Why did most of this melt off 12,000 years ago?

[Anonymous No.10182763]

Why did sea levels rise 400ft? Was it because cavemen drove their Hummers to much? Or was it because cavemen didn't pay enough carbon tax?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jVZKw521HU

[Anonymous No.10182774]

>>10182763
Comet fragment impact near Greenland.

/thread

[Anonymous No.10182814]

>>10182763
Actual climate scientist here, I study atmospheric gases in ice core.

We know quite well the mechanisms and nuts and bolts of the last deglaciation. It started with the Milankovitch cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)) the amount of solar radiation and the seasonality of the earth changes because the earth's orbit stretches and wane due to gravitational pulls from other planets. At 18ka, solar insolation in the northern hemisphere started to ramp up (2nd figure from top). This causes the North American ice sheets to melt. Addition of saltwater destabilizes the thermohaline circulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation that is driven by sinking cold salty water in the north atlantic. The destabilization of thermohaline circulation causes Antarctica to warm (not plotted, but you can find any ice core temp record from antarctica it looks like CO2). Think about it as the ocean current being a liquid cooling on CPU that is Antarctica. Distruption of the thermohaline circulation causes heat to build up in Antarctica. Heat build up melt away sea ice, intensify the Antarctic circumpolar circulation and allow CO2 from the deep ocean to exhale back to atmosphere (green figure on the left). CO2 from the southern ocean causes global warming and brought the whole planet out of the ice age.

What >>10182774 is talking about is the sudden reversal at the onset of Younger Dryas. Other deglaciation along the Milankovitch cycle did not have a reversal, so the YD reversal and snap back might be related to short term cooling due to asteroid

[Anonymous No.10182816]

>>10182814
>Addition of saltwater destabilizes the thermohaline circulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation that is driven by sinking cold salty water in the north atlantic

Whoops I meant addition of freshwater from the ice melt destabilizes the thermohaline circulation

[Anonymous No.10182844]

>>10182816
So it wasn't because cavemen were driving Hummers and paying enough carbon tax?

Sounds to me like there are much bigger influences on Earths climate, than anything that the human race combined could ever hope to accomplish .1% of.

So why don't we all get honest about it?

Thank you for taking the time btw. You come across as someone in a much higher pay grade than this little peasant. I appreciate your time Anon.

[Anonymous No.10182855]

>>10182844
Do you believe that CO2 released by human industry has different physical properties than CO2 released by natural events?

[Anonymous No.10182863]

>>10182844
My expertise is not with respect to present day climate change, however as you can see +70 ppm on CO2 causes global warming of about 4 degrees C, and +20C warming in Greenland. This is where scientists got the number on "climate sensitivity" per doubling of CO2, even after accounting for band saturation effect, in which the warming potential of any Greenhouse gas decreases the more you put on it. Without CO2 and other globally well mixed GHG (methane, N2O) you cannot go out of the glacial state through effects of ocean circulation, solar insolation and heat redistribution alone. GHG acts like an amplifier to the solar insolation.

The greenhouse effect is a pretty simple physics, and the +120ppm that we put into the atm through the preindustrial revolution is comparable to the amount of CO2 increase in the whole deglaciation.

What we're doing currently is turning the knob to the max on the amplifier knob. I'm in line with the rest of my peers that the present day climate change is anthropogenic and will be a serious issue.

[Anonymous No.10182869]

>>10182763
Can someone help me come up with a more cringeable response than "because you touch yourself at night"?

[Anonymous No.10182874]

>>10182844
You don't seem to realize that current global warming is an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming 12000 years ago. Not only are we influencing the climate but we're doing it much more than anything nature has done in at least the last 600,000 years.

>So why don't we all get honest about it?
We are. If you bothered to check you would have found that this is widely discussed in public. Humans are not the only thing that can affect the climate, we are just the main thing affecting the climate right now and that effect is both extremely anomalous and harmful to the infrastructure and ecosystems we rely on.

[Anonymous No.10182875]

>>10182855
Nope I don't. I just believe that at 426ppm co2, the Earth is a dangerously low level of atmospheric co2. Considering most plants have evolved to grow best at levels of 1000ppm+ co2, and can't survive at levels of 200ppm- co2.

I think that we're worrying about the wrong thing, and totally ignoring real threats. Threats like solar activity, or lack thereof.

I honestly believe we're helping the world by introducing more co2 into the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.10182879]

>>10182814
>the amount of solar radiation
He admits it.

[Anonymous No.10182888]

>>10182875
>Considering most plants have evolved to grow best at levels of 1000ppm+ co2
This is tested in a greenhouse room where they got unlimited nutrient from fertilizer. In reality there's limit to how much plant can grow because plant needs nitrogen, phosphate and iron. We are seeing greening in the high latitudes but even the current global greening has slowed down. The rest of excess CO2 will go into the ocean and causes ocean acidification.

If you're Greenland, Russia, Canada, Vermont and Maine you can argue that global warming is good for you. But for the rest of the world the net effect is negative.

[Anonymous No.10182893]

>>10182879
>its duh sun
Too bad incoming solar radiation is decreasing and will be decreasing over the next 10000 years according to the Milankovich cycle.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

[Anonymous No.10182896]

>>10182879
>He admits it.

This is a strawman argument. Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred

[Anonymous No.10182897]

>>10182893
Yep. They're chemtrailing heavily, but ultimately can't fight it.

[Anonymous No.10182900]

>>10182879
I may be a little biased, I admit that. Living in a place that has 9 month winters (winters that haven't stopped being 9 month winters) during this whole "global warming" panic, has left me a little jaded. If anything there is more snow now, and it just keeps getting colder.

100 miles north of the US border.

[Anonymous No.10182904]

>>10182844
>Imagine being this retarded
You realize that fossil fuels are sequestered carbon saved up from millions of years and we've burned through it all in like two centuries, right? Do you understand that our consumption of fossil fuels is measured in gigatons/year? I assume you know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so why should it surprise you that releasing enough to change the concentration of the atmosphere increases the heat retention of the planet? We're you dropped on your head as a child?

[Anonymous No.10182911]

>>10182904
If we resequester that CO2 and get rid of it, we'll be net reducing the available oxygen on the surface.

[Anonymous No.10182912]

>>10182844
You are full of shit and have no clue what you are talking about. Why don't you just inform yourself before spouting your uninformed opinion?

FYI, if we burned all fossil fuels we consider economically exploitable, we would go beyond 4000 ppm, which is twice as many as the peak CO2 roughly 500 million years ago, and back then earth was almost 20 degrees C warmer than today.

[Anonymous No.10182914]

>>10182900
Do you live in Canadian east coast or west coast? You might be one of the unlucky few who are affected by the "cold blob" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_blob_(North_Atlantic) related to present day disruption of again, the thermohaline circulation from melting Greenland ice.

This is the only region in the world that is consistently cooling, in line with most climate models.

[Anonymous No.10182915]

>>10182875
>I just believe that at 426ppm co2, the Earth is a dangerously low level of atmospheric co2. Considering most plants have evolved to grow best at levels of 1000ppm+ co2, and can't survive at levels of 200ppm- co2.
Weird, so plants did not evolve over the last million years or so to adapt to their environment where CO2 never went above 300 ppm. Are your sure you believe in evolution?

[Anonymous No.10182919]

>>10182879
Retard

[Anonymous No.10182921]

>>10182897
Climate deniers, everybody. You can't make this shit up.

[Anonymous No.10182924]

>>10182904
The fires in California this year released more co2 than all human industry this year. Nature burns itself down constantly, and would much more regularly if humans didn't stop it.

Human causes are a spec compared to what nature causes.

I'd insult you back, but I'm not here to insult anyone. So thank you?

[Anonymous No.10182928]

>>10182915
Of course they adapted. They adapted to grow smaller and weaker.

[Anonymous No.10182929]

>>10182924
Let me guess, you also think that volcanoes release more CO2 than humans

[Anonymous No.10182932]

>>10182911
CO2 is a gas and therefore difficult to sequester so it would likely be turned into a different store of carbon (using a fuckton of energy) before being sequestered. Besides that, if we don't sequester everything that we've released in the next century the vast majority of humanity will die and civilization will probably fall

[Anonymous No.10182938]

>>10182924
Natural tree growth absorbs much more CO2 than is released by wildfires. Nature absorbs more CO2 than it releases, man does not. If man was not emitting then we would be cooling. As usual science deniers don't look at the complete picture.

[Anonymous No.10182939]

>>10182921
It also occurs to me that CO2 might be genuinely causing climate change, but they're opportunistically making it look worse than it is

Regardless, there will be a lot more trees when they're done. Unless they're another species and plan to trigger ecological collapse and purge most terrestrial and marine life, which seems equally likely. With all the aluminum they're putting down, the GWEN towers, and then the 5G antennas, I can only imagine what they'll be able to do to a given ecology.

[Anonymous No.10182940]

>>10182914

I live in Western Canada. Where your chart is saying "much warmer than average".

Your chart is wrong. 9 month winters.

[Anonymous No.10182941]

>>10182924
>Imagine being this retarded
The trees took the carbon out of the atmosphere first. Trees and biomass are carbon neutral. How did you even get a highschool degree?

[Anonymous No.10182942]

>>10182874
>You don't seem to realize that current global warming is an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming 12000 years ago

Climate scientist here, I'm on your side but you have to be careful about which time period you're talking about. At 12ka you're talking about specifically Younger Dryas warming, and the YD warming is actually about the same as the rate of current warming (see the top blue figure). However as >>10182774 pointed out, the YD warming might be "unnatural" because it is driven by the snapback from asteroid cooling.

What you really want to say is that we're warming on the order of magnitude faster than the last deglaciation as a whole, and we're already at an interglacial climate so it is completely unnatural to have Younger Dryas like warming during the interglacial

[Anonymous No.10182947]

>>10182940
Show me your detailed temperature records please

[Anonymous No.10182950]

>>10182932
Civilization as we know it is toast anyway. They've decided you aren't continuing, and you won't stop them. They thoroughly control what you'll think, see, and admit.

You're a trained animal and you're headed towards dying like a neutered dog.

[Anonymous No.10182952]

>>10182928
Malnourishment is not an adaption. All ecosystems man relies on are adapted to the climate of the last million years. Taking them out of that climate so rapidly without time for them to adapt is very harmful.

[Anonymous No.10182953]

>>10182929
During years of multiple major eruptions? Absolutely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

[Anonymous No.10182958]

>>10182939
Is this an elaborate troll meant to make deniers look even more mentally deranged than they are? Because it's working.

[Anonymous No.10182961]

>>10182958
No, but I considered trolling you by pretending to be someone else and calling it a false flag.

[Anonymous No.10182964]

>>10182924
>The fires in California this year released more co2 than all human industry this year.

Lol that's a load of horseshit. All natural carbon emissions including all wildfires around the globe, volcano eruptions, or any other sources, don't even make up 2% of carbon emissions per year. Yes, it's actually that bad. Nature releases around 700 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere, humans release 35 billion currently. Humanity is releasing 50 times as much carbon every year as the whole nature around the globe does.

[Anonymous No.10182967]

>>10182950
>I can't think of anything to help the situation so we're All doomed and shouldn't do anything about it
You and yours are definitely doomed. I am a forward thinker who actively prepares for crop failure and climate refugees and I have several decades left at minimum to prepare

[Anonymous No.10182969]

>>10182940
Then I dont know what to tell you man. You actually live on one of the fastest warming region in the planet. https://www.cip-icu.ca/Files/Resources/ANINTROENGLISH_EC

How old are you? Maybe you have selective memory because you remember the miserable cold days but don't remember the less miserable, less cold days that is on average warmer than normal. Also this is with respect to 1950s baseline, so if you're not 68 years old you don't know what the baseline looks/feels like

[Anonymous No.10182970]

>>10182942
I was under the impression that the Younger Dryas warming was not a global phenomenon. Certainly locally it was faster than current warming in places like Greenland, but I was talking about global warming. Please clarify.

[Anonymous No.10182971]

>>10182958

Call me a denier. I'm just being honest about what I'm personally experiencing. 9 month winters.

I've only been through 40 or so of them.

[Anonymous No.10182975]

>>10182971
Where are your temperature records?

[Anonymous No.10182976]

>>10182940
>>10182969
Another thing to consider is that snow =! cold. You're getting more snow and more precipitation because warmer air hold more moisture. Increased snow precipitation is observed all over the northern latitudes.

[Anonymous No.10182978]

>>10182763
CO2 and other emissions are causing Earth to retain more heat, heating up our Earth.

[Anonymous No.10182979]

>>10182953

[Anonymous No.10182990]

>>10182970
Depends on what you mean by local. The effect of YD warming is felt all the way into the mid latitudes.

The rest of the globe is warming as average, but because the northern hemisphere is snapping back from localized cooling then the whole planet is warming faster than average. If you combine all the hemisphere and take a derivative of temperature at 12ka, that is about the rate of warming we're currently undergoing from 1850-2018

[Anonymous No.10182996]

>>10182969

All I can tell you Anon, is your charts are wrong. Things here on ground level are very different, than what your charts are saying. I'll give you an example. We lost our harvest this year. Everything was destroyed by cold in early September. Fields of frozen buried crops everywhere around here. We're lucky any year we can harvest before we're frozen out.

It's about 50/50

[Anonymous No.10182998]

>>10182990
>>10182970
Sorry 12ka I meant more like 11.5ka

[Anonymous No.10183001]

>>10182967
Unfortunately there are major elements that are less straightforward, popular, and overt, and which require a bit of fortune, a lot of work, and some insight to foresee. I doubt you've controlled for such things.

So don't get too ahead of yourself, you might only seem ahead because you're too many steps behind to realize which direction you need to be going.

Also, spoiler, unless you're in a way rural area, apart from proximity to "the grid", you're going to have major, crippling problems with your health. At least I'm honest. Within reason, I do act like climate change is a thing (because it is, when framed more narrowly as ecological change). I've been trying to protect animals and the environment from the mad beast that is man my entire life, and unfortunately it's just a matter of losing ground until you're standing in the middle of a wasteland watching people fight over who gets to stand on the lone tree stump. That's how it -would- go, that is, if it weren't having an end put to it.

Not sure where it's going to end, or what climate change really is, but I can tell you for sure the world and your life isn't going to go the way you think it is. And that's my vague message to the deaf ears of a forward thinking visionary, near's I can tell, the latest in an arrogant breed of morons I've been dealing with my entire life.

Good luck guy.

[Anonymous No.10183003]

>>10182996
Do you, like, have some statistics to back that up?

[Anonymous No.10183004]

>>10182996
>No temperature data
Do you understand that there is a difference between weather and climate?

[Anonymous No.10183006]

>>10182953
You mean major volcanic activity in the past over hundreds of thousands of years can match a few years of human emissions? That's not exactly supporting your point.

[Anonymous No.10183008]

>>10182975
http://climate.weather.gc.ca/historical_data/search_historic_data_e.html

[Anonymous No.10183012]

>>10182990
Ah thank you.

[Anonymous No.10183015]

>>10183004
When the weather is freezing cold 9 months out of every year I can remember... does that make it climate?

[Anonymous No.10183017]

>>10183001
>Preparing for an apocalypse is hard and therefore not worth doing
t. future climate refugee

[Anonymous No.10183018]

>>10182961
I doubt you can hide your mental illness that well.

[Anonymous No.10183021]

>>10183015
No because you're unreliable

[Anonymous No.10183023]

>>10182971
Unfortunately anecdotal evidence doesn't carry much weight here, especially when you're arguing against actual scientific research. Maybe /pol/ is more your speed?

[Anonymous No.10183025]

>>10183015
No, that's weather. Climate is a much broader concept
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

[Anonymous No.10183027]

>>10182869
>helping plague vectors spread their egregore to more husk humanity
no, you should kys tho anon. thanks

[OP No.10183029]

btw even if you think I'm a retarded brainlet, I appreciate everyone here who's taking the time to post in this thread. Especially the smart ones.

Thank you

[Anonymous No.10183054]

>>10183012
>>10182874
Yeah also you don't want to splice the marcott temperature curve with modern temperature like what you did here >>10182874. I know Shaun personally and this is his major pet peeve. He think that this is just as dishonest as climate denier posting temperature from 1998 el nino year to today, providing an artificially high temperature baseline. Don't take it from me, here's from Shaun himself

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?
>Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

The idea is that the blue curve >>10182874
has 120yr running average in it.You cannot splice modern temperature measurement with annual resolution on top of a curve that has 120yr running average.To be consistent you also need to run 120yr running average on the orange and red curve that you posted

[Anonymous No.10183072]

>>10182996
I'm sorry about your crops, where do you live? Again depending on your age you might have selective memory in remembering the cold miserable days, but forgetting the less cold warmer than average days. Also precipitation is not equal to cold. In really cold region like Northern Canada and Antarctica, warming allows for air to hold more moisture and snow more. This is why East Antarctic Ice Sheet is currently gaining mass despite temperature warming

[Anonymous No.10183093]

>>10183017
You've somehow flipped that I'm going to be more prepared into that I'm going to be less prepared.

Why would you do that?

[Anonymous No.10183128]

>>10182814
Can you give us a rundown of how fucked (or not fucked) we are in your opinion and why?

[Anonymous No.10183137]

>>10182940
Fucking kek. I've lived in Western Canada for decades and the winters are way warmer than they were when I moved here.

[Anonymous No.10183155]

>>10182967
What specifically are you doing to prepare?

[Anonymous No.10183160]

>>10182996
You're a fucking liar. I live in south western Canada and we've had no such cold. Nothing even close to freezing here.

[Anonymous No.10183163]

>>10182844
Wow, imagine being such a partisan baby that you equate previous climate events to current uniquely human events.

Stick to shitposting >>>/trash/. Thinking isn't really your fort.

[Anonymous No.10183180]

>>10182969
>Then idk what to tell you man
You sound exactly like an idiot, hyper liberal friend of mine whenever I say he's wrong on something. Go fuck yourself. Literally taking what you read and just repeat it without much thinking like a College liberal moron.

[Anonymous No.10183229]

>>10182896
>its influences on us will be primarily negative
why's that?

also is there any chance that we'll get two foot long dragonflies again?

[Anonymous No.10183243]

>>10183229
Not him but the size increase in Insects was due to high oxygen levels of the past, when we burn coal we actually turn oxygen into CO2, so if anything insects should shrink in the future.

[Anonymous No.10183248]

>>10182763
>muh nature has always changed

Yes it did, and it whiped out entire species while doing so. We are next.

>muh humans didn't cause this climate change

This is the most ridiculous argument of all, the industrialisation of the human race is without a doubt the single most intenste climate change event in earth's 4,5 billion year history. We are pumping so much carbon into the atmosphere every year that nothing in the history of earth comes even close to that.

[Anonymous No.10183255]

>>10183243
shouldn't there be an increase in flora that reverts that?

[Anonymous No.10183259]

>>10183248
>We are next.
You're probably sitting in wifi right now with a cell phone in your pocket, so you're already being sterilized. If you don't change soon your lineage is not going to be part of any "we".

5G will be much worse. You will ignore it and let it come.

[Anonymous No.10183265]

>>10183255
If anything the net flora on Earth is decreasing, mainly in the Rain-forest where the majority of terrestrial O2 is produced people are chopping it down.

[Anonymous No.10183284]

>>10183265
>mainly in the Rain-forest
It's pretty much everywhere at this point
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/index.html

[Anonymous No.10183305]

>>10183284
How important can the insects be when nobody even noticed that their number decreased by 70%?

[Anonymous No.10183309]

>>10183305
Take a look around you, I doubt you see anything but walls.

[Anonymous No.10183316]

>>10183309
Yeah, so? I said NOBODY, not just me. Farmers didn't notice, forest rangers didn't notice, nobody noticed, so how important can they really be?

[Anonymous No.10183324]

>>10183316
Obviously people were noticing something, that's why the study was conducted. Back to my previous post Farmers don't NEED insects, you don't NEED insects, but just because they don't have value to you doesn't mean that our ecosystem doesn't hinge on them.

[Anonymous No.10183334]

>>10183324
But that's the point, if ecosystems hinged on them we sure as fuck would have noticed it that their number is decreasing drastically. So how important can they really be?

[Anonymous No.10183343]

>>10183128
>>10183229
>why's that?

My take is that there is hysteria and dishonest argument on both sides, for example as I mentioned >>10183054. However it is also clear that the warmist side is less wrong than the denialist side. A personal irk of mine is that the more outspoken and aggressive climate scientists tend to be modelers (Gavin Schmitt, Michael Mann) while some of the people who actually measure things (Pieter Tans, head of NOAA Global Monitoring Division) are more reserved in their claims. As a person who does measurement for a living, I think the media should give more voice to people who measure things and not "predict" things in the future because we are more measured. As they say “No one believes a model, except the modeler. Everyone believes a measurement/experiment - except the person who made the measurement/experiment.”

Overall the effect of anthropogenic climate change is real and observable. The discussion then boils down to "how much of modern climate change is manmade." This question lack the specifics. In terms of what? global temperature? wildfires? hurricane? sea ice? ice sheet size? There's different level of anthropogenic footprint and uncertainties in each of those variables.

The effect of climate change, regardless it is anthropogenic or not will predominantly be negative because resource redistribution creates instability in socio-economic system. Present day apple farmer will be wine farmer by 2100, maple tree farmer will be apple farmer, and people who hunt elk up north will be maple tree farmer. For that to happen though, it requires multiple season of failed harvest until people adapt and the socio-economic cost of those adaptation is non-negligible. Overall if you're upper middle class in developed world you're probably gonna be ok unless you live in climate change hotspot like Florida (sea level rise) or California (wildfire, drought). If you're lower middle class in developing world then you're in a world of hurt.

[Anonymous No.10183346]

>>10183017
>implying your neighbours won't just shoot you if you refuse to share once TSHTF

[Anonymous No.10183350]

>>10183334
But we did notice that they were decreasing, that's why the study was conducted, that's why we've conducted it pretty much every year and have a chart showing a decline from the 50s. That's why we have a reference point to say that the populations have decreased by 80%. It's just nobody did anything about it, pesticides were never outlawed, so the insects continued to die.

[Anonymous No.10183359]

>>10183305
Ecologists and entomologists say that humans would die out if all insects vanished. We're seeing similar collapses in fish stocks, birds and mammals.
Why aren't we seeing the effect yet? Well, we are. It's getting harder to catch fish. We've been keeping up because we're getting better at locating them and fishing deeper. We're relying on our own pollinators too (honey bees). When and if they collapse, we'll definitely see very strong effects.

[Anonymous No.10183362]

>>10183359
Who cares, we can grow meat in the lab and we can grow crops in a greenhouse

[Anonymous No.10183369]

>>10183362
I too seek death anon.

[Anonymous No.10183370]

>>10182814
Perhaps you have more precise and updated informations about what most likely caused PETM ?

[Anonymous No.10183372]

>>10183359
GUESS WHAT ELSE ECOLOGISTS AND ENTOMOLOGISTS SAY? MANMADE ELECTROMAGNETIC EMISSIONS ARE CAUSING ECOLOGICAL DESTRUCTION. DEATH OF POLLINATORS, DEATH OF TREES, DEATH OF BIRDS VIA COMPROMISING THEIR SHELL FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT. DEATH OF NEWTS AND AMPHIBIANS BECAUSE THEY'RE INCREDIBLY VULNERABLE TO OXIDATIVE STRESS, THEIR SMALL SIZE, AND ELECTROMAGNETIC POLLUTION ACTING IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER TOXINS.

BUT YOU'RE JUST SOME LITTLE YUPPIE BRAT WHO DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT AS LONG AS HE GETS HIS SOCIAL CREDIT, SO QUITTING YOUR EXISTING ROLE, AND MAKING ANY UNCOMFORTABLE CHANGE IS OFF THE TABLE.

ADDICTION AND EXCUSES.

[Anonymous No.10183376]

>>10183372
That's just a conspiracy. Nothing made by a large corporation can be bad.

[Anonymous No.10183378]

>>10183155
I'm currently looking for a property to buy in a state that doesn't limit rainwater collection and preferably with good net metering services. I'm probably going to wait until the new rectenna solar panels come to the market before I install solar and at least 24 hours of energy storage, but I'm going to begin building an aquaponic facility as soon as I can. Electric cars are on the list, but gasoline will be available for quite a while so they aren't very high on the list. I'll also need to either build some type of defense or find a way to hide my resources, but that's only useful once I have the resources to protect and it makes you look super crazy to stockpile guns and shit.

If I can get a business loan for it I also want to buy a plot of land to build grid storage under solar panels, but that's more of an attempt to curtail emmisions rather then in preparation for food riots

[Anonymous No.10183379]

>>10183372
wut?

[Anonymous No.10183384]

>>10183343
Seems reasonable. The whole "if it bleeds, it leads" attitude of the media is definitely a huge problem.
I'm curious though. Are climate scientists generally aware of other factors stressing our ecosystems and food supplies? Like.. the rapid dying off of insects, birds and fish over the past half century, soil depletion, desertification and a number of other issues.
I'm asking because the problems we face are very interdisciplinary and I'm somewhat concerned that any one issue may just end up being the straw that breaks the camel's back when it comes to ecosystem or food supply collapse. Can we even evaluate all the the problem as a whole if scientist are, in effect, specialists that focus their view in their own bubbles?

[Anonymous No.10183385]

>>10183376
YEAH. GOOD OL' TELECOM, EMPLOYING PHILLIP-MORRIS. I WONDER WHY THEY NEED PR HELP. GOOD OL' INDUSTRY MAN TOM WHEELER RUNNING DAMAGE CONTROL FOR THE MACHINE YOU'RE FEEDING LONGER THAN SOME OF YOU HAVE EVEN BEEN ALIVE.

GOSH, I WONDER WHY A MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR COMPLEX OF INDUSTRIES WOULDN'T MUTUALLY ACT TO PROTECT EACH OTHER'S INTERESTS AT ALL LEVELS OF ORGANIZATION. I WONDER WHY NATO WOULDN'T GO OUT IN THE LATE 80'S AND PUSH ITS "THERMALS ONLY" DOCTRINE TO ALL OTHER NATO MEMBERS, TO ENSURE ITS USE OF RADAR ABROAD WAS NOT HINDERED.

[Anonymous No.10183391]

>>10183093
I'm sorry about your reading comprehension

>>10183346
>implying defense isn't a part of preparing for an a collapse of civilization
>inferring what wasn't implied

[Anonymous No.10183393]

>>10183370
Nah PETM is way beyond my expertise because there's no ice core from that age (55Ma) that survive. The oldest ice core we have is 3Ma from my colleague John Higgins at Princeton https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/record-shattering-27-million-year-old-ice-core-reveals-start-ice-ages but people haven't heard updates since the article came out because the ice core is a folded discontinuous mess with fucked up CO2 value at the bottom because of bacterial respiration.

The common theory is that it's from destabilization of marine clathrate causing excursion in d13C (relative abundance of 13C/12C isotopologues) in carbonate sediments because marine clathrate has very depleted d13C. However it is not clear why it only happened once and did not happen again. Another out of the ass hypothesis is that comet striking Antarctica. At 55 Ma Antarctica was permafrost just like northern canada and siberia. Getting hit by a comet would cause rapid release of C from permafrost and continuous fire that burn for years. However the evidence (if any) of this hypothesis will be buried under 3-4km of modern Antarctic ice sheet and incredibly hard to get.

[Anonymous No.10183396]

>>10183391
>I'm sorry about your reading comprehension
You think that was clever and snarky, but it wasn't.

[Anonymous No.10183408]

>>10183391
>>implying defense isn't a part of preparing for an a collapse of civilization
>implying I'm not prepping for your defense.
Along with my buddies in the state department I've installed a tracking device in every MRE and box of 7.62 rounds ever produced. You won't be able to hide from us, and its kinda cute you think we don't know exactly where your stockpile is. Our plan is to quietly arrest most of you guys before TSHTF and redistribute your stuff to black people.

[Anonymous No.10183410]

>>10183378
Interesting concept. How large of a property do you think you'll need for this?

[Anonymous No.10183421]

>>10183378
By the way make sure to wait to get the batteries, as we're expected to get solid state batteries by 2020 which have way higher energy density than current ones, plus they wear slower.

[Anonymous No.10183428]

>>10183384
>Are climate scientists generally aware of other factors stressing our ecosystems and food supplies? Like.. the rapid dying off of insects, birds and fish over the past half century, soil depletion, desertification and a number of other issues.
>I'm asking because the problems we face are very interdisciplinary and I'm somewhat concerned that any one issue may just end up being the straw that breaks the camel's back when it comes to ecosystem or food supply collapse. Can we even evaluate all the the problem as a whole if scientist are, in effect, specialists that focus their view in their own bubbles?

Not exactly. I tend to stay in my own bubble as physical climate scientists, and most people do. Even the IPCC report is written piecewise by different people and stapled together. Because they want to show "scientist from HUNDREDS of countries" wrote the report, there's a little bit of affirmative action going on and you'll see that some chapter reads really well while other chapter reads like ESL garbage. This is not to cast aspersion on scientists from developing countries, it is just their writing skills are not up to snuff.

With regards to biological system we're going beyond exact physics based models (conservation of momentum, energy, chemistry) into inexact empirical model (predator prey equation). On physical science basis we still cannot model cloud formation, atmospheric chemistry that is catalyzed by lightning (N fixation, which determine how much primary nutrient will be available). Propagating the uncertainties in the physical model into biological systems, plus adding uncertainties from the inexact empirical nature of biological systems I think would not be worthwhile endeavor because the uncertainties would be too big and the result would be meaningless.

[Anonymous No.10183439]

>>10183428
>This is not to cast aspersion on scientists from developing countries, it is just their writing skills are not up to snuff
I should probably clarify I meant their writing skills specifically in English. They could be some Chinese wisdom Sun Tzu poet in their native tongue, but sometime their English writing skill can make your eyes bleed

[Anonymous No.10183445]

>>10183396
Sorry I couldn't be bothered to hold your hand while you wrestle with a post on 4chan

>>10183408
>"I'm going to take your things with all my guns and then starve to death when there's no more things to take".
Solid plan. I'll use commonly available technologies to build a few traps and automated weapons. Come on down and we'll see how many people it costs you

[Anonymous No.10183455]

>>10183410
Depends on how many people I intend to feed and how closed of a system I'm trying to construct. I could probably support myself and my nuclear family on at least an acre, but I want as much land as I can reasonably buy

[Anonymous No.10183456]

>>10183428
Is there anything about the recent IPCC report you disagree with? Are there any important factors they didn't include (maybe because they can't be modeled well enough)?

>With regards to biological system..
So basically, we don't know and there's no reliable way to know? I'm increasingly getting the sense that there's truly no one at the helm of this ship and we just have to hope we're lucky enough not to hit any of the larger icebergs.

[Anonymous No.10183468]

>>10183421
That's good news. Hopefully those panels will be on the market by then too

[Anonymous No.10183469]

>>10183445
>Sorry I couldn't be bothered to hold your hand while you wrestle with a post on 4chan
Very smart. Much condescend. Real btfo. Ego critical.

[Anonymous No.10183482]

>>10183445
>I'll use commonly available technologies to build a few traps and automated weapons
>implying we haven't built remotely operated failsafes into any weapon you could have bought
Besides, you haven't got the guts to kill people. We do psychometry tests on all those under surveillance, and 99% are wishful thinkers.

[Anonymous No.10183494]

>>10183482
>We do psychometry tests on all those under surveillance
Pretty shit surveillance if you didn't notice my tinfoil hat

Checkmate CIA

[Anonymous No.10183513]

>>10183456
>So basically, we don't know and there's no reliable way to know?
Yeah biology is like the three headed stepchild of climate science because how quantitatively inexact they are. Imagine you're studying bugs in Harvard Forest and this bug is particularly important in the ecosystem. You publish a study that the population bugs in Harvard Forest are declining.

The logical follow up question would be "yeah but how much of that is driven by climate change?" How can you possibly quantify this? Well the answer is that you need model, population model driven by climate variables. In control experiment you model what if the climate is not warming, and in your testing hypothesis you model the population with climate forcing. Sadly the state of science is not quite there yet, and the climate models are imprecise for such regional scale. So what happen in reality is that you publish a story about bugs declining in Harvard forest, might or might not be due to climate change, people say cool story bro and it gets ignored in the IPCC forecast.

>Are there any important factors they didn't include (maybe because they can't be modeled well enough)?
Yeah obviously. For example all the CMIP5 runs (Climate Model Intercomparison Project 5) for the AR5 report did not include permafrost feedback. The "global greening" vegetation model CLM4.5 (Community Land Model) does not include nutrient limitation. There are tons of shortcomings in IPCC models, but it is easier for me who's not a full time climate modeler to poke holes at them than the people who actually write the code line by line.

[Anonymous No.10183517]

>>10182844
It's notoriously difficult to educate the plebs.

a)They don't really care and their eyes glaze over when you attempt to explain the details
b)Most simply don't have the capacity to understand anyway.

The powers that be have selected a simple slogan to drive the point. The earth is getting warmer because of co2 and we are going to need a lot of money to stop it.

Truth is the rich and powerful don't really care if they manage to convince us but they are obligated to make an attempt. See... All of them have tickets to a vault. You and I? Well who cares about us.

So the reality is that climate change is real. A large portion of that change is a direct result of deforestation, co2 emissions, urban sprawl and other industrial and agriculural influences.

Highly probable that there are ALSO underlying natural causes beyond our control.

Why confuse stupid people? Why even bother trying to explain it all when you have a ticket to a vault?

Who the fuck is going to agree to pay to get us out of this mess?

[Anonymous No.10183520]

>>10183482
PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE YOU CAN USE RADIO WAVES TO ASSESS SOMEONE'S SWEAT GLANDS AND THEIR CONTENT, FURTHER INFERRING THEIR EMOTIONAL STATE. USING TWO WIFI ROUTERS YOU CAN ESTIMATE HEART RHYTHM AS WELL.

THERE ARE METHODS FOR GALVANIC SKIN RESISTANCE, HEART RATE, AND OTHERS.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2016/09/20/mits-csail-lab-creates-a-system-that-identifies-peoples-emotions-using-wireless-signals/#1ed855c16b53
LINK SO YOUR TRAINING DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH UPTAKE OF NEW INFORMATION. DON'T WORRY. YOUR MASTERS SAY IT'S ALLOWED TO KNOW AND TALK ABOUT IT.

[Anonymous No.10183522]

>>10182814
This is a gross oversimplification, obviously, since insolation at 65N has a much MUCH higher frequency than glacial cycles.

[Anonymous No.10183523]

>>10183517
THEY BUILT UNDERGROUND CITIES INTO THE MOUNTAINS. WE COMPLETED OURS IN THE OZARKS. CHINA HS THEIRS. THERE'S ONE IN RUSSIA.

WE'RE DISPOSABLE CATTLE ON ALL LEVELS, AND IN ALL SCENARIOS.

[Anonymous No.10183526]

>>10182888
>they got unlimited nutrient
and water, and the temperature was nice too

[Anonymous No.10183530]

>>10183494
What do you think is inside the tinfoil? Peel it apart and you'll see all the equipment

[Anonymous No.10183542]

>>10183513
>IPCC
So would it be fair to say that the conclusions (such as.. we have 12 years to make huge changes or things get real bad) are a whole lot less certain than people think they are?

Would you say the IPCC generally underestimates the dangers/levels of change we're facing or overestimates them (assuming you can even answer a question like this)?

[Anonymous No.10183543]

>>10183522
>This is a gross oversimplification, obviously, since insolation at 65N has a much MUCH higher frequency than glacial cycles.

Yes this is a well known problem in paleoclimate community known as the 100kyr problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem. Summer insolation at 65N oscillates every 23kyr but deglaciation only occur every 100-125kyr (so 4 or 5 precessional cycles). There are multiple hypothesis floated up, such that you need Northern Hemisphere ice sheet to be at a certain threshold mass for it to be able to significantly affect the thermohaline circulation, warm Antarctica and allow the Southern Ocean to exhale CO2.

[Anonymous No.10183549]

>>10183393
>hit by a comet
Funny I was taught while studying marine geography that PETM was caused either via methane clathrate mass release or via bolid impact. However my lecturers didn't even mention the impact could;ve induced methane eruptions. Thank you for reply.

[Anonymous No.10183568]

>>10183543
Thanks for clarifying.

[Anonymous No.10183583]

>>10183542
>So would it be fair to say that the conclusions (such as.. we have 12 years to make huge changes or things get real bad) are a whole lot less certain than people think they are?

That particular report is based on simple models on the atmospheric lifetime of GHG like CO2, which stays on the atmosphere for 100-200 years. The idea is that what we do now have long term impact. Then the model is coupled with very simple economic model like peak oil curve, suggesting how much you can feasibly cut out after the peak.

I don't know the nuts and bolts of the models but funnily long term climate projection is more precise because you weed out all the internal and decadal variability. I think the assessment that peak CO2 emissions from developed countries needs to be by 2030 and peak CO2 emissions from developing country needs to happen by 2050 has a lot of merit to prevent 4.5C warming by 2100.

If you're only talking about temperature warming and GHG emissions, then it is a simple physical climate model. However how bad things will get if 4.5C warming occurred by 2100 is uncertain, and that number 4.5C warming is fairly arbitrary because there are plenty feedback mechanism that is unaccounted for.

I suspect they're working backwards from the economic model, and see that the most realistic cuts people can make will result in 4.5C warming so they're setting the 4.5C warming as an arbitrary goal that is somewhat achievable, similar to people's target on their personal weight loss. It is not realistic to hope to cut 100lbs in 1 month, but it is realistic to cut 1-2lbs per week with 500 calorie deficit every day so people settle on the achievable goal

[Anonymous No.10183596]

>>10183583
>4.5C
holy crap, didn't they say that 2C was going to have catastrophic implications? Would limiting to 4.5C even be easier on the environment than just not cutting at all?

[Anonymous No.10183618]

>>10183596
The common baseline is with respect to preindustrial. So we're already 1.2C in the bag, and 2C is inevitable even if we stop all emissions today because of the lag in the climate system and thermal inertia of the planet. 4.5C is the Paris goal and 2.5C is the pie in the sky goal of massive reduction in CO2 emissions.

The idea behind the 12 year limit for developed countries is that if the US and Europe doesn't have their peak CO2 emissions by 2030 then following fairness argument, leading by examples, etc. developing countries like China and India cannot possibly have peak emissions by 2050.

Personally I think Paris agreement is kinda dumb and only results from bunch of diplomat smelling their own farts because it is non-binding and there is no consequences. People give shit on Trump for pulling out of Paris but Europe is nowhere near close to their emission goal. Methane emissions in particular is almost an order of magnitude off than their goal. The only country that is actively trying with carbon tax is France, and they're having riots in Paris because people's short term livelihood are severely affected by Macron's carbon tax.

There's not a whole lot of individuals like you and me can do because there are 7 billion people in the planet. Just sit back and see what happens, you can cut on your personal carbon emissions by eating less meat, driving less and vote Green party (not that your vote on the Green party will matter) then when shit happens you can brag that it is not your fault, you did your part.

[Anonymous No.10183620]

>>10183583
> based on simple models on the atmospheric lifetime of GHG like CO2, which stays on the atmosphere for 100-200 years

So it doesn't take into account things like albedo changes the acceleration of methane outgasing when lakes form on the permafrost?

What's the potential for feedback mechanisms or forcings that we aren't yet aware of?

> funnily long term climate projection is more precise because you weed out all the internal and decadal variability
Sure, but wouldn't you expect the long term accuracy to be reduced if positive feedback mechanisms are left out of the models?

[Anonymous No.10183629]

>>10183530
My God!
>tfw you are a CIA sleeper sent to spy on yourself by means of a mind-reading device inside a resonator placed around your skull

[Anonymous No.10183642]

>>10183025
It's fun how it only works as an argument in the other direction.
>it's so warm this month
>definitely because of climate change
>it's so cold this month
>wow bigot this has nothing to do with global warming. We should coin a term for people like you, something like holocaust denier just with climate. You are a climate denier. You should be put into a labor camp to better yourself!!

It's really just this propagandist shit that i have a hard time believing in climate change.

[Anonymous No.10183648]

>>10183054
Tamino has shown that temperatures spikes equivalent to what we're seeing now would show in Marcott's curve if they existed: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/

It's a fair comparison although not particularly robust.

[Anonymous No.10183661]

>>10183620
Albedo is accounted for of because it is part of physical feedback. But the ice sheets are modeled just as static dumb ice cube that will melt given how much heat in the system. They do not include positive feedback such as marine ice sheet instability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_ice_sheet_instability where West Antarctica is currently sitting at a bedrock below sea level, so accelerated ocean warming will create a vicious cycle that erodes the ice sheet from below. It is easier to melt an ice cube if you put it in a glass of water (conduction) than if you just leave it out in the counter (radiation).

Methane permafrost feedbacks are not accounted because it is biological system. To properly model the permafrost feedback you need to model hydrology, soil moisture, bacterial community, topography (which area will have bad drainage and turned into lakes full of rotting organic material that produce methane, which area will just drain out and become dry inert soil). To do so you have to run climate models coupled to permafrost land models and it is very computationally expensive, not to mention there are tons of uncertainties associated with the physical process on permafrost melting I just mentioned.

However remember there's also stabilizing feedback that is not accounted for, such as in warmer world there will likely be more moisture in the air and hence more cloud, increasing the amount of albedo. Because either feedbacks are very complex people just spit on their hand figuratively and assume those feedback balances out, and use the simple bare physics model to project future climate conditions.

[Anonymous No.10183672]

>>10182996
>I had winter so climate change isn't real
legit 80IQ nigger

[Anonymous No.10183683]

>>10183648
The blog misses the point. It is not about Monte Carlo perturbation, it is about running a smoothed averaging window over your temperature reconstruction. If the guy perturb then averages his temperature data over 120yr window he will see a much smaller signal.

You want compare apple to apple, so you either average the modern dataset with 120yr moving average or show the unaveraged Monte Carlo result from Shaun's reconstruction

[Anonymous No.10183695]

>>10183642
I mean overall temperatures are increasing, one cold month means nothing. You wouldn't think that one cold day in a week when every other day is above 90F means that the week is cold. Just because the temperatures are increasing doesn't mean winter goes away.

[Anonymous No.10183701]

>>10183618
>Just sit back and see what happens, you can cut on your personal carbon emissions by eating less meat, driving less and vote Green party (not that your vote on the Green party will matter) then when shit happens you can brag that it is not your fault, you did your part.

feelsweirdman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvkIF0NlIzA

[Anonymous No.10183704]

>>10183661
what a bunch of absolute nonsense. I can't believe you're actually getting paid for this... so much bullshit. and your confidence... reading it makes me sad

[Anonymous No.10183711]

>>10183704
>t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.10183716]

>>10183711
no really, maybe you'd like to clarify some of the things you've said. we can start with the 100-200 years statement if you like.

[Anonymous No.10183723]

>>10183716
I'm not a climate scientist but even I understand what he's saying, you're just trying to discredit him because you don't like what you're hearing.

[Anonymous No.10183732]

>>10183661
Given all these uncertainties concerning feedbacks, are you concerned about various "tipping point" scenarios where positive feedbacks cause a runaway warming that we can't do anything to stop (short of massive and uncertain geo-engineering projects)? Or is notion that we're going to be alright if we limit emissions to X amount of tonnes on pretty solid footing?

How do you react when you see someone online saying something like "it's the sun stupid!" and acting like climate scientists aren't aware of the most obvious factors influencing the Earth's heat balance?

Would you say that a lot of climate scientists are maybe a little over-cautions when it comes to making predictions, given how much of a political hotbutton issue this is?

[Anonymous No.10183740]

>>10183723
its actually 1000-2000 years, jackass. even i know that. I can't even be bothered outlining all the other retarded shit he has said. no doubt another french canadian diversity hire.

[Anonymous No.10183755]

>>10183740
Well if you can thoughtfully disprove climateanon go right ahead, until then you're just a salty shitposter spewing stuff without any backing.

[Anonymous No.10183759]

>>10183755
>a couple of quotes mined from thousands and thousands of emails which are taken out of context
There's literally nothing to disprove

[Anonymous No.10183761]

>>10183755
if you don't believe me then googe co2 residence time you fucking idiot

maybe you just feel inclined to believe all his bullshit because it fits with your liberal ideology

[Anonymous No.10183770]

>>10183732
>Or is notion that we're going to be alright if we limit emissions to X amount of tonnes on pretty solid footing?
No as I mentioned they're likely working backwards from the economic models. 4.5C is achievable economically so let's settle on that without regards to the positive feedback. The tipping point if it exist is incredibly uncertain.

>How do you react when you see someone online saying something like "it's the sun stupid!" and acting like climate scientists aren't aware of the most obvious factors influencing the Earth's heat balance?
Nah I don't care about what most people think. Public opinion has no bearing on policy. I commend my colleagues who work so hard on Sci-Comm but their work are unfortunately inconsequential. Most Americans, and majority of NRA members support reasonable gun control but even after elementary school kids get shot up there is no gun laws passed. Most Europeans accept the basis of climate change and reasonably well informed and even then they cannot get their shit together and having riots about carbon tax in Paris as we speak.

>Would you say that a lot of climate scientists are maybe a little over-cautions when it comes to making predictions
I think it is more because we lack the ability to make such prediction and it is hard to communicate uncertainties to the public. For example let's say we have coupled permafrost feedback-climate model that run on black magic quantum computer. If we know things for certain then people will be vocal about it, but in reality we really don't. However most scientists understand their own uncertainties within their own field and don't feel comfortable communicating said uncertainties because limited public attention span. Therefore you're left with people like Michael Mann and Gavin Schmitt who are so sure about their own convictions and almost borderline as politicians to communicate climate science to the public.

[Anonymous No.10183774]

>>10183759
>>10183761
I'm sorry you feel this way anons, your thoughts are dully noted but I'm afraid I'll have to believe the poster that has at least provided some form of cohesive argument.

[Anonymous No.10183783]

>>10183761
CO2 residence time is about 100-200 yr. https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

If you believe it is 4 years, then you might be thinking of this meme paper
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787
that somehow passes peer review because the guy nominated his friend as referee and the editor was sleeping on his job. The paper got rebutted and BTFO so hard by
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117301364

[Anonymous No.10183788]

>>10183774
did you even bother googling co2 residence time?
I'm guessing not. You'd prefer to just believe whatever the fuck you want I guess. btw, I'm not even here to "deny climate change", as you seem so wont to assume.

[Anonymous No.10183796]

>>10183629
The beauty of it is once we activate the array you'll round each other up and help us build communism

[Anonymous No.10183797]

>>10183788
Read https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117301364

[Anonymous No.10183805]

>>10183783
i said its 1000-2000 years, not 4. and most research agrees:
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
anyway its obviously more complicated than just x # of years because the rate of drawdown changes and is really unknown. something you seem all too happy to just gloss over.

[Anonymous No.10183821]

>>10183805
Yeah 100-200 yr is a simplification because there are multiple processes at multiple timescale at play.

David Archer wrote on this https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JC002625 and quote

>"A mean atmospheric lifetime of order 104 years is in start contrast with the “popular” perception of several hundred year lifetime for atmospheric CO2. In fairness, if the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a sensible number to choose, because it captures the behavior of the majority of the carbon. A single exponential decay of 300 years is arguably a better approximation than a single exponential decay of 30,000 years, if one is forced to choose."

For the simplicity of discussion I used the 100-200yr, in line with his 300yr rather than going into all the ocean carbonate balance, sequestration and silicate weathering feedbacks

[Anonymous No.10183828]

>>10183661
>such as in warmer world there will likely be more moisture in the air and hence more cloud
maybe you'd like to provide a source for this as well, then?
or was that statement for simplicity too?

[Anonymous No.10183829]

>>10183821
The quote didnt work as well, he meant

>"A mean atmospheric lifetime of order 10^4 years is in start contrast with the “popular”

[Anonymous No.10183836]

>>10183783
Also, it would be smart to take papers with these kinds of graphs in them with a HUGE grain of salt because they rely on so many ridiculous assumptions regarding future land use and oceanic conditions.

[Anonymous No.10183844]

>>10183583
4.5 C lol RIP to the amphibians, fish and pollinators that’s so fucking bad

[Anonymous No.10183847]

>>10183828
Sure, say what you want about Richard Lindzen being climate skeptic and cigarette smoking apologist, but his "Iris hypothesis" is real https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis

This is the latest major paper on the debate
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2016JD025827
>Finally, the negative relationship between precipitation efficiency and cirrus fraction tends to correspond to a low global equilibrium climate sensitivity in the models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5. This suggests that tropical anvil cirrus clouds exert a negative climate feedback in strong association with precipitation efficiency.

My point is that cloud feedbacks are not taken into account in the long term projection and cloud feedbacks are cited as one of the major potential stabilizing feedback to balance positive feedbacks also not accounted in the bare physics long term projections

[Anonymous No.10183850]

>>10183844
Don't worry anon, by that point we'll have fished most things into extinction.

[Anonymous No.10183853]

>>10183847
but clouds depend on upwards motion mainly, and that is conserved no matter how warm it is. so i dont buy it.
ill check the links later. gtg

[Anonymous No.10183863]

>>10183770
>Therefore you're left with people like Michael Mann and Gavin Schmitt who are so sure about their own convictions and almost borderline as politicians to communicate climate science to the public.
Is there anyone out there that does a good job communicating without going beyond what the science actually says (you mentioned Pieter Tans).

Have you or are you planning on taking any actions in your personal life based on your knowledge (or suspicions) of our future (such as moving to a region which won't be as heavily impacted)?

[Anonymous No.10183883]

>>10183863
Communications come at sizeable opportunity cost. To be a shitposting loudmouth like Michael Mann on twitter takes out of your time from your research. There are plenty less ideological people in climate science but a lot of them don't want to deal with the shitposting and shitflinging against climate deniers. Also I'm personally skeptical about the importance of public opinion, as you can see specifically American politics is completely decoupled from public opinion. The Afghanistan war has like 6% approval but we're still there on behalf of defense contractors. I'm talking to you guys on Indonesian basket weaving imageboard because I'm also comfily shitposting with regards to Neil Degrasse Tyson sexual misconduct on the other thread

>Have you or are you planning on taking any actions in your personal life based on your knowledge (or suspicions) of our future (such as moving to a region which won't be as heavily impacted)?
See >>10183770, just sit back and see what happens, you can cut on your personal carbon emissions by eating less meat, driving less and vote Green party (not that your vote on the Green party will matter) then when shit happens you can brag that it is not your fault, you did your part.

I don't live in a climate hotspot region and I'm upper middle class in developed country so I'll be fine.

[Anonymous No.10183886]

>>10182814
>taking Serbian climate research as factual

[Anonymous No.10183908]

>>10183883
I'm well aware of how decoupled public opinion is form politics. I'm also aware of how much fake news and bullshit there is on every side of most issues.
I'm not looking to make a difference or to convince anyone. I'm looking to get a reasonable overview of the issues make appropriate plans for the future if necessary.
In any case, this has been very enlightening. I didn't know much of anything about the uncertainties involved, so thanks for that.

[Anonymous No.10183932]

>>10183908
Well as first order advice, the smart thing to do is to not follow advice from anonymous imageboard.

For all you know, I could be a shitposting retard pretending to know what I'm talking about, like the Qanon phenomena. Obviously I'm not, as I tried to answer most questions as honest as I can and feel free to check my answers against all the published literature, but you'll never know.

[Anonymous No.10183945]

>>10183932
I'm looking for advice to think about, not to follow. If you are larping or shitposting, you're doing a pretty convincing job though.

[Anonymous No.10183973]

>>10183797
That's some hard BTFO right there. Any comment on that, >>10183788 ?

[Anonymous No.10184011]

>>10183163
>The climate changes naturally, therefore humans did it.

[Anonymous No.10184013]

>>10183661
Post proof you are a climate scientist. I am a climate scientist and you are full of shit.

[Anonymous No.10184044]

>>10183180
>MY FEELINGS ARE MOD IMPORTANT THAN THE DATA REEEEEEEEEEEE
Woah there SJW.

[Anonymous No.10184050]

>>10183343
>The discussion then boils down to "how much of modern climate change is manmade." This question lack the specifics.

It's pretty specific, give me a percent of what is natural, and what is man made.

>In terms of what? global temperature? wildfires? hurricane? sea ice? ice sheet size? There's different level of anthropogenic footprint and uncertainties in each of those variables.

Isn't this what the government is paying you to research? Are you claiming this is too hard? Because if you can't tell me how much of our 'man made climate change' is created by say, the wildfires in california, or the coal plants in china... WHAT ARE YOU BEING PAID TO FIGURE OUT?

Step 1: You claim there is a large problem caused by humans. Step 2: You get more money from the government to research this. Step 3: You use this money to 'prove' there's a larger problem than you initially claimed (if you found there was no problem what would happen to the money you get?) Step 4: You get more money to prove there's a larger problem. Step 5: Repeat this cycle until the overpopulation hysteria- oh sorry we're over that one aren't we? Step 5: Repeat this cycle until the global warming hysteria is so played out that even the government wont pay you.

>The effect of climate change, regardless it is anthropogenic or not will predominantly be negative because resource redistribution creates instability in socio-economic system.

At least you're honest. If man made climate change was an actual problem scientists would be working on new systems to correct it. It's not actually a problem but it IS hugely profitable. Why do actual research in dangerous locales when you can sit in front of a computer, create simulations with fatally incomplete data sets, and then claim the sky is falling- and anyone who questions why you get paid so much, and why we should be taxed for something we can't measure, gets pointed at and accused of being anti-science.

Fuck your hysteria and your greed.

[Anonymous No.10184102]

>>10184013
>Post proof you are a climate scientist. I am a climate scientist and you are full of shit.
>Post proof
no u

[Anonymous No.10184187]

>>10183683
I think you're misinterpreting Marcott's methodology. It doesn't use a running average or a smoothed averaging window of 120 years. What it averaged were simulations. The 120 years is the median resolution of the proxies that were used. Tamino claims in the comments to the blog post that the use of many proxies together gives a "net" temporal resolution much finer than 120 years.

[Anonymous No.10184199]

>>10183883
>I don't live in a climate hotspot region and I'm upper middle class in developed country so I'll be fine.
Well unless of course the cost of living goes up or something geopolitically changes because of climate change in some other focal point in the global chessboard which you, a climate scientist, can't know about. Why do you think you'll be ok in say 40 years when your'e presumably in your mid-late 60's? I don't know why everyone just seems to not care about their kids, unless you don't want any, in which case you're sort of part of the larger problem that leads to things like people thinking we can stay on coal for another century and pretending that there is no consensus about AGW

[Anonymous No.10184225]

>>10184187
The 120yr running average is inherent in the proxies that they used. For a fair comparison, apple to apple you need to turn the annual temperature measurement also into proxy with 120yr running average.

The blog is talking about slightly different thing, read it carefully. Would a present day temperature spike show up in Marcott et al temperature stack? Absolutely, Tamino is right nobody doubted that.

What I'm saying strictly refer to presentation. Slapping a curve with annual resolution at the end of curve with inherent 120yr smoothing average is at best sloppy and at worst dishonest because you're seeing a much higher rate of warming on the curve with annual resolution.

Even with 120yr average, present day anthropogenic temperature spike would still show up at the end of the curve. There's no reason to exaggerate the spike by showing two curves with inherently different time resolution.

[Anonymous No.10184253]

>>10184199
Let me rephrase that, I will not do worse than my peers within the same income level and background where I live. When everyone becomes poorer, then nobody becomes poorer because poor is relative.

[Anonymous No.10184263]

>>10184011
Jesus Christ you're a moron. Arguing (X -> ¬Y) is false is not equivalent to arguing (X -> Y). It's equivalent to arguing X ∧ Y.

[Anonymous No.10184288]

>>10184225
>>10184225
>The 120yr running average is inherent in the proxies that they used.
What specifically does that mean? Saying that the proxies have a 120 year running average doesn't necessarily mean the reconstruction does. 120 years is not the actual resolution of the graph, and it's the graph that is being compared to the temperature record, not a particular proxy. As far as I can tell, the only mention of 120 years is the median resolution of the proxies used, not a running average and not the resolution of the reconstruction.

[Anonymous No.10184324]

>>10184263
>Putting them as equivalent forces.
Yeah you're the retard.

[Anonymous No.10184329]

High voltage power lines are altering the ionosphere and its "electron rain".

[Anonymous No.10184331]

>>10184324
They aren't equivalent, anthropogenic forcing is currently much stronger than natural forcing.

[Anonymous No.10184333]

>>10184253
>when everyone becomes poorer absolutely, no one becomes poorer
yes, I too am capable of speaking like a politician or media goblin when sufficiently flustered or disinterested in honesty.

pivoting away from your good humor, you do realize that your skills will likely decline in value even disregarding the impending economic catastrophes that certainly await all of us (again, also not even taking into consideration effects from climate change on the economy and global wealth).

[Anonymous No.10184377]

>>10184050
>It's pretty specific, give me a percent of what is natural, and what is man made.
Change in surface temperature since 1950 attribution:

Natural: approximately -10%

Manmade: approximately 110%

Source: IPCC AR5 10.5

>Step 1: You claim there is a large problem caused by humans. Step 2: You get more money from the government to research this. Step 3: You use this money to 'prove' there's a larger problem than you initially claimed (if you found there was no problem what would happen to the money you get?) Step 4: You get more money to prove there's a larger problem. Step 5: Repeat this cycle until the overpopulation hysteria- oh sorry we're over that one aren't we? Step 5: Repeat this cycle until the global warming hysteria is so played out that even the government wont pay you.
The same conspiracy theory could be claimed for any science you wish to deny. Too bad you actually have to prove it.

>If man made climate change was an actual problem scientists would be working on new systems to correct it.
You already have the solution, emit less CO2.

[Anonymous No.10184412]

>>10182953
volcanoes are about 1%, so of course you're boot licking them
https://youtu.be/6VUPIX7yEOM?t=2m

[Anonymous No.10184415]

>>10183618
>(not that your vote on the Green party will matter)
tbf your choice to eat less meat and drive less won't matter either.

[Anonymous No.10184435]

>>10183886
https://youtu.be/ztninkgZ0ws?t=10m

[Anonymous No.10184460]

Isn’t it weird that of all the things in science, global warming is the one science that catches shit? I mean I get why evolution is denied burn climate change?

What?

[Anonymous No.10184463]

>>10182904
If we build a greenhouse and increase CO2 concentrations to 20%, do we see heat increases in the greenhouse?

Just curious because of another experiment with a greenhouse built with glass that blocks certain radiation frequencies that still showed the same heating inside as if it were regular glass due to heat vortexes not being hindered inside.

[Anonymous No.10184465]

>>10183428
I'm sure it would be better for them to write in their native language so you can't understand it at all. Broken English isn't a sign of "affirmative action," it's bilingual adults talking down to the monolingual babies for the latter's benefit.

[Anonymous No.10184473]

>>10184463
Yes. Check out youtube for some demonstrations of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and you'll understand why

[Anonymous No.10184556]

>>10184460
It's because the issue has been stacked with politics. Both sides are guilty of it.

[Anonymous No.10184565]

>>10184556
>Both sides are guilty
oh bs

[Anonymous No.10184579]

>>10184565
yeah, like how the "climate scientists" faked results since they get funding if they make it look scarier than it is. money explains everything, i agree with you

[Anonymous No.10184590]

>>10184579
>makes up bullshit on image boards
Great argument

[Anonymous No.10184592]

>>10184590
just like you did shitstain, you arent better than anyone. grow up

[Anonymous No.10184602]

>>10184565
>claim we'll be underwater in 10 years for 20 years
>no we've never made exaggerated or dishonest claims stop being anti-science

[Anonymous No.10184619]

>>10184592
fuck you

[Anonymous No.10184627]

>>10183054
Hey I'm generating climate data from the Holocene Optimum. We have very interesting results.

[Anonymous No.10184643]

>>10184619
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/08/01/delingpole-australia-bureau-of-meteorology-caught-erasing-record-low-temperatures/
and eat my dick

[Anonymous No.10184650]

>>10184602
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10184655]

>>10184643
>sadfart
while you're at it, give us some Oldfucks quotes too

[Anonymous No.10184658]

>>10182844

And where is you smart arsed response to this >>10182863
now you arrogant pigfuck?

[Anonymous No.10184671]

>>10184650
literally a citation one post before yours

>>10184655
i dont know what you're saying

>>10184658
the fact remains that CO2 is actually really weak as a greehouse gas, and is less of the atmosphere than water vapor is, CO2 is about .3% of the atmosphere, H2O is about 1-4% of the atmosphere, and H2O is 3 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is.

so i wouldnt say that CO2 is particularly important info in regards to climate change.

[Anonymous No.10184675]

>>10183642

Well that's simply because you are an uneducated ignorant fucking peasant who has no place voicing his retarded opinion in any serious discussion on this topic. Understood? Good, now go back to reconditioning the engine in your lawn mower.

[Anonymous No.10184680]

>>10184671
>CO2 is about .3% of the atmosphere
whoops
CO2 is about .04% of the atmosphere*
my b

[Anonymous No.10184682]

>>10184671
foxnews & breitbart are worthless cult rags
into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.10184684]

>>10184682
says the fucker denying that there's conspiracies involved in this >>10184565
get some self awareness

[Anonymous No.10184685]

>>10184643
>breitbart

[Anonymous No.10184688]

>>10184684
they are dishonest 1% puppets
you get more useful info from a used tp
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fox+news+worse+than+no+news

[Anonymous No.10184691]

>>10184671
>the fact remains that CO2 is actually really weak as a greehouse gas
What does really weak mean? It has the effect it's measured to have.

>and is less of the atmosphere than water vapor is, CO2 is about .3% of the atmosphere, H2O is about 1-4% of the atmosphere, and H2O is 3 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is.
This is all irrelevant since the problem is not the total greenhouse effect of the total atmosphere, which keeps the Earth from being 0 degrees F. The problem is the *change* in the greenhouse effect since the industrial revolution which has caused the temperature to rise rapidly. Water vapor changes in response to changes in temperature, it's not a forcing.

Any time someone starts talking about the percentage of the atmosphere or the percentage of the total greenhouse effect, you know they have no idea what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10184695]

>>10184688
i never fucking mentioned the shit heads at fox
keep putting up the strawmen if it makes you feel good

[Anonymous No.10184719]

>>10184695
they're both the same shit

[Anonymous No.10184730]

>>10184650
>can't make specific predictions about how people's lives will be affected
>global climate related Armageddon that you've been harping on for decades still hasn't happened
if scientists describe a specific physical phenomena like CO2 trapping heat i'll take their word for it. the argument earlier in this thread that there will be a non-negligible economic cost to transitioning what particular regions are used for seems plausible.

but my life consistently stays better than people pushing for climate legislation keep telling me it will. therefore i'm going to assume they're charlatans who are trying to push uncertain worst case scenarios as undeniable fact for political reasons.

[Anonymous No.10184734]

>>10184592
>makes up shit about other people making up shit on 4chan threads
Great argument

[Anonymous No.10184735]

>>10184730
>specific predictions
at 450ppm/2C 50-75% of rain in subtropics (40...23 lat) will fail. At current rate that'll happen around 2030.

[Anonymous No.10184749]

>>10184730
>can't make specific predictions about how people's lives will be affected
Because people are complicated, and change what they're doing based on a number of factors. Asking climatologists to accurately predict economic and sociatal changes is dumb.

>global climate related Armageddon that you've been harping on for decades still hasn't happened
Stop reading shitty newspapers. Scientists aren't predicting Armageddon.

>but my life consistently stays better than people pushing for climate legislation keep telling me it will.
Stop making vague claims. Provide a specific example.

>therefore i'm going to assume they're charlatans who are trying to push uncertain worst case scenarios as undeniable fact for political reasons.
Yes, scientists all over the planet are collaborating together to fake an entire field of research in order to harm US politics. That makes sense.

[Anonymous No.10184765]

>>10184685
>i don't read anything that wasn't approved by a centralist truth authority
>if huffpost doesn't write about something, it's not real
This board i swear

[Anonymous No.10184772]

>>10184765
You don't have to be here, you can always go back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.10184773]

>>10184765
nazi rags just don't count
so fuck off

[Anonymous No.10184775]

>>10184749
>Asking climatologists to accurately predict economic and sociatal changes
I'm not doing that. I'm asking people trying to pass laws which manipulate society and the economy to predict economic and societal changes.

>Scientists aren't predicting Armageddon.
Politicians should stop telling me scientists told them we're doomed unless I vote for them, then.

>Stop making vague claims. Provide a specific example.
I don't keep records of every time a politician threatens me. But my life is fine and I know they've been telling me my life won't be fine in 5-10 years for a long time. When my life stops being fine or they can point out definite signs that my life will soon not be fine they might earn my trust back.

>scientists all over the planet are collaborating together to fake an entire field of research in order to harm US politics
No, but US politicians are cherrypicking predictions in order to trick me into giving them money and firing up their pseud supporters who want to feel superior about their choice of authority figure.

[Anonymous No.10184799]

>>10184775
Then stop listing to politicians and blaming scientists for what they say.

[Anonymous No.10184807]

>>10184799
I don't. This whole time I've been talking about "people pushing for climate legislation", I never said anything negative about scientists.

My main point is just that I disagree with that guy who said only one side is politicizing the issue. People stop trusting everything you say if you say enough wrong things to them and that's what happened here.

Also most people do believe in humans contributing to climate change now but that's not the same thing as believing historical liars when they tell you how bad the consequences will be if you don't vote for them this time.

[Anonymous No.10184838]

I'm quite conservative minded and I hate political correctness.
I don't deny climate change and I'm not religious.
I'm not a nazi either.

[Anonymous No.10184884]

>>10184765
>if you don't trust the reporting of a conservative rag with a track record of literally fabricating stories, then you're basically an authoritarian drone from the Ministry of Truth here to silence dissent
commit kakuro, crayon-muncher

[Anonymous No.10184911]

>>10184565
Big Oil Companies have objectively and provably been supporting climate change propaganda for the past thirty years, your graphic is inherently wrong just from this alone.
It's so funny when people think they are "fighting big oil!!" by supporting green energy. Big energy makes the most money of anyone off of green energy and always has.

[Anonymous No.10184926]

>>10184735
Just a little over 10 years in the future. Just like all the other things that didn't happen but didn't matter because you already cashed in 10 years before and people got scared of the next boogeyman.

[Anonymous No.10184983]

>>10184911
>Big energy makes the most money of anyone off of green energy and always has.
Go home anon, you're drunk

[Anonymous No.10184985]

>>10184911
>Big Oil Companies have objectively and provably been supporting climate change propaganda for the past thirty years
By funding Heartland and friends?

>>10184926
>Just like all the other things that didn't happen
And yet you can't name one.

[Anonymous No.10184988]

>>10184985
Our cities still aren't underwater. The ice caps are still there.

[Anonymous No.10184990]

>>10184988
Do you have any source for those predictions? Other than your ass I mean

[Anonymous No.10184992]

>>10184988
So you're going to just make things up?

[Anonymous No.10184998]

Is a Hottentot a monkey monkey at 22:31 at 21:26 of 2018/12/1? The influence of the 22:45 ニヤケ face!
Is it a carp sun man at 20:30? Is it a ニヤケ face? Is it ましこ? Is it かが? Are 21, the devil of 00 flies niobium?

At about 19:30 of 2018/12/1, it is a ニヤケ face! 19:40 feces! Is an image of the insertion the voice of the baby in the buttocks hole at 19:42?
Is Hachijojima a hometown of カポイド at 18:45? At about 19:00, is a homosexual smart? Is it a homosexual smart man? *2?
And I put it up at 17:39? Is it ましこ? Is it うれしょん? A 17:41 nose! Is it m? Bipolar transistor (whether I amplify it, and do you send it?) ?
A bad effect of the music strengthens only me in ● アプラサス at 17:30! Is it a goblin? Is it cured soon? It is ● a home run エベンキ
It is imaged the insertion in the buttocks hole at 15:58! And a Hottentot gives it? Is it a 16:00 codex? Is it エベンキ?

[Anonymous No.10185474]

>>10182774
>/threading your own post
Cancer
But you are right

>>10182969
>maybe you have selective memory
Or maybe your fancy charts are wrong lmao

[Anonymous No.10186928]

>>10184671
they always mention water vapor when their argument is falling apart

[Anonymous No.10186949]

>>10184985
You clearly haven't paid any attention to big oil and big energy and where their money is spent.https://www.ge.com/reports/ecomagination-ten-years-later-proving-efficiency-economics-go-hand-hand/
>Now ten years old, Ecomagination has generated more than $200 billion in revenues since inception. Today, GE is expanding the program with eight partnerships seeking to solve looming environmental and sustainability challenges in ways that make economic sense.
That's 20,000,000,000.00 USD revenue a year every year for a decade straight.
You're a useful idiot lining big energy's pockets.

[Anonymous No.10187283]

>>10186949
>General Electric, a company which primarily manufactures electric infrastructure has a renewable electricity division
Gasp! Wow this changes everything. You sure showed me that Big Oil is making up global warming.

[Anonymous No.10187289]

>>10187283
It wouldn't surprise me. They also own the companies that get called in for pipeline leaks, oil spills, and so on. Sucking up federal and state subsidies in the process.

What's one more layer?

[Anonymous No.10187321]

HI guys climate scientist here, I'm back. The discussion on modern climate change is honestly boring and has been repeated ad nauseum. Any questions on past climate and earth system dynamics, or ice cores that you guys wanted? I'll be more than happy to answer the best I can

[Anonymous No.10187344]

>>10187289
The idea that the same banking / corporate / government cabal that caused this fucking mess can fix everything with a "price on carbon" is absolutely absurd.

[Anonymous No.10187354]

>>10187321
A while ago one of your friend's grad students was asking about the climate during the eocene, and if it's in our future. I responded that it was unlikely because we won't have the same jungles pumping water into the atmosphere. Any comment?

[Anonymous No.10187476]

>>10187354
Well water vapor is a function of temperature and temperature only following Clausius Clayperon equation so it doesn't really matter how much water vapor and how much mechanisms there is to add/remove water vapor from the atmosphere. So water vapor is a feedback amplifier and not really a forcing in itself. During the eocene since neither of the ice sheets (Antarctica, Greenland) existed it'll probably help to have more forest area for carbon drawdown if the initial methane clathrate destabilization did indeed occur. However sea level was also much higher and as a result there is way less land area in the tropics (Indonesia, the 2nd largest present day rainforest after Brazil for example would be almost completely underwater) so I'm not quite sure how much more effective the terrestrial C pump was back then compared to the more recent quarternary period. I'm not an expert in geologic timescale but if I had to guess I would say it is about the same as the more recent drawdown capacity.

[Anonymous No.10187605]

>>10187321
Can you show me the effect of light and heat through our air(ground level) vs CO2 depleted air.

[Anonymous No.10187609]

>>10187605
Experimentally*

[Anonymous No.10187774]

>>10187609
No I'm not an experimental physicists. I don't even know what you meant by experimentally, like do you expect me to set up an infrared absorption experiment for you?

All I know is the very basic theoretical climate science 101 blackbody earth + 1 layer, 2 layer atmosphere model https://www.atmos.washington.edu/2001Q1/211/notes_for_011001_lecture.html

[Anonymous No.10187878]

>>10187774
I just wanna see data sheets for comparisons.

[Anonymous No.10188149]

>>10182763
Just because something happened naturally doesn't mean that its the only way it can happen.
It would be like saying selective breeding couldn't cause changes in animal populations because evolution via natural selection does it to.

[Anonymous No.10188172]

>>10184590
>>10184579
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

[Anonymous No.10188185]

>>10188172
>somebody hacked the climate scientists
>somehow this makes the scientists the bad guys
How do we know the denialists weren't the perpetrators? Hmmm?