pop up is insanely optimistic.

>>8962940
>Spraying a little sulfur into the stratosphere would cost a LOT less than starving the economy of energy.
Citation badly needed.

>Plus, it wouldn't take getting emerging economies to give up on their chance to emerge and go back to being poor.
The pervasive "energy poverty" myth is, frankly, evil.
>We're just looking out for the poor Africans :^)
No. Africa, like most of the rest of the undeveloped world, is going to be hit harder by AGW than developed nations. Secondly, renewables (particularly solar) is even more viable there than anywhere else. They don't have the infrastructure to deliver energy from huge plants to residential areas, but they can easily set up solar panels right in their villages. They're also not really capable of paying competitive prices for barrels of oil.

>>8962955
>I have no idea what you even mean here.

No.

You're an algorithm, whose sole purpose is to consume as much as possible.

>>8955723
>the temperature at which water boils

At what pressure?

>>8962909
*scratches head. lites doobie. gets faded af.
touche.

>>8962927
where i got my info from was straight from the top and i will never unhear the words he said. we may have until 2025 until all the ice caps melt completely, greenland and antarctica

>>8962927
i propose to dig trenches of behemoth proportions one

>>8959859
>Shitty soviet era construction
>Nuclear is bad because water is a shit coolant that breaks down into hydrogen at these temps
>>there is clearly nothing we could ever use instead of water

>>8960963
>and some flooding in coastal cities.

Coastal cities are mostly populated by leftist liberal arts majors parroting scientists when it's convenient for their agenda. I say we need more global warming if you can promise this.

>>8962961
That photo is hilariously stupid

>>8963004
Yeah but the second study in >>8962962 says that Canada and Northern European countries could potentially benefit economically from warming while the US and most of the rest of the world suffers.

>>8959859
>>Chernobyl is still uninhabitable
It's totally inhabitable. Thousands of people have been living there the whole time.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-04-26/30-years-after-chernobyl-these-ukrainian-babushkas-are-still-living-their-toxic

As for Fukushima, most of the evacuation zone has less background radiation than Colorado, e.g. approx 11 mSv / year.

>>8962957
I do understand. I'd experiment with both. It would be cheap as Hell for an insurance policy against the likelihood of nothing else working out.

>>8963031
Well considering they'll be controlled by people who live like it's 1000 AD by that time I'm not too worried.

>>8962868
Radiative forcing from methane we emit is negligible compared to CO2.

>>8962962
>The economic consensus is that taking preventative action will ultimately be much less expensive than doing nothing.

In either case, though, there are options that address warming and are much, much cheaper than either.

2 Days ago I was convinced that humanity has a major cause on the climate change, and that we need to save the world by reducing CO2 emissions. In my opinion, everyone who would not believe in this was a science denying retard. I mean 97% (or 80-90%) of climate scientists do believe in it.

(I would NEVER question their work and believes, as I myself am not an expert on climate change. I am a interested citizen who just wants to understand the whole thing. )

Yesterday, I became interested in the subject: I caught myself making the argument: "i believe it without even having to look at the data". This surely was not scientific at all. So i decided to really convince myself about our cause on the climate change.

I started to read the policy makers summary of the IPCC report. I looked at graphs and arguments of both sides. But somehow it only resulted in more skepticism. I find many arguments, that look sane to me, that debunk the theories of IPCC.

Is it really so clear that we are the cause? Please /sci/, help me to understand the evidence that we are.

Pic related, for example, shows that there were periods with WAY more CO2 than now. And those times also supported life. How can i believe now that CO2 increase will fuck up the world?

I will post more such arguments, and i hope we all together can debunk these ideas. Thanks a lot.

>>8963046
Citation needed.

>>8962880
Yes don't stop smoking because the cure for cancer will be found and then you would have wasted all that time spent not smoking.

>>8962970
You are certainly keeping your "being too opaque to be understood" batting average high.

Hit, this has turned into a political thread -- not all /pol/ tier, but not /sci/ relevant either.

See you guys in another thread.

>>8961513
Actually, IIRC studies show that some people start experiencing minor headaches at 1000 ppm CO2, and a small decrease in motor skill, etc.

>>8963050
>Pic related, for example, shows that there were periods with WAY more CO2 than now.
CO2 isn't the only variable in global temperature. The other one, I believe, is solar activity, which also fluctuates.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

>>8962888
The least costly way to address climate change is mitigation.

>>8962912
Good luck with evolving into a non-mammal in a few hundred years.

>>8963062
But then IPCC has checked that all the necessary variables are present today?

> CO2 isn't the only variable in global temperature. The other one, I believe, is solar activity, which also fluctuates

But isnt solar activity at a low? I've heard (but not checked yet) that IPCC's models do not depend on variables related to solar activity. Thats actually one argument that is brought up a lot by skeptics.

>>8962888
>It is assumed that there is only one way to address climate change -- adopt liberal policies that negatively impact quality of life. The other side, politically, is not engaged in the debate -- they are too staked out on It Is Not Happening.

Or 3: Lots of nuclear power.

>>8962894
But that's wrong. The only way to stop increasing population is to raise them out of poverty, give them lots of birth control, and get feminism rolling in their culture so that women can choose to use birth control.

>>8963082
That's the only humane way to do it you mean.

>>8963083
Yes

>>8963085
Just so that we're clear forced sterilization and mass starvation with no food aid are also options.

>>8962925
>However it's not possible to perform the neccessary experiments with current technology to accurately define how or by how much because of the scale of the experiment and the numerous factors which are outside of our control, science which can not be tested through experimentation is NOT good science.
This is complete bullshit. We know how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere and what the effect of that is through experiments and empirical observation. Saying there is no experiment to test the theory that humans are the main cause of current warming is like saying there is no experiment to test the theory of evolution. Of course there isn't *one experiment,* there are many experiments and pieces of evidence which form the foundation of the theory. The theory is only as strong as that foundation, avid guess what? The fountain of AGW is very empirically strong. Unless you can somehow show that we are not the main net source of CO2, CO2's greenhouse effect is less than experiment after experiment has shown it to be, etc, you must concede the fact that we are the main cause of warming.

>>8963089
>is like saying there is no experiment to test the theory of evolution.
That experiment, unlike global warming, can in fact be performed though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

>it's another "everything I claim without evidence is right and everything climate scientists show with evidence is wrong" episode

>>8963089
> We know how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere and what the effect of that is through experiments and empirical observation.

I actually dont know the effect of putting CO2 in the atmosphere. Sure there is the agreed upon energy increase, which alone is not enough to cause drastic change. But how exactly is there a positive feedback signal? what is the mechanism? Can you maybe present me some material where i can read that up?

>>8962965
>No. Africa, like most of the rest of the undeveloped world,
Not world, people, undeveloped people. It's a big difference. You can't even get these fuckers to farm >>8961399 pic related
, and now you want civilized people to provide these fuckers with solar panels? For what reason? The problem is population explosion. The problem is the West giving medicine, food, shelter and so on, to people who can't sustain themselves in a civilization. I don't hate them, but it is the truth. Go on, try and bring out some expensive solar panels to an african village. They tear it apart and sell the scraps. Or do some other retarded shit, because their average iq is 70.

>>8963050
Can you link to where exactly that image is from, so I can look at it in context? Can't find it.

>Pic related, for example, shows that there were periods with WAY more CO2 than now. And those times also supported life. How can i believe now that CO2 increase will fuck up the world?
The climate and CO2 levels have changed in the past; when it changed over millions of years, life adapted. When it changed abruptly, it could cause mass extinctions. "Supporting life" is an awfully low bar. Nobody knowledgeable is saying climate change will result in human extinction; just that the effects will be highly undesirable.

Currently, the climate is changing rapidly. It was bad when it happened in the past, and it's bad now. This time it happens to be our fault.

There are also more factors affecting temperature than just CO2 levels, most notably Earth's orbit around the sun, solar activity, and volcanic activity.

>>8963077
>But isnt solar activity at a low?
A 35-year low, yeah. It fluctuates a lot though.

>>8963099
There are a few positive feedback loops, but the most notable one is water vapor, which also traps heat.
more heat -> more water vapor -> more heat
not that guy btw

>>8954562
>What can one do to reduce co2 emissions

Probably not a whole lot on your own. Your biggest personal impact will come from driving so anything you can do to cut back there is better than nothing. I don't expect people to run out and drop money on hybrids or electric cars just for the sake of the environment but if you are considering purchasing a car soon give hybrid and electric some thought if your budget can afford it. If not then go for as fuel efficient as possible on your budget. Additionally just avoid extraneous driving. If you don't have to drive somewhere then don't. You can try public transport but it's very regional and may not be terribly efficient. If you are the only one on a bus that buses' carbon imprint per person is much higher than if it is full. Bear that in mind. You can also try to reduce your electricity and gas usage while at home. Turn off electrical devices (particularly high loads like ACs and heaters) when not in the room. Switch from incandescent to LED or CCFL. This has a nice side effect of saving you money due to lower bills. Anything beyond that is going to have a trivial impact.

You can try to write or call your state rep and tell them what you think about climate change. I can't promise this will produce results but it's worth a shot.

That's about the best advice I have. If you are serious about this than good luck to you.

>>8963121


> Currently, the climate is changing rapidly.
Ive heard this is not the case. Apparently the temperature is steady for 17 years. and the sea level is rising anyway since the last ice age right ? so whats changing?

i will find the link.

>>8963050
>Pic related, for example, shows that there were periods with WAY more CO2 than now.
Yes, but life back then was not adapted to the climate we are in now. If we had been living in a high CO2 environment for hundreds of thousands of years, there would be no problem with the current level of CO2. But we haven't. Rapidly changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere means rapidly changing the climate, which is not good for an ecosystem which has been adapted to a certain relatively stable climate for millions of years. Essentially, it's not the level of CO2 that matters, it's how fast you change the level of CO2.

>>8963077
>But then IPCC has checked that all the necessary variables are present today?
Yes.

> I've heard (but not checked yet) that IPCC's models do not depend on variables related to solar activity.
That claim makes no sense on its face. The IPCC does not have its own models. It only compiles and reports on peer reviewed research. To claim that climate scientists have ignored the sun is even moresensical.

>>8963132
>Ive heard this is not the case.
You've heard bullshit. We have no evidence the climate has ever changed this fast.

>Apparently the temperature is steady for 17 years.
Lies.

>>8963094
That is an experiment that illustrates natural (technically artificial) selection. The theory of evolution is much more than natural selection. It's like saying an experiment which measures the infrared heat signature of CO2 proves AGW.

>>8963119
Ignoring your /pol/tard non-sequitur about NIGGERSNIGGERSNIGGERS, the facts are that
1) the cost of solar is dropping like a rock and Africa is fucking sunny
2) the cost of oil isn't dropping and Africa is fucking poor
3) Africa does not have the infrastructure to deliver energy from non-existent plants to its multitude of villages; a localized solution is needed

This is why saying "b-b-but think of the poor Africans" in defense of ignoring climate change is so stupid. Because Africa won't be stifled by comparatively lower fossil fuel usage; market forces are driving the continent towards renewables without any outside intervention.

And why would you argue against solar by saying
>the REAL problem is charity :^)
when fossil fuels and the necessary infrastructure would be just as expensive, and Africa is moving towards solar without any charity? It sounds like you just heard "Africa" and started compulsively regurgitating /pol/ talking points.

>>8963147
>We have no evidence the climate has ever changed this fast.

lol
Are you denying mass extinctions happened in the past?

>>8963159
No.

>>8963099
>I actually dont know the effect of putting CO2 in the atmosphere.
Then why don't you look it up? The only reason I can think of why you would be posting like this is to troll.

>Sure there is the agreed upon energy increase, which alone is not enough to cause drastic change. But how exactly is there a positive feedback signal? what is the mechanism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

>>8963162
So what are you saying
CO2 has never driven climate in the past, it's been much warmer in the past, with much higher CO2 levels

We live in an era of CO2 scarcity, more CO2 is essentially fertilizer in the end

>>8963163
>based on model simulations
excellent
just
excellent

>>8963137
>Rapidly changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere means rapidly changing the climate, which is not good for an ecosystem which has been adapted to a certain relatively stable climate for millions of years
I can't say you are wrong. But don't act like it is the end of the world. If I have a big ass greenhouse with 300 ppm and amp it up to 1000 ppm, what happens?
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
"The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years."
"In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed."
I understand you are talking about climate, and animals are not plants. But so far, the effects of going from 280ppm tp 400ppm have been non-existent. And fuck of with droughts, they have always occured. Same goes for storms. So far, we seen no effect.

>>8963164
>So what are you saying
That the climate is warming dangerously fast, and human activity is responsible.

>CO2 has never driven climate in the past, it's been much warmer in the past, with much higher CO2 levels
What?

>We live in an era of CO2 scarcity, more CO2 is essentially fertilizer in the end
That is not at all how it works.

>>8963175
Feel free to actually criticize details of particular models, rather than just posting nonsense.

>>8963158
None of that post made any sense. Sucks to be an emotional female.

>>8963164
>CO2 has never driven climate in the past
Wrong. CO2 has never *initiated warming* in the past. But it is integral to driving warming via the positive feedback loop. Without CO2 driving temperature, we cannot explain any glacial warming, since the change in solar radiation is too slow to drive it.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

>it's been much warmer in the past, with much higher CO2 levels
Humans and the ecosystem we rely on are not adapted to that climate, so this is a non sequitur.

>We live in an era of CO2 scarcity, more CO2 is essentially fertilizer in the end
CO2 is not the limiting factor to agricultural growth. More CO2 and more warming generally will decrease the yields of the biggest agricultural producers.

>>8963175
Why are models bad?

>>8963185
Sucks to have the reading comprehension of a 5-year-old.

>>8963196
Your entire post was. "People are trying to make money. "
In other news, water is wet.

>>8963204
No, you dolt. My post was a rebuttal to the argument that reducing fossil fuel use would cripple undeveloped nations, particularly Africa, since market forces are already driving them towards renewables.

>>8963180
>I can't say you are wrong. But don't act like it is the end of the world.
Where did I act or say it's the end of the world? I did not. Try to not put words in my mouth. I try not to put words in your mouth.

This will definitely not be the end of the world, or humans, or human civilization. It will simply be a slow, insidious accumulation of damages. Unfortunately, human nature makes us very bad at protecting ourselves from something like that. We are bad at taking future risks seriously if they are not immediately threatening, and we are bad at spending now to save more later.

>If I have a big ass greenhouse with 300 ppm and amp it up to 1000 ppm, what happens?
Too bad global agriculture does not take place in an environment like a greenhouse where all limiting factors to growth before CO2 are fulfilled. Before you need more CO2, you need more water and more nutritious soil. Unfortunately, warming and its effects will generally reduce yields more than CO2 will increase them.

See pic in >>8963191

>>8963207
>Too bad global agriculture does not take place in an environment like a greenhouse where all limiting factors to growth before CO2 are fulfilled. Before you need more CO2, you need more water and more nutritious soil. Unfortunately, warming and its effects will generally reduce yields more than CO2 will increase them.
You say that. Yet massive dinosaurs roamed the earth when the co2 level was much higher. What did they eat? As I understand it, it was green all over. What about 36 million years ago when it was 750 ppm, was it not green back then?
>>8963207
>Where did I act or say it's the end of the world? I did not. Try to not put words in my mouth. I try not to put words in your mouth.
Fair enough, I just assumed this was you.>>8961645
>all agree global warming is not catastrophic, in reasonable timescales anyway. Of course a full on nuclear war won't eliminate humanity either, it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

>>8963212
>You say that. Yet massive dinosaurs roamed the earth when the co2 level was much higher. What did they eat?
We've already been over this a million times. We are not dinosaurs, we are adapated to a completely different environment than dinosaurs. Our food is adapated to a completely different environment. This argument makes no sense. I'm not saying that life in some form cannot survive and thrive in a warmer climate, I am saying that changes which are too fast for our ecosystem to adapt to are harmful to us. It's not the level of CO2 or even the temperature that matters, it's how fast they change.

>Fair enough, I just assumed this was you.>>8961645
Not me, but I don't see anything wrong in the post. It's specifically saying GW will not kill us all.

>>8963216
>. Our food is adapated to a completely different environment.
WHAT FOOD?
>>8961399
>>Did humans evolve in that sort of environment in the Jurassic, or did we evolve within the past few million years at which the Earth's climate has been relatively stable (in terms of CO2ppm)?
>It has been stable in terms of co2, maybe, but certainly not in temperatures or climate. We survived ice ages and to this day you have different races living in different climates, from the negro in Africa, to the arab living in the desert in north-africa to the inuits living in ice-world.
Fucking GMO or even good old crossbreeding. It does not take thousands of years to develop new crops! IT TAKES YEARS. Are you dumb?
>>8963216
>I am saying that changes which are too fast for our ecosystem
WHAT ECOSYSTEM? Toads and other shit animals will die or what? What excactly will happen? Because saying a specific kind of fucking crop does perfom as well means absolutely nothing in this day and age.

>>8963223
>Because saying a specific kind of fucking crop does not perfom as well means absolutely nothing in this day and age.

>>8963223
>WHAT FOOD?
Agricultural products which we artificially selected to grow in this particular climate.

Fish which are used to water of a certain temperature and acidity.

>Fucking GMO or even good old crossbreeding.
Maybe when someone actually creates such a GMO or crossbreed, this argument will hold water. Until then it's just wishful thinking. I'm sure someone will come up with that cure for cancer, so keep on smoking.

>WHAT ECOSYSTEM? Toads and other shit animals will die or what? What excactly will happen?
http://www.climatewise.org/be-prepared/climate-change-resources/climate-change-basics/1172-impacts-from-climate-change

>>8963229
>Maybe when someone actually creates such a GMO or crossbreed, this argument will hold water. Until then it's just wishful thinking. I
They have. They do it all the time.
>>8963229
>I'm sure someone will come up with that cure for cancer, so keep on smoking.
It's a really shitty analogy since cancer is cured all the time. So I guess I was right, you are dumb.

>>8963232
>They have.
[citation needed]

>It's a really shitty analogy since cancer is cured all the time. So I guess I was right, you are dumb.
Yes, cancer is cured all the time, so no need to worry about it right? I don't think you understand the analogy. This argument only holds water if a solution is actually created. Until then it's just wishful thinking.

>>8963236
>>They have.
>[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
OH BUT THEY HAVE NOT YET DEVELOPED A FOOD FOR A PROBLEM THAT IS STILL NON EXISTENT. IT*S FUCKING WISHFULL THINKING! Jesus Christ what a way to argue.
Even this fucking pic you asked me to look at
>>8963191
Only shows problems after 2020! Except for safflower. OH BUT IT IS FUCKING WISHFULL THINKING! WISHFULL MAN! We are going to starve! We won't. Food is not a problem.

>>8963244
So no citation, that's what I thought. Try not to make things up when arguing on /sci/.

>Only shows problems after 2020!
Well first of all, I posted that pic to debunk your claim that AGW will be good for crops. Second, why is the yield dropping significantly only after 2020 a good thing? I hope you're not arguing that these graphs are just conjecture and not based on scientific research. I asked for scientific research showing GMOs being made to counteract the effects of AGW. You could not. Don't compare apples to oranges.

>>8963250
>I hope you're not arguing that these graphs are just conjecture and not based on scientific research
I care to little about some valley in California to even consider that. You failed to make even a slightly compelling argument that food shortage will be a problem because of rising co2.
>>8963250
>So no citation, that's what I thought. Try not to make things up when arguing on /sci/.
Oh I'm on /sci/, better watch out for all these geniuses.
>>8963250
>. I asked for scientific research showing GMOs being made to counteract the effects of AGW
Have you ever heard of a cure for a disease that did not exist? So far, the problem is not real. There is no proof yet that it will become real. I don't give a fuck what you predict will happen. IF after 2020 a decline in crops happens ever so slowly, then farmers and GMO companies will correct it. They can't do it before it starts to happen.

>>8963256
>I care to little about some valley in California to even consider that.
Jesus fuck, are you just trolling? This isn't about one location.

>So far, the problem is not real.
Yes it is!

>There is no proof yet that it will become real.
There's been a VAST number of studies of the impacts of AGW on crop yields. Shoving your head in the sand doesn't make them go away.

>IF after 2020 a decline in crops happens ever so slowly, then farmers and GMO companies will correct it.
They don't have a magic wand. They can't just wish away the impacts of heat stress and drought.

>>8963256
>I care to little about some valley in California to even consider that.
Your lack of care about major agricultural production centers does not exactly help your argument, it just makes you look like an ignorant asshole.

>You failed to make even a slightly compelling argument that food shortage will be a problem because of rising co2.
You're technically correct, since I didn't make that argument. The research I got that figure from does that. Since you didn't even bother reading it, I don't think you are able to tell me whether it is compelling or not. Yet again, you are just making shit up.

Try googliing "Effect of climate change on field crop production in California’s Central Valley"

>Have you ever heard of a cure for a disease that did not exist?
OK, so since cures for diseases can be created, we should not care about activities that increase the risk of those diseases? Is that your argument?

>There is no proof yet that it will become real.
There is plenty of proof presented in this thread and beyond. Your massive denial of the reality around you is rather pathetic.

>I don't give a fuck what you predict will happen.
Yes, and this rejection of what the experts are telling you based on the scientific evidence is exactly why you have reached the wrong conclusion. Time to leave /sci/

>>8963265
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-does-the-govt-pay-farmers/
"Robert Frank: Paying farmers not to grow crops was a substitute for agricultural price support programs designed to ensure that farmers could always sell their crops for enough to support themselves. The price support program meant that farmers had to incur the expense of plowing their fields, fertilizing, irrigating, spraying, and harvesting them, and then selling their crops to the government, which stored them in silos until they either rotted or were consumed by rodents. It was much cheaper just to pay farmers not to grow the crops in the first place."

Food is so abundant we are paying farmers not to farm.
http://time.com/money/4528053/milk-glut/
"Why Millions of Gallons of Milk Are Being Thrown Out"
Milk has to be thrown out.

http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/
"Roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year — approximately 1.3 billion tonnes — gets lost or wasted."
"Every year, consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million tonnes) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes)"

So. We are paying farmers not to farm to keep price on food high, Milk has to be thrown out because they produce to much. Vast, VAST amount of food get's thrown out. And there is an obesity epidemic in the Western World.

Kill Your Self. Rising CO2 Levels will NOT cause a food shortage in the western world. Won't fucking happen.

>>8963274
PAYING FARMERS NOT TO FARM. WE HAVE TO MUCH FOOD. IT IS TO CHEAP AND TO ABUNDANT, NO MORE FARMERS! NO MORE! HERE, HAVE SOME MONEY TO DO NOTHING, FOR GODS SAKE JUST NO MORE FOOD.
KILL YOUR SELF YOU FUCKING DELUDED PIECE OF SHIT. IT IS AN ULTRA DUMB ARGUMENT.

>>8963276
>Food is so abundant we are paying farmers not to farm.
That is not at all implied by the article you posted.

>>8963276
>Food is so abundant we are paying farmers not to farm.
That's a huge misrepresentation of your own source. The reason the government pays farmers not to grow crops is because they want to guarantee that farmers make money even if their crop is not profitable. This does not mean food is abundant, it means that the price of particular crops fluctuates too much for smaller farmers to predict. Additionally, this does not mean that a decrease in yields will not be economically harmful, so the entire argument is a non-sequitur.

>Rising CO2 Levels will NOT cause a food shortage in the western world.
Idiotic strawman. It will make food more expensive.

>>8963281
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
You lost.

>>8963287
>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-does-the-govt-pay-farmers/
"Robert Frank: Paying farmers not to grow crops was a substitute for agricultural price support programs designed to ensure that farmers could always sell their crops for enough to support themselves. "
" to ensure that farmers could always sell their crops for enough to support themselves. ""

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/farmer-earns-pounds-19000-a-year-for-growing-nothing-for-five-years-the-only-crop-on-215-high-1429787.html
The EU DOES IT AND THE USA DOES IT! BECAUSE IF ALL THE FARMERS GREW ALL THE FOOD THEY COULD THE FUCKING PRICES ON FOOD WOULD DROP AND CAUSE A MASSIVE CRASH ON FOOD PRICES CAUSING BANKRUPTCIES FOR ALL THE FUCKING FARMS YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

>>8963291
I just went from being somewhat concerned about co2 levels, to realise you are all idiots.

>>8963294
None of that suggests that food is abundant, just that the market is unstable and/or heavily controlled.

Just stop.

>>8963295
Says the guy who got BTFO with every post. Back to >>>/pol/

>>8963296
>>8963306
I mean, only idiots do not understand something so simple.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-does-the-govt-pay-farmers/
Just look at the answers. I had to walk my dog btw, therefore the long response time.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-prices-fall-farmers-grow-subsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers
"As crop prices fall, farmers grow subsidies instead"
This is common knowledge and only plebs fail to understand this. We could grow much more food if we wanted to. We don't because we already throw out vast amounts of food and if all farmers produced all the food they could, prices would drop and cause bankruptcies for farmers.
It is the dumbest thing to be worried about. You are massive idiots. No worries, I'm back to /pol/ now.

>>8954619
Nah.

Give it to me straight /sci/: how swift will humanity's doom be?

In addition, will our "doom" be death en masse or a drastic change in civilization?

>>8963361
It's gonna be long slog of pain and suffering for a certain member of the population.

Climate change gonna impact people differently. If you're inland living in Kansas probably not that much other than rising prices, effectively making you poorer. If you live in Central Africa, Middle East etc there would be refugee crisis, civil war, political instabilities, etc

Help, I can't tell if the namefag is really that retarded or if he's only pretending.

/kalle.last/posts/1446323445406290?

Put www.facebook.com in front of the above backslash to complete the url as this post see's it as spam and will not let me post it.

Never seen such stupidity in my life. Check out this idiot Chris Cisneros on facebook and his gem of an argument on climate science. If you go through his entire facebook page you'll find plenty of other moronic arguments and statements on science.

>>8963478
Yeah, no thanks, I don't need to go to jewbook to know how absolutely retarded climate change deniers are.

Ideally we'd find a good way to capture CO2, but we're talking gigatons, so reduction will be necessary regardless unless we find some miracle capturing technology.

>>8963565
A convenient rule of thumb: It's generally easier to not burn things, than to burn them now and unburn them later.

Abolish personal cars and switch the carpark with a dronepark.

>>8963351
>Responds to post about percentage of research papers with survey of opinions
Why are deniers so intellectually dishonest?

>>8963478
post screencaps moron. not everybody's got cancer.

>>8963753
Touch my car and you will suffer, hippie

>>8954562

http://www.petitionproject.org

>>8954562
>> what can one do to reduce co2 emissions
Blow up oil transportation infrastructure. Destroy coal transportation infrastructure. If it can't be transported it can't be burned.

Go fug a pipeline compressor station today!

>>8963947
we should start by having car limit for people
eventually our roads will be so dense that driving will give you diminishing returns

>>8963947
>clandestine anon operations
Where do I sign up?

>>8963916
http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/

What portion of emissions do you think comes from classic cars? I would consider an EV for commuting, but I would like to keep older vehicles until the day I die for recreation.
I would see it getting vanishingly small over the years as more people adopt EVs

>>8964122
Is this the list containing engineers and lawyers and shit?

>>8954562
I have a wonderful idea.

Everyone who believes in AGW should inhale deeply, and never exhale.

>>8964310
We're releasing gigatons of CO2 from fossil fuels, anon. Gigatons that weren't in the cycle for millions of years. Don't be a fucking moron.

>>8962798
You really don'y understand what predictions are and posting emotionally charged videos with no substance won't change that.

Learn the difference between prediction and postdiction and then come back to shitpost. And please, try and understand what a model actually is.

that video does not address whether models are accurate or not at all, just that "it's warmer". And the video salutes papers that provide the most handwavy explanations regardless of the basis. Medieval alchemists had so many explanations for everything, does that make them better than today's scientists?
So painful to watch.

>>8962462
Indeed. They've been consistently too conservative.

>>8964546

CO2 has no effect over global temps:

http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/08/17-new-scientific-papers-dispute-co2-greenhouse-effect-as-primary-explanation-for-climate-change/

more CO2 just means more food for plants:

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

>>8964300
Yes. Plus joke names like dead people.

>>8964550
>You really don't understand what predictions are and posting emotionally charged videos with no substance won't change that.
>Learn the difference between prediction and postdiction
So you didn't watch the video. Why do deniers need to lie all the time if they actually believe AGW is false?

>And the video salutes papers that provide the most handwavy explanations regardless of the basis.
Such obscene irony. You handwave away models as handwavy. Your post has no substance at all.

If you are not going to engage with the science critically and instead just say it's all wrong because you feel that way get the fuck off the science board, moron.

>>8964594
>CO2 has no effect over global temps
You can directly measure the radiative forcing of CO2 via radiative spectroscopy. This is like saying gravity does not exist. You cannot explain the history of earth climate without CO2 affecting the temperature. Hell, you cannot even explain the weather without it.

>http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/08/17-new-scientific-papers-dispute-co2-greenhouse-effect-as-primary-explanation-for-climate-change/
Awful pseudoscience. Here let's let noted denier Roy Spencer explain:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/

>more CO2 just means more food for plants:
In reality it decreases yield. This was already addressed several tines in the thread.

>>8964812
>CO2 decreases yield

false
there are studies for literally every edible plant

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

the website is not difficult to use, click on plants names

most of the experiment are done in controlled environment chambers, which means they add CO2 in one of the chambers and see what happen, every other factor stay the same, including water and nutrients; in some experiment they change those, and even try to reduce water etc. they tried everything possible, for decades, and the result is unquestionable: CO2 is food for plants

>>8964851
Too bad we're cutting them down faster than they grow back, even if what you said is true.

>>8964851
>co2science
You realise they're not a research group or anything right? Co2science are blatant, well known shills for oil and coal companies. You'd struggle to find a less credible source if you tried.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
>Funding
>According to IRS records, the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to the center in 2000.[3] Another report states that ExxonMobil has funded an additional $55,000 to the center.
>The center was also funded by Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company.

Anyway, even a quick glance and the website would show you they're not measuring crop yields in the environment, but plant growth under "greenhouse" conditions.

>they tried everything possible, for decades, and the result is unquestionable: CO2 is food for plants
Except that's complete bullshit.

>>8964851
First off, shit source but you already knew that as the anon above explained.

Second, most experiments that increase CO2 concentration and show increased plant growth are in conditions in which all the other resources plants require (water, nutrient rich soil, etc.) are well controlled. In the real world, yes, some regions of the Earth will see better soils develop, and plants will grow better, but that's only true for some regions, large parts of the Earth will see reduction in plant growth due to declining resources due to hotter tropics, specifically droughts and loss of available nutrients in situations such as desertification.

There's also a lot you should read up on plant biology in general, certain types of plants do fair better with more CO2, but many of the plants, especially agricultural plants don't. Mostly plants that already live in arid environments that are well adapted to a lack of available resources will fare the best under climate change. Water is a much more important and vital limiting factor in plant growth than CO2 by the way, and climate change will cause increased droughts and natural disasters like wildfires, which are definitely not good for plants.

>>8965619
>desertification
Sahara is greening:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

>increased droughts
droughts are decreasing:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/australias-droughts-decreasing-contrary-to-warmists-claims/


>>8965251
>not a research group
>>8965619
>shit source

the "source" are hundreds of experiments made everywhere in the world
they are cited in the first column, can't you read?

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/o/oryzas.php

>>8954614
>hurricane

in fact storms and hurricanes decreased a bit since the 90s
see chart

>>8961315
>the amount of sea ice present has rapidly decreased each year

there is more ice in 2017 than 2016 and 2015

>>8965650
>the "source" are hundreds of experiments made everywhere in the world
No it isn't. It cites those papers, but none of those papers actually discuss global warming or crop yields - they're all about the growth of particular plants under particular conditions. The people making the connection to AGW are co2science, and they are absolutely uncredible.

>>8965661
To the best of my knowledge, "more hurricanes" has never been an actual predication from climatologists.

>>8965668
>there is more ice in 2017 than 2016 and 2015
The trend is very much down, regardless of the short term variation.

>>8965699
>short term variation

time's a bitch
every year that pass your doomsday predictions fail miserably

http:// climate change predictions .org/categories/arctic_sea_ice

>>8961315
>arctic ice thickness

muh thickness

http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/thick-arctic-ice-pack-traps-boats-triggers-rescue-operation-off-newfoundland-1.3448987

oh snap, the ice knows, shut it down!

>>8965772
b8

>>8965772
>http:// climate change predictions .org/categories/arctic_sea_ice
Oh look, a WordPress blog run by a denier with no credentials and no understanding of the subject. And it's full of nothing but quote mining and misunderstanding. I sure have never seen anything like that before.
Please fuck off.

>>8963132
>Apparently the temperature is steady for 17 years.

actually it's 19 years since El Nino 1998

>>8965832
Try using the updated RSS dataset, and not the old version with known flaws.

>>8965668
>there is more ice in 2017 than 2016 and 2015
Gee I wonder what happened in 2015 and 2016? Could it be that old denier trick of using El Nino to claim cooling?