/sci/ - Science & Math

>>>/x/

>>9480890
>Actual climatology, geology experts tell us your latest findings on climate change and how the world will stabilise by the way we’re going now.

Climate /sci/entist here. Some good state of science update on the methane time bomb hypothesis from a good friend and colleagues of mine.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao4842

A study of radiocarbon CH4 emission from Prudhoe Bay Alaska suggest that there are some ancient (radiocarbon depleted) CH4 coming off from the seafloor hydrates and melting permafrost. However, even at very shallow, 10m water column depth all of those CH4 got eaten by bacteria and none of it made it to the atmosphere.

This study is a repeat of the earlier study from the Deepwater horizon oil spill. What this suggest is that the Methane time bomb panic hysteria that many overzealous pro environmental outlet (for example Alternet, or even some NYT articles) are probably invalid. The Arctic permafrost maybe melting, but the CH4 ain't gonna reach the atmosphere anytime soon

So no super-death within a decade.
In 20y tho, global food production will get a hit due to droughts and temperature tolerance range exceeded for many types of crops.
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s
By 2100, current trends holding, sea rise will start to be a major problem.

>>9481507
I'm surprised you didn't mention the permafrost thawing and the bacterial emissions of CH4 as a result.

>>9481540
>I'm surprised you didn't mention the permafrost thawing and the bacterial emissions of CH4 as a result.
If the permafrost is old, then the thawing resulting CH4 will have close to dead 14CH4 signature, which was not detectable.

If the 14CH4 coming off the permafrost was modern (which what was observed), then it means that it was recycled material from recent years and not really a big deal. The logic behind that is that all the "modern" stuff should be a net zero. That means a couple years ago plant grow, take CO2, dies, and years later turn into CO2/CH4 back to the atmosphere.

In other words, people are concerned about gigatons of old carbon who was not in the atmosphere - terrestrial vegetation - ocean system reaching the atmosphere and knocking the whole budget. If the CH4 from bacterial emission carry "modern" 14CH4 signature, then said carbon is already in the atm-ocean-vegetation pool and just cycled around as part of natural carbon cycle.

>>9481540
>I'm surprised you didn't mention the permafrost thawing and the bacterial emissions of CH4 as a result.
People are concerned about old C locked in permafrost entering the modern atmosphere-ocean-vegetation pool, and knocking the whole budget out of whack. If a permafrost degrades, but the resulting CH4 from bacteria is close to modern (which is the result of the study), that means that it was just recycled dead carbon from years ago that were already in the atmosphere-ocean-vegetation pool and it is not that big of a deal because net addition to that total pool is zero (the carbon just got recycled from atmosphere -> plants -> plant dies -> eaten and emitted by bacteria).

I am but a humble paleofag but I'm kinda worried about what's gonna happen as ocean pH drops. studies have been suggesting that calcareous plankton will start undergoing metabolic stress as calcite precipitation becomes less energetically favorable.

>>9481719
the big difference between the current climate change and every paleo-analogue in the geologic record that can be tested is that the current carbon injection is happening an order of magnitude faster than the timescale on which ocean overturning takes place.

On long timescales, ocean pH is effectively decoupled from CO2 concentration because of limestone buffering reactions on the ocean floor. Since the carbon injection right now is occurring much faster, there is a possibility of a completely unprecedented pH-drop in the upper ocean.

Climate physics here.

The basic principles of how global warming works are easy. However, I'm sceptical of the use of climate models. They're too big and require all sorts of fudging (e.g. inserting water to compensate that which has leaked out due to numerical errors), and they're being used for studies for which they're not intended to.

I understand this doesn't add much to the current discussion, but alright.

I'm especially worried about land use change, biodiversity and the oceans. Pollution by all sorts of nasty chemicals and plastics, acidification, overfishing.

>>9480890
>>9481507
>>9481525
>>9481540
>>9481573
>>9481719
>>9481829
>>9481850
>climate change
not science or math

>>9481850
What is your problem? Any climate model worth of damn would not use any numerical method with diffusion/leaks. Most of them do Crank-Nicholson implicit method that is really accurate.

With regards to water vapor, it is really easy to calculate water vapor for any given initial condition, P and T based on Claucius Clayperon Eq. There is no reason to keep track of water vapor concentration at every grid and waste numerical overhead.

>>9481829
>limestone buffering reactions on the ocean floor
nibba do you know what the carbonate compensation depth is?

>>9481905
>Climatology isn't science because its conclusions disagree with my feelings.

>>9483402
ccd baby! solvation > precipitation

The benefits of global warming are immense.Longer crop season, better pastures for cattle, less cold related deaths, longer building period, chance to build modern cities as the seacoast is expanding, less use of energy to warm cities during winters, less problems with transport(no snow covering roads)

Global warming is amazing gift to humanity

>>9484529
Increased CO2 results in less nutritious food as food become much higher in carbs therefore much less nutrients

>>9484529
>.Longer crop season, better pastures for cattle,
nope, droughts will fuck up those

>>9483836
>>Climatology isn't science because its conclusions disagree with my feelings.
Who are you quoting?

>>9486167
the little voice in the back of your head

>>9484529
Imagine being this far in denial.

What is the opinion of some of you about this: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2941 ?

It seems to claim that rain will increase in desert areas but water storage rates will not change in a significant way.

>>9486956
>What is the opinion of some of you about this:
In my opinion, their subscription/access prices are way too fckn high merely to view hosted files.

>>9481525
I am intrigued that the lines are so smooth. It is not as if someone smoothed these artificially just to prove a point, right? Right?

>>9486142
What about all the satellite photos that supposedly show Earth getting greener?

>>9486956
>It seems to claim that rain will increase in desert areas but water storage rates will not change in a significant way.
What? Are desert dwellers incapable of basic civil engineering??

>>9487077
in the subtropics (lat 23.5 - 40) rain will fail 50-75% when AGW reaches 450ppm/+2C
That's where the world's breadbaskets are.

>>9487140
>That's where the world's breadbaskets are.
The more relevant question is where the world's breadbasket will be given 2 degrees warming.

And do you have an answer to the question in >>9487077 ?

>>9480890
>climate change skeptic shills btfo

So, do you guys have a solution to fix this "Climate Change" problem that ISN'T "Give all of your money to the banks" or "De-Industrialize the west"?

>>9487222
>So, do you guys have a solution to fix this "Climate Change" problem that ISN'T "Give all of your money to the banks" or "De-Industrialize the west"?
Suppose we didn't. Would that make the problem less serious?

>>9487079
No, but people often don't build things in advance.

>>9487236
Once rainfall seems consistent, the Chinese civil engineering firm,s will be out in force once again in Africa and other desert places. And they will take care of water storage in no time.

>>9487077
Ah, the old claim that climate change will improve crop yields due to the undisputed fact of CO2 being food for plants. However that's only taking into account the first fact and not the other factors caused by an increase in CO2. Read these published scientific papers.
>"Precipitation and its extremes in changed climates" -- T. Schneider and P. A. O'Gorman, Journal of Climate 2008
>"Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios" -- Parry et al, Global Environmental Change 2004
> "Threats to Water Supplies in the Tropical Andes" Bradley et al., Science 2006
>>9487222
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw&index=31&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Plenty, what people are advocating for are the adoptions of new technologies, something we have both the technology and resources for, the only thing lacking being political will.

>So, do you guys have a solution to fix this "Climate Change" problem that ISN'T "Give all of your money to the banks" or "De-Industrialize the west"?
And that's a plain straw-man argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPqd20tdncg

>>9487641
>Ah, the old claim that climate change will improve crop yields due to the undisputed fact of CO2 being food for plants.
Ah, the old case of lack of reading comprehension where factual measurements with satellites are conflated with projections. A bit like those that have predicted the loss of the Arctic ice cap.

So please try again.

>>9487227
no but then all the normies would willingly rip our society as it exists rn so they can keep wearing uggs and drinking pumpkin spice lates

Which will cost less if work starts on it immediately? The reduction of carbon emissions to try to mitigate the effects of climate change. Or the preparation of a contingency to survive the harsh conditions climate change will bring, while not attempting to ramp down industrial output? Should we therefore increase industrial output regardless of what it does to the climate?

>>9487227
>Would that make the problem less serious?
It would make it worse.

Rather than de-industrialising there would be a genocide. Just cutting off the supply of synthetic fertilisers (made by oil and gas) you will kill more people then Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot put together. We are talking about a return to the era prior to the green revolution of 3 billions. Allowing a 50 percent benefit from knowledge and tools it means 2 - 3 billions killed by starvation. And then a return to a sustainable world. And that is pretty ugly.

>>9487676
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
EMOJIS PROVE HIM RIGHT HAHAHA I LOVE SCIENCE

>>9481525
Blue is temperatures with only natural forcings.
Red is temperatures with anthropological tampering.

>>9487641
>>"Precipitation and its extremes in changed climates" -- T. Schneider and P. A. O'Gorman, Journal of Climate 2008
>>"Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios" -- Parry et al, Journal of Pal Review to Maintain Maximum Fear Mongering 2004.
ftfy


Lysenkoism
Deutsche Physik
Climate Change

Political ideology masquerading as science.

>>9487140
>in the subtropics (lat 23.5 - 40) rain will fail 50-75% when AGW reaches 450ppm/+2C
>That's where the world's breadbaskets are.

Remember kids, we can't predict the weather for more than a week, because its a chaotic system. But we can predict the average of weather (cliamte) for decades even though chaotic systems are not ergodic! Now pay your carbon taxes.

And when the data doesn't fit the theory, like in 1945 - 1975 when there was global cooling despite a significant increase in greenhouse gases? We simply rewrite the past.

>>9486956
>It seems to claim that rain will increase in desert areas but water storage rates will not change in a significant way.
Seems reasonable; the ground becomes saturated with water, and it evaporates before the water can percolate through the soil. Also, with plants that are adapted to low water, they will not absorb enough to make a difference. (Pic related).

>>9487054
Also this.

>>9487074
you can take off your tin foil hat now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothing

>>9489032
>and it evaporates before the water can percolate through the soil
In that case the rainfall cannot be heavy.

>>9489091
Ohhhhh. So you mean those are not actual graphs? Why manipulate like that when there is no need?

>>9488982
Climate isn't a (completely) chaotic system - it responds fairly predictably to forcings over the long-term. That's why I get upset with people describing climate as the average of weather - it's a massive misunderstanding of where climate states come from.

>And when the data doesn't fit the theory ... We simply rewrite the past.
How DARE scientists correct known issues in datasets! By god, if one thermometer tells you it's -80C outside you better believe it, no matter what every other instrument says!
Your conspiracy theories are baseless and stupid.

>>9489176
>Ohhhhh. So you mean those are not actual graphs?
What the fuck?

>Why manipulate like that when there is no need?
Because there is a need: We're interested in multi-year trends, not short-term noise.

>>9489176
>when there is no need
you can take off your tin foil hat now

>>9488982
If meteorology was in anyway analogous to climate science you might have a point, but since it isnt you dont and you reveal that you dont even know what the climate is or what climate science entails.

>>9481507
>all of those CH4 got eaten by bacteria
Could this result in any significant increase in said bacteria and what effect might that have on ocean ecosystems?

>>9489176
>In that case the rainfall cannot be heavy
If the soil is saturated with water it is a somewhat heavy rain, and if you are in the desert and have a blazing hot sun overhead after a precipitation event, some of the water that is in puddles will evaporate before it can infiltrate the ground. That is intro level science. I'm not sure what you're trying to say or prove.

>>9487222
workin' on it, but it'll be 5 years or more before I'm in a position to do anything useful - I'm still studying atm.

>>9483402
This

>>9487222
More local manufacturing and making goods to last like they used to will go along way.

>>9489331
If there really is more rain I would expect there will be more clouds too thus more opportunities for water to sink in.

>>9488953
>More baseless rants consisting of claims of conspiratorial persecution.
In both Lysenkoism and Deutsche Physik, governments went against evidence gathered by experts in their fields because they did not fit ideological notions, rather than the scientific community endeavoring to censor certain theories. So your comparisons work but not in the way you think they do.

>>9481507
Geology bro here. That's good to hear. I never thought methane was much a problem anyway because of its residence time in the atmosphere but was worried about short term fluctuations.

>>9480890
Actually it turns out that CO2 is not the most responsible greenhouse gas, it it still important

Water vapor the most important greenhouse gas, pic very related.

Even the KNMI says it:
https://www.knmi.nl/kennis-en-datacentrum/uitleg/broeikasgas-waterdamp/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

When you burn an organic compound, let's say petroleum and let's say most of it contains alkanes, which creates more water when you burn it.

>molecule formulas
>for each C you have one CO2
>for each two H's you have one H2O
Explain the H2O : CO2 ratio /sci/

>>9487222
>So, do you guys have a solution to fix this "Climate Change" problem that ISN'T "Give all of your money to the banks" or "De-Industrialize the west"?

Yeah dude, it's all the environmental regulations

>>9491109
china lmao

>>9490934
We have an actual climate scientist or two in the thread but you'll have to put up with me at the moment, I'm a geologist but the atmosphere is part of the Earth system and I may be able to help.If I make any mistakes I hope one of the climatologists can correct it.

Water vapor accounts for about 85% of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere but while that is significant it's less important for 2 reasons (ok, it's not less important but you'll understand if you keep reading).

1. Water vapor is a positive feedback. The amount of water vapor is less about controlling the temperature of Earth's atmosphere than the atmosphere's temperature is about controlling the amount of water vapor. The hotter the atmosphere is the more water vapor it can hold. The more water vapor it can hold the hotter it gets. The hotter it gets the more water vapor it can hold. And so on and so forth until everything boils away.

The opposite is true. The cooler it gets the less water apor it can hold. The less water vapor it can hold the cooler it gets. The cooler it gets the less water vapor it can hold. And so on and so forth until everything is frozen.

If water vapor alone regulated the atmosphere there would be no more water vapor all of it would have boiled away or frozen a long long long time ago.

2. The residence time of water vapor is very low. Residence time is how long something stays in a condition or location. In this case water vapor spends about 7-10 days in the atmosphere before it either rains out or deposits out as ice and becomes our rivers lakes streams snow or glaciers. This is why the above conditions of boiling away or freezing our planet never happens. Water cannot be a driver of climate in this or any other reality.

So TLDR water vapor is more controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere than the atmosphere is controlled by water vapor.

Carbon dioxide has a residence time of CENTURIES. Once it gets into the atmosphere it's staying there.

>>9490934
>Water vapor the most important greenhouse gas
water in the atmosphere is in near-equilibrium with the oceans, you brainlet. putting more water vapor into the atmosphere has only a brief effect, as it is counterbalanced by an increase in precipitation in accordance with Le Chatelier's principle.
There is no such large reservoir of CO2 for the atmosphere to communicate with. When we put more CO2 into the atmosphere, it quickly overwhelms the ability of natural sinks to remove it.

also what >>9494623 said.

>>9490221
Its still a desert retard; there is a limited amount of space in between the particles of soil/sand. Also, when I say "heavy rainfall" its relative and short lived, so the next day a sun is still blazing over puddles of water waiting to infiltrate into the earth; a little more might make it in, but not enough to change the fact that it is still a desert. I don't understand how so called "skeptics" think they know more than people with higher degrees in the subject. Do you also question your doctor when he tells you that you have cancer of the anus?

>>9481573
wtf

So how come when there's ever a scientist who has valid disputes with the consensus he is shunned and silenced? Herd mentality? Group think?

This random guy on the internet seems to be the only one out there who wants to give these scientists a platform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n6afpnIS4g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ

>>9496618
>Herd mentality? Group think?
More likely because they're bought-and-paid-for shills representing the oil industry

>>9496618
>So how come when there's ever a scientist who has valid disputes with the consensus he is shunned and silenced?
They're not.

>>9496629
>More likely because they're bought-and-paid-for shills representing the oil industry
ah there it is, the ad hominem, /sci/'s ace in the hole

>>9496629
>More likely because they're bought-and-paid-for shills representing the oil industry
then why do both of the scientists in the videos i posted vehemently deny being affiliated with the oil industry?

the second guy is one of the founders of Green Peace for crying out loud

>>9480890
1. CO2 and many other gases have "greenhouse" properties in that they allow visible light to pass through (hence invisible), but trap and re-emit infrared radiation. This is literally 19th century science, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, verified and quantified experimentally beyond reasonable doubt by Svante Arrhenius.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising, and this is a result of fossil fuel combustion (pic related). CO2 can be measured experimentally in the lab, and the stable isotopes of CO2 plunges into the negative values. Fossil fuel has distinct negative isotopic signature compared to natural CO2. This is also an undeniable fact from observation.
3. You add 1+2, you would expect the radiative energy budget of the earth to be out of equilibrium. This is exactly what we observe, based on satellites that measures total energy in vs. energy out by CERES satellite at NASA.https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.phpOn average, only 71% of energy entering the Earth is leaving. 2nd law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy states that when a system had energy imbalance, T must go up.
In short, CO2 causes greenhouse effect. Humans put CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning. The earth is now in energy imbalance due to additional CO2, and therefore warming. All basic, high school physics that should be easy to understand

>>9497399

>>9496618
Right now the questions of climate change are so small that anyone who disputes it is fringe because the science doesn't support their position. In science it's not about who says something but what's being said. I can find a scientist for you that believes Atlantis is Hawaii and I'm not even joking. Individual scientists opinions count for very little when not supported by evidence.

Right now there's really only 2 questions I'm aware of left in climate science but again I'm a geologist and not a climatologist.

Those two are the effects of solar rays on high altitude clouds and the effect of cosmic radiation on Earth's long term energy budget. The first effect seems to have a net cooling effect, the planes grounded on 9/11 give us a clue because planes create a type of high altitude clouds from their contrails. As solar rays make more high altitude clouds when interacting with Earth's upper atmosphere it creates more of those clouds. Because more solar rays come from a hotter sun the net cooling effect would be a negative feedback but we haven't studied the phenomenon long enough to know what role they play for certain. The second effect is over time scales so huge that we still don't have a very good understanding of it but it has nothing to do with modern warming, we're talking hundreds of millions of years time scales as Earth moves in and out of the spiral arms of the galaxy.

Climate change caused by increased CO2 is just basic physics and chemistry. It's so basic we've known about it since the late 1800s. So people that dispute CO2's role are being dishonest with the data and what we do or don't know about the Earth's system.

>>9496335
>Its still a desert retard;
Just another thoughtless statement. Understand this: if it rains so much we are promised it simply stops being a desert. Or do you believe in wet deserts?? Coming in late with "short lived" train is not convincing, where did you pull that rabbit out from?

>I don't understand how so called "skeptics" think they know more than people with higher degrees in the subject.
So speaks the priesthood, not a scientist.
>Do you also question your doctor when he tells you that you have cancer of the anus?
Irrelevant and desperate argumentation. Is this really the style of argument of the warmers? No surprise there are many sceptics.

>>9496629
>The people I disagree with are part of a vast conspiracy.
Uh-huh

>>9497416
Your point? Is this supposed to be some sort of "gotcha"? I dont understand the issue you have.

>>9497639
Isnt that pretty much the basis of climate deniel and skepticism? All the scientist who say its true are just part of a conspiracy is what i am told constantly by those people.

>>9497639
Which is more likely? That the vast majority of scientists are part of the conspiracy, or that a tiny minority are part of it?

>>9497880
>>9497917
The only reason why I'm skeptical of mankind being the majority of the reason for climate change is the fact that most climate scientists receive their data from the NOAA, whose servers manipulate data with currently walled-garden algorithms. If they were to release the algorithms used, I'd probably be a believer.
Also, >muh cow farts

>>9480890
I think it is fucked up how people are playing with fire. This isn't a joke, there's a real possiblity that climate change will go full Sodom and Gommorah on us. Good luck when the water runs out or you're experiencing heat death. Why not act now that we got a chance? I'm especially looking at you America.

>>9497959
Americans give 0 fucks about anything other than living their american dream, regardless of any consequences.

Brainlet here
Is it morally wrong to use the methane hydrate to scare people into researching climate change? I am unconvinced methane will be an issue but it doesn't matter anyway because the slight change in extremes will be enough to cause chaos.But people won't listen to that so is it fair to go with the methane?

>>9497875
no issue, just proof that this knowledge has been around for more than a century

>>9497416

>>9487676
wtf I want climate change to warm up this world now

>>9497543
>Do you believe in wet deserts?
It rains in deserts moron. If you want to cite a source try one without a paywall. I'm going to guess that you didn't read the article either.

>So speaks the priesthood, not a scientist.
And what exactly is your superior qualifications that you somehow know better than phd's in numerous fields such as biology, chemistry, geology, environmental science, physics, or one of the numerous fields that have conducted original research and published on the matter?

>Do you also question your doctor when he tells you that you have cancer of the anus?
>Irrelevant and desperate argumentation. Is this really the style of argument of the warmers?
I'm not trying to argue at this point. And your argumentation method of posting a paywall article, making a vague statement about it, and trying to catch anyone who responds in a lame gotcha is so superior?

If you want to have a serious conversation about the article, pay the fee to download it and post the pages as images or stfu.

>We've been around for a few thousand years on a giant ball that's supported life for billions, and somehow we are going to destroy it.
You guys really need to get over yourselves.

>>9497947
Source?

>>9499231
what is exponential growth

>>9497947
>the fact that most climate scientists receive their data from the NOAA
No. There's a bunch of major organisations who maintain datasets, spread out across many countries. NOAA is only one.

>whose servers manipulate data with currently walled-garden algorithms.
Horseshit. The processing they use is well documented.

> If they were to release the algorithms used
Go and read the published papers, you lazy fuck.

>Also, >muh cow farts
Do you have some kind of point?

>>9498308
>Is it morally wrong to use the methane hydrate to scare people into researching climate change?
Why would you bother? If you want to showcase horrifying scenarios, there's plenty that done rely on stuff like that. Bring up methane hydrates is just handing ammunition to "skeptics".

>>9499231
>and somehow we are going to destroy it.
The Earth will be fine. We won't.

>>9499390
>NOAA is only one.
other data sets:
HADCRUT
GISS
RSS (**)
UAH

RSS had an error in it, fixed after march 2016
https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m50s

>>9499390
>NOAA is only one.
other data sets:
HADCRUT
GISS
RSS (**)
UAH

(**) RSS had an error in it, fixed after march 2016
https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m50s

>>9496618
>Steven Crowder
opinion discarded.

Climate change worry is for brainlets.

Climate Change is pretty hilarious on it's face.

1. The "scientists" claim they can predict the future using a singular function of carbon dioxide heating the atmosphere.

- Reality is that the earth in 2080+ will have more functions acting on it than carbon dioxide changes.

2. Geo-engineering. If we are talking about the future earth you have to also iterate through other geo-engineering techniques. Carbon Capture, high altitude geongineering, arcology technology, etc.

At this point anyone above ape intelligenc (rare for this thread) stops worrying about climate change as we have extremely cheap solutions available for the worst cases.

If you are still worried though you can just not be a fucking moronic brainlet and look at carbon PPM throughout history and see the plain as fucking day fact we are at pretty much all time lows.

Now. If you want to go further, which is pointless because anyone of reasonable intelligence is already satisfied, you can look at other technology changes over time and realize the fucking goddamn singularity god-like being is more probable to exist than an existential world crisis of the sea level rising a little bit.

>>9499810
>cheap carbon capture

citation

Explanation

1. Carbon PPM has been incredibly higher than today's with no runaway effect that destroyed life on earth.
2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection_(climate_engineering) or see effects of volcanos on world temp for a practical example of cooling

It's about 10000000x more likely that we have ARBITRARY control over earth's temperature by 2050 than that we will care about global warming.

It's almost parallel to the insane theories of "living space" running out and mass starvation imminent that motivated nazi germany elites and imperial japan elites to become war-hungry.

Every fucking decade retarded low IQ "scientists" get completely narrow vision on some random function and say the world will end and society is fucked. Then 20 years later after much disaster due to their policies they switch to some other imaginary crisis.

>>9499811
There are many potential ways we will have cheap carbon capture by that time. It's theoretically very possible giving available arable land to genetically engineer a carbon sink plant that can easily counteract and control ppm levels.

global warming is literally so inconsequential morons blame every possible hurricane on global warming just to point out some shit.

>Oh god there is variance in weather and disaster

Yes, the statistical likelihood of hurricanes is so insane now. Good thing they never occurred before.

lets just do the math

1. World ends
2. We do the thing with minimal side effects that cools the atmosphere

I guess we should opt for worldwide destabilization and ask countries to commit economic suicide.

Problem is the fanatics of climate change
- think counter-acting geoengineering is heresy
- think alternative things that reduce carbon ppm, ex land fills, nuclear, etc are worse
- are mostly into it to scream the end is near rather than pragmatic thought

Anyway climate change people are just dumb smelly hippies at this point screaming science while vastly over-estimating a simple function's ability to predict what earth will look like in 2080 given the absurd likelihood of changing technology

>>9499813
you watch too much disney fairy tales
come back when you have something real to say

>>9499826
If you are someone living in 1900
The fairy tail science fiction writer got 2000 more right than the brainlets like you

We are talking about problems 2100+ humanity will face you dumb fuckhead. Motherfucking carbon ppm is NOT one of them.

>>9499828
Yes, maybe humanity hits a roadblock. IN that case the higher carbon PPM is probably helpful for the random biological life that survived the nuclear war.

>>9499828
>problems 2100+
oh bullshit, the tipping point will be 450ppm, at the current rate we'll be there at 2030

go watch another cartoon

>>9499830
450 ppm for what? more major changes?

Early Eocene was 3500ppm and we exist

>>9499832
after 450ppm, co2 will build up in the atmosphere thru natural processes even without people.
the human race could dissiappear one morning - and the earth would still go on warming.
positive feedback.

>>9499833
So how did it go from 450 to 300?

>>9499834
plants, lots of plants, millions of years, no people

>>9499833
>and the earth would still go on warming.
>positive feedback.
We have had a lot more CO2 in the distant past. Why didn't the warming through positive feedback give us a Venus like planet? Seems something brings in negative feedback.

>>9497880
>>9497917
I didn't say the believes in global warming were part of the conspiracy. Rather I questioned the belief that those asking the question were part of a conspiracy.

Some times asking a question means you are asking a question, not that you have any points you want to prove.

>>9500050
>Venus like
because we're further away from the sun

also, >>9499838

>>9500050
>We have had a lot more CO2 in the distant past

Sure, during the Eocene it changed by around 2000 ppm over 1million years, or a change of 0.002ppm per year compared with the 1.4 ppm happening currently.

>>9500070
in the last decade, 2.3 ppm per year

>>9500070
>>9500083
So the world ends after volcano eruptions because of the 1-2 degree swing within a year?

>450ppm causes irreversible venus like earth destruction
ignoring history
>it's because it happens so fast
we have had 1-2 degree swings in global temp in recent history due to volcano events that appear for a year or two and go away

I don't see this existential earth-destroying threat. I see a problem to be rationally dealt with with reasonable responses. AKA not by de-industrialization and not by hamstringing economy.

If you want to propose a ban on something start with private jets and yachts.

>>9500090
Strawman & moving goalposts fallacy
combined with zero information
Either bait or a world class idiot.

>>9500096
>venus like
says who?

>>9500090
Ecologically collapse occurs due sustained and quick changes in ecosystem.

millions of years give species time to adapt, decades and centuries don't.

>>9500098

Natural progress of earth is a decrease in available carbon due to sequestration. We are just turning back time and reverting to a more natural state for earth.

How this can cause apocalypse is something very hilarious.

>>9499813
unironically this but it won't be easy

>>9500100
We are already wiping out shit tons of species. Let the survival get tougher. Just go ahead and sequence all the dying off species which will cost virtually nothing in 2040 and if we really need them back for whatever reason can do so.

>>9500102
>very hilarious
great, another chucklefuck

>>9500107
you think we'll be able to reconstruct an entire organism just from a genetic sequence?
It hasn't been done yet, you need gametes and whatnot

>>9500107
wiping out shit tons of species isn't a trivial thing. If you wipe out an important predator, or an important food base, you're going to be dealing with a lot of pest or mass die-offs as the food chain falls apart.

>>9500115
Good thing we don't forage for insects

>>9500116
We don't, and if the predators which eat those insects can't survive, those insect will eat the stuff you DO eat.

>>9500112
2100 technology
keep in mind the God-AI singularity being could help us too

>>9494623
Nice one, yeah water vapor follows the Clausius-Clayperon relationship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation

Water vapor concentration for a given air parcel is a function of temperature and temperature only since earth surface is 71% ocean. There is nothing you can do to keep the water vapor atmosphere from equilibrating with the ocean, you literally cannot put a lid over the whole ocean.

H2O is the strongest greenhouse gas, but it is an amplifier feedback not a driver in any given climate change

>>9497959
Hi, it's me the geologist again. Now you're in my territory, geology and the geological history of the Earth. Earth has, even recently (in geological terms) had a significantly much higher amount of CO2 in it and been fine. One of the biggest recent changes in the last hundred million years was .... you'll have to forgive me for not remembering the name of the event, when underground magma boiled off tens of billions of tons of oil and released CO2 into the atmosphere.

Earth was fine. Earth got on just dandy. Anyone who thinks the Earth will become Venus or all the ice caps will melt is seriously in need of therapy or a better education. There is absolutely nothing in the literature I have ever read that suggested we're in for some serious Sodom and Gomorrah shit. The problem is that humans build permanent structures. We're not sea birds who can just migrate simply by going uphill until we're out of the water. Our cities are built on the shore and our farms are built for the current climate.

The problem is the cost of dealing with Climate change is immense and it will hit the poorest nations the hardest.

>>9481507
who cares. global warming will probably be good thing--open up more aerable lands, and open more shipping channels. they just want good-willed people to focus on this rather than the abuses of government/central banks/military-industrial-complex

>>9500759
>We're not sea birds who can just migrate simply by going uphill until we're out of the water. Our cities are built on the shore and our farms are built for the current climate.
The time scale is long enough for technology to progress so that we can figuratively fly as far as we want.

>>9494623
Now if only a climate scientist could point out the relationship between water vapor and CO2.

>>9500946
>Now if only a climate scientist could point out the relationship between water vapor and CO2
?? I just did, CO2 increases T, T increases water vapor concentration through Clausius Clayperon equation as I explain here >>9500677

Water vapor is a dangerous positive feedback for sure, it acts as an amplifier to anthropogenic climate change. However we cannot control water vapor, as putting a lid over 71% of Earth's surface is comically impractical. Therefore to reduce T rise we have to control our CO2 emission

>>9500942
Climate """"""""SCIENCE"""""""""

we can only listen to the consensus of climatologists for what technology and changes exist in 2100. In this scenario NO TECHNOLOGY changes and carbon levels keep going up in a worst case scenario.

this is TRUE science

Things scientists have consensus on for 2100 projections.

AGI
Extreme Genetic Engineering
Multiplanetary

but of course global warming, which could already be cancelled with current geoengineering technology for minimal cost is going to be the big fucking hurdle.

It's the same retards who looked at food projections in 1920 and predicted we would all starve and earth can't hold more than a billion people.

>>9501112
Name a single geoengineering project that is at the moment cost efficient and deployable to counteract anthropogenic GHG

>>9501112
What do you expect from a bunch of masturbating monkies that hand-wave cloud covering because they don't understand it.

>>9501187
>hand-wave cloud covering because they don't understand it.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf
There's a whole chapter on cloud seeding and aerosol physics buddy

>>9501196
Keyword: hand-waving
The cloud covering in current (and past) models is laughable.

>>9500942
The cost of doing so is insanely higher than the cost to retool our civilization to stop burning fossil fuels. You also forget these things called borders. Again, sea birds do not honor borders. Enjoy tens of millions of North Africans, Middle Easterners, and South Americans banging down the doors of North America and Europe because we made their territory unlivable.

Earth will get along fine, we might not.

>>9480890
Cкoлькo тaм пpoцeнтoв CO2 yлeтeлo в aтмocфepy пo cpaвнeнию c пpиpoдными явлeниями 4-5%? [capкaзм] Eбaть кaк мнoгo, вce нaм вceм пиздeц, мы выкинyли в aтмocфepy нa 4% бoльшe yглeкиcлoгo гaзa, чeм дo этoгo дeлaлa пpиpoдa, пapникoвый эффeкт нeминyeм [capкaзм]. Дaвaйтe eщё пpo oзoнoвый cлoй нaд aнтapктидoй вo вpeмя пoляpнoй нoчи вcпoмним. Кapoчe кaк гoвopил oдин кoмик "Плaнeтa в пopядкe этo людям пиздeц".

>>9500050
>positive feedback.
>We have had a lot more CO2 in the distant past. Why didn't the warming through positive feedback give us a Venus like planet?
Learn what "positive feedback" actually means before spouting nonsense.

>>9500096
>venus like earth destruction
Nobody but deniers are talking about "turning the Earth into Venus".

>we have had 1-2 degree swings in global temp in recent history due to volcano events that appear for a year or two and go away
Most organisms can tolerate a year or so of anomalous conditions. It's when the conditions keep getting worse for decades that massive changes start to occur.
Also, when was the last volcano to produce a 2C temperature drop? That's not normal - Pinatubo only produced a 0.4C drop.

>I don't see this existential earth-destroying threat.
What do you even mean by that? You've mangled those words so much that it's impossible to understand you.

>I see a problem to be rationally dealt with with reasonable responses.
Putting your head in the sand is not a "reasonable response".

>>9500769
>global warming will probably be good thing
And you know that... how?
Every credible expert has said the exact opposite.

>>9489176
>Ohhhhh. So you mean those are not actual graphs? Why manipulate like that when there is no need?

>>9489176
>when there is no need
you can take off your tin foil hat now

>>9482815
Crank-Nicolson is only accurate for small time steps. For small time steps it's better than central difference, but if the time step is large it becomes increasingly more likely to experience Gibbs phenomena. I'm surprised they don't just fit a 5th-7th order spline to raw data and do it that way.

Numerically the problem size isn't that huge, it should be feasible to use a single node of a decent cluster to run most models even if you do something intensive like splines which are global rather than local discritization.

>>9503453
>Crank-Nicolson is only accurate for small time steps
Timescale for a lot of chemical reaction is in the order of seconds. OH radical, the main sink and catalyst for CH4 removal has atmospheric lifetime of 1s. Compared to the chemistry timestepping, timestepping for solving momentum equation (about 1 hour) is incredibly generous. This is why virtually all climate models are run on supercomputer, to resolve a lot of chemistry in the atmosphere. It is still our best bet.

>I'm surprised they don't just fit a 5th-7th order spline to raw data and do it that way.
There is only so much you can do with experimental fit, given the data aren't perfect and good climate data are only available for the last 25-30 years or so

>>9501270
Actually those are the people causing the problem. The third world is literally destroying the world.

>>9503733
Explain please.

>>9503733
deadass?

>>9494623
>Carbon dioxide has a residence time of CENTURIES.
Carbon dioxide has a residence time of about 7 years
ftfy

CRAIG, H. (1957), The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxide Between Atmosphere and Sea. Tellus, 9: 1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01848.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 +/- 3 years

REVELLE, R. and SUESS, H. E. (1957), Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 during the Past Decades. Tellus, 9: 18–27. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01849.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 years

Broecker, W. S. "Radioisotopes and large-scale oceanic mixing." The sea 2 (1963): 88-108. (Recalculated by Broecker & Peng, 1974)
CO2 Half-life: 8 years


Oeschger, Hans, et al. "A box diffusion model to study the carbon dioxide exchange in nature." Tellus 27.2 (1975): 168-192.
CO2 Half-life: 6-10 years

Keeling, Charles D. "The Suess effect: 13 carbon-14 carbon interrelations." (1979).
CO2 Half-life: 7.53 years

Peng, T‐H., et al. "Radon evasion rates in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans as determined during the GEOSECS program." Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 84.C5 (1979): 2471-2486.
CO2 Half-life: 7.6 (5.5-9.4) years

Siegenthaler, Ulrich, Martin Heimann, and Hans Oeschger. "14C variations caused by changes in the global carbon cycle." Radiocarbon 22.2 (1980): 177-191. CO2 Half-life: 7.5 years

Lal, D., and H. E. Suess. "Some comments on the exchange of CO2 across the air‐sea interface." Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 88.C6 (1983): 3643-3646. CO2 Half-life: 3-25 years

Siegenthaler, Ulrich. "Uptake of excess CO2 by an outcrop‐diffusion model of the ocean." Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 88.C6 (1983): 3599-3608.
CO2 Half-life: 7.9 - 10.6 years

Kratz, Gerhard, et al. "Carbon exchange between atmosphere and oceans in a latitude-dependent advection-diffusion model." Radiocarbon 25.2 (1983): 459-471.
CO2 Half-life: 6.7 years

>>9496176
>There is no such large reservoir of CO2 for the atmosphere to communicate with.
What is the ocean? And NO, let me save you from being a brainlet. It DOES NOT obey Henry's law because it is not a straight-up solvent, instead the effect is one of a buffered solution.

Siegenthaler, Ulrich. "Uptake of excess CO2 by an outcrop‐diffusion model of the ocean." Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 88.C6 (1983): 3599-3608.
CO2 Half-life: 7.9 - 10.6 years

Lal, D., and H. E. Suess. "Some comments on the exchange of CO2 across the air‐sea interface." Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 88.C6 (1983): 3643-3646.
CO2 Half-life: 3-25 years

Bolin, Bert, and Erik Eriksson. "Changes in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere and sea due to fossil fuel combustion." The atmosphere and the sea in motion 1 (1959): 30-142.
CO2 Half-life: 5 years

Broecker, W. S. "Radioisotopes and large-scale oceanic mixing." The sea 2 (1963): 88-108. (Recalculated by Broecker & Peng, 1974)
CO2 Half-life: 8 years

Craig, H., The natural distribution of radio-carbon: Mixing rates in the sea and residence time of carbon and water, in Earth Science and Meteritics, F. G. Houtermans Volume, edited by J. Geiss and E.D. Goldberg, pp. 103-114, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1963.
CO2 Half-life: 5-15 years


CRAIG, H. (1957), The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxide Between Atmosphere and Sea. Tellus, 9: 1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01848.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 +/- 3 years

REVELLE, R. and SUESS, H. E. (1957), Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 during the Past Decades. Tellus, 9: 18–27. doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01849.x
CO2 Half-life: 7 years

>>9504325
>>9504331
You're confusing pulse residence time with the residence time of individual molecules. Nobody really cares about the latter, because it's the former that governs CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Also, quit with the linkspam. It makes you look like a loud idiot.

>>9496176
Because the carbon intake of the ocean occurs within the context of a buffered solution, that intake is much higher than if it simply obeyed Henry's law. Whitfield (1974) performed the analysis of this buffering (Carbonate <-> Bicarbonate solution) and showed that a change in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 313 to 454 ppm only changes ocean water pH from 8.24 to 8.16.

Ok so how are we going to reduce CO2 levels?
What is your opinion on Iron Fertilization or using GMO's to absorb or transform CO2?

>>9504336
>You're confusing pulse residence time with the residence time of individual molecules. Nobody really cares about the latter, because it's the former that governs CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

>You're confusing pulse residence time with the residence time of individual molecules.
Nope, you're deliberately misstating the conclusions of said papers. They were not about individual molecules.

See Siegenthaler, Ulrich. "Carbon dioxide: its natural cycle and anthropogenic perturbation." The role of air-sea exchange in geochemical cycling. Springer Netherlands, 1986. 209-247.
CO2 Half-life: 4-9 years. and
Bolin, Bert, and Erik Eriksson. "Changes in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere and sea due to fossil fuel combustion." The atmosphere and the sea in motion 1 (1959): 30-142.
CO2 Half-life: 5 years

As stated here, the ocean has an enormous ability to absorb (or emit) CO2 >>9504331

The recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is largely caused by warming oceans. The rate of CO2 uptick increases AFTER the temperature rate increases. Pic related.
>inb4 look at my hockey stick graph of CO2. Linking 500 year mean average antarctic CO2 measurements to current daily measurements gives statistical rubbish. Put your CO2 hockey stick data through a 500 year mean value smoother.

>Also, quit with the linkspam. It makes you look like a loud idiot.
Sorry for using actual scientific references. I didn't realize that you had an intellectual inferiority complex.

>>9504352
>>9496176

>>You're confusing pulse residence time with the residence time of individual molecules. Nobody really cares about the latter, because it's the former that governs CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Look at the B Bolin, E Eriksson - The atmosphere and the sea in motion, 1959, specifically.
P. 133, "...any excess CO2 put into the atmosphere will ultimately be distributed so that about 11/12 of it goes into the sea..."

>>9504352
>Nope, you're deliberately misstating the conclusions of said papers. They were not about individual molecules.
LIAR. LIAR. LIAR.

CRAIG, H. (1957), The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxide Between Atmosphere and Sea.
>Notation:
>Ti-j = 1/ki-j = residence time (years) of a stable carbon atom in reservoir i before transfer to reservoir j.
>Ta--m = 7 +/- 3 years

REVELLE, R. and SUESS, H. E. (1957), Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 during the Past Decades
>We conclude that the exchange time T(atm) = 1/k1, defined as the time it takes on the average for a CO2 molecule as a member of the atmospheric carbon reservoir to be absorbed by the sea, is of the order of magnitude of 10 years.

Oeschger, Hans, et al. "A box diffusion model to study the carbon dioxide exchange in nature." Tellus 27.2 (1975): 168-192.
>kam - exchange coefficient atmosphere - mixed layer. Fluxes in steady state: kam * Na = kma * Nm
>kam covers a range from 1/6 y to 1/9 y

All of those articles are talking about the exchange coefficient and it's inverse, which is the average residence time of a single molecule.
Did you think that nobody would check your lies?

>>9504346
Try iron on a wider scale. Also use dilute sewage processed for this (remove metals etc). There are large areas in the ocean with no life simply because there are zero nutrients there. that means there is nothing to lose either.

>>9504467
>LIAR
So warming oceans will not release CO2?