/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11016688]

Rest in peace arctic

[Anonymous No.11016696]

> 32 year sample window
>DIS IS IT GUISE IDS ALL OBA RIP!
Non-scientist and retard detected.

[Anonymous No.11016703]

>>11016696
Ok sure

[Anonymous No.11016712]

>>11016703
Woah! We have another 20 fucking years of sample. Thank you Mr. Brainlet, thank you my good man. You deserve a Nobel prize for missing the first point so severely and then thinking you remedy it by playing into the very point it was making. Bravo, anon. Bravo.

[Anonymous No.11016714]

>>11016712
>no data from before there were satellites
Hurrrr

[Anonymous No.11016715]

>>11016714
This is not what the post said, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11016717]

>>11016715
Please explain me your point then, Einstein

[Anonymous No.11016792]

>>11016717
>explain me your point then

[Anonymous No.11016806]

>>11016703
So why the giant year to year variations?

[Anonymous No.11016830]

>>11016792
>doesn't have an argument
>gets BTFO
>posts some inane reaction image
Try again, dude

[Anonymous No.11016838]

>>11016792
Someone made this. Thats crazy

[Anonymous No.11016843]

>>11016715
very true. we should not try to make predictions unless we've enough data for 100% certainty.

[Anonymous No.11016907]

>>11016792
That pic is literally me...

[Anonymous No.11016961]

>>11016688
good riddance

[Anonymous No.11016993]

>>11016830
He has no point. He's just smoking and diffusing to lend basis to denialist propaganda. That's all they know and will do: lie and deceive everyone who will let themselves be lied to.

[Anonymous No.11017013]

>>11016993
>pointing out the sample window is denialist propaganda because I'm too stupid to understand what it means and must be spoonfed the inherent retardation of using such a short time span to draw irreversible conclusions

[Anonymous No.11017052]

>>11017013
>70 years of linear sea ice decline is not enough
Gee how much would be enough? How about 30 more years, when sea ice will be at 0?

[Anonymous No.11017055]

Unironically good, finally we can access to the north pole, now also the south pole, so the flat earthers and their ICE WALL are btfo.

[Anonymous No.11017059]

>>11017055
One retarded conspiracy theory unintentionally BTFOs the next retarded conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous No.11017069]

cool, now we can extract resources up there, and send ships over it.

Reminder that if it gets too toasty whilst we're still in our hydrocarbon phase we can inject SO2 into the stratosphere for trivial cost to offset warming until our utilisation of renewable energy becomes more efficient and weans us off.

Fuck Greta Thunberg

[Anonymous No.11017078]

>>11017069
>we can inject SO2 into the stratosphere
Which blocks sunlight, the stuff we need to grow food. It also does nothing to fix ocean acidification. So essentially this fucks over the base of the foodchain both on land and in the water.

[Anonymous No.11017092]

>>11017078
>Which blocks sunlight, the stuff we need to grow food
you wouldn't even notice it for the amount we would require. The plants will still grow. In fact, global greening should be evidence in itself that the true limiting factor is atmospheric CO2 concentration.

>It also does nothing to fix ocean acidification
negligible quantities of SO2 in comparison to current tropospheric contribution to acidification from human industrial acitivty

[Anonymous No.11017097]

>>11017078
>>11017092

addendum: there are other ways of reflecting light back to space. If you're so concerned about contaminants and plants having no light, consider oceanic cloud seeding by spraying salt water into the air. Just sea salt and clouds which need not be anywhere near land.

[Anonymous No.11017098]

>>11016703
>not plotted as a scatter plot
>that fucking r squared value
0/10 see me after class

[Anonymous No.11017110]

>>11017059
Top kek

[Anonymous No.11017124]

>>11017092
>you wouldn't even notice it for the amount we would require.
Then how is it going to stop warming?

>In fact, global greening should be evidence in itself that the true limiting factor is atmospheric CO2 concentration.
This makes no sense. If plants are growing with increasing CO2 and sunlight essentially constant this doesn't tell you reducing sunlight would not be a limiting factor for growth. It's not like the limiting factor atone point in time must be the limiting factor at all points in time regardless of how other factors change.

>negligible quantities of SO2 in comparison to current tropospheric contribution to acidification from human industrial acitivty
Huh? This doesn't respond to what you quoted. Ocean acidification is primarily due to CO2 emissions.

[Anonymous No.11017164]

>>11017124
>Then how is it going to stop warming?

if we received zero sunlight, we'd have a temperature of ~2K. Global average temperature is 300K. therefore we need to cut out only a tiny fraction of insolation to solve the temperature problem. It won't affect your bloody crops.

>Huh? This doesn't respond to what you quoted.
answer: no, it doesn't do anything to help ocean acidification. The point is that nor does it particularly make it worse, because the SO2 required would be negligible compared to the real human drivers of ocean acidification.

[Anonymous No.11017167]

>>11017069
>Hey, this drug has a side-effect, how will I deal with it?
>Another drug aimed against that side-effect, just so I can get even higher!
>wtf? Why am vommiting blood?

Fuck Americans

[Anonymous No.11017178]

>>11017078
You forgot the blatantly obvious part
>2 SO2+2 H2O+O2->H2SO4

Fucking retards don´t remember muh acid rains.

[Anonymous No.11017208]

>>11017167
we're approaching a critical point where industry is pulled towards renewable energy regardless, especially as efficient solar energy and smart energy storage is realised. There's just too much energy hitting the earth in the form of sunlight to ignore, and certainly oil and gas will run out one day (on the order of hundreds or thousands of years, but it will).

[Anonymous No.11017242]

>>11017167
While I agree in spirit, CO2-emissions aren't just a voluntary drug, they are an integral part of billions dollar worth of human activities. You can't just shut it down overnight like you could stop taking a drug. Even the most ambitious proposed cuts will mean CO2 rising for decades, and that's not even counting the developing regions that want a piece of the pie.

Because there are feedback loops, geoengineering like sulfate aerosol spraying may be the only solution, apart from large scale carbon sequestration.

[Anonymous No.11017250]

>>11017242
this. These temporary 'duct tape' solutions are completely viable until we get past our primitive dead plant-burning phase.

[Anonymous No.11017264]

>>11017242
They are completely voluntary drug, as humanity existed for millenia without such ridicolous emissions. The actual problem is that if one country doesn´t shut it down along with the rest, it will get competitive advantage, it´s problem of geopolitics and power structure first and foremost.

Duct tape solutions are greatly inferiour to the most obvious solution (reduction) and might cause even greater harm than the emissions themselves.

[Anonymous No.11017272]

>>11017264
>They are completely voluntary drug, as humanity existed for millenia without such ridicolous emissions.
I think everyone would prefer solutions that didn't send us back to the medieval times though.

[Anonymous No.11017279]

>>11017272
And I think everyone would prefer solution that doesn´t turn the sky black.

[Anonymous No.11017331]

>>11017279
reflecting a tiny amount of insolation back != turning sky black

[Anonymous No.11017340]

>>11017331
I meant the Gates plan. Anyway those solution are bound to come with unexpected consequences, since our models aren´t perfect and you can´t test it beforehand on another earth.

[Anonymous No.11017357]

>>11016688
good
we'll have more water - people fucking love water

[Anonymous No.11017583]

>>11017272
Countries like Iceland and France have gone mostly green for grid energy without going back to the middle ages as you say.

Energy is a little more expensive but they're still modern countries with high standards of living.

[Anonymous No.11017632]

i dont see the problem here

[Anonymous No.11017693]

>>11016688
And that's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.11017768]

>>11016688

[Anonymous No.11017827]

>>11017583
>Energy is a little more expensive
For france, electricity is cheaper than for the neighbours.

[Anonymous No.11017988]

>>11016688
>ice caps retract and expand over time
wtf no way

[Anonymous No.11018021]

>>11016961
>>11017069
>>11017164

based
>>11017098
ms. rogers are you going to rape me again?

[Anonymous No.11018045]

>>11017167

America is the only country that has actually reduced its carbon footprint in the past decade.

[Anonymous No.11018062]

>>11018045
>Hey, I used to weight 250kg and now I´m only 200kg!
Call once you aren´t 2x above average EUropean.

[Anonymous No.11018073]

>>11018045
False, other countries reduced their output as well. Also, the USA have the same per capita emission as in 1967 (+/- 2 years). Bravo. Much progress in 50 years.

[Anonymous No.11018099]

>>11018045
Yes, except for Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nigeria, Nirth Korea, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, UK, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, and Yemen.

[Anonymous No.11018365]

>>11018021
it is mr. rogers to you

[Anonymous No.11018368]

>>11017098
And this means fucking what? You're being dishonest here. Nobody knows what this means. Unless you have a source, I'm going to kindly ask you, to fuck the hell off.

[Anonymous No.11018414]

>>11016688
How fucked are we?

[Anonymous No.11018471]

>>11018062
more like 250kg down to 240kg

[Anonymous No.11018482]

>>11018365
y-yes mam- I mean sir. :( you won't make me dress up like a girl again will you?

[Anonymous No.11018494]

>>11016712
>It doesn't matter if the light's red, we haven't been driving long enough to know whether or not we'll crash

[Anonymous No.11019291]

>>11018494
That's a really shitty analogy. It's more like a blind person driving a solar powered car on a intermittently cloudy day through a hilly region while hitting the "gas" pedal and brake at the same time... then concluding that since the speed has been going up in the last 10 seconds the cloud coverage must be fading.

[Anonymous No.11019305]

>>11019291
Well done, this clear and concise imagery has really helped me understand your point.

[Anonymous No.11019315]

>>11019291
Take your medication, schizo

[Anonymous No.11019316]

>>11019315
stole a macbook lol

[Anonymous No.11019322]

>>11016688
Just drop some ice cubes here and there. It'll be fine.

[Anonymous No.11019364]

>>11016688
Boil the fuck away, you shit fucking ice. Piss off and die, Winter, you fucking shit.

[Anonymous No.11019385]

>>11017583
Not everyone has large geothermal capacity like Iceland, and France gets its energy from nuclear, which is clean but definitely not green.

Look, I'm not saying that cutting emissions is impossible or guaranteed to set us back 1000 years, but reducing emissions CAN NOT be done overnight. We will keep emitting for decades, and as long as CO2 is kept being emitted, even if in little amounts, the PPM will keep rising. An emission cut of 80% is very ambitious but still means emissions contributing to climate change. Geoengineering is still going to be necessary to avoid runaway warming.

[Anonymous No.11019393]

>>11019385
>but reducing emissions CAN NOT be done overnight
For sure they cannot be done by staying passive. The red curve is the installed power. Germany hasn't really done much in the past few years.

[Anonymous No.11019413]

>>11019385
>Not everyone has large geothermal capacity like Iceland, and France gets its energy from nuclear, which is clean but definitely not green.

What would that even mean, not being green while being clean? Politically maybe?

[Anonymous No.11019414]

>>11016703
*And that's a good thing!

[Anonymous No.11019440]

>>11019413
Nuclear is clean compared to oil, gas or coal, it emits little GHG, but it still produces toxic waste. Sure it can be stored, but it's not green the same way geothermal or wind is. And I'm pro-nuclear.

[Anonymous No.11019442]

>>11016688
>this happenning while antarctic ice expands
>No one realizes the possible trend
Mainstream science is pure shit

[Anonymous No.11019444]

>>11018494
Thats the worst fallacy of comparison I've seen my whole life

[Anonymous No.11019446]

>>11019413
>no co2 emissions
clean
>complicated waste
Not green
There, was it do difficult to use your brain anon?

[Anonymous No.11019820]

>>11019446
>You need large bunker and lead containers to store the stuff
How does that compare with the waste from production of solar panels?

[Anonymous No.11019841]

>>11019820
I'm not aware of radioactive waste from solar panels

[Anonymous No.11019892]

>>11019841
What does radioactivity have to do with anything? If it's radioactive, just encase it in lead and voilá.

[Anonymous No.11019898]

>>11019892
Lead is really not the best material to store radioactive waste in. Lead corrodes and is pretty soft.

[Anonymous No.11020047]

>>11016688
>Rest in peace antarct...
Oh, it's fucking nothing.

[Anonymous No.11020060]

>>11017052
it could freeze over again

[Anonymous No.11020085]

>>11020047
>Talks about arctic
>Posts antarctic
based brainlet

[Anonymous No.11020100]

>>11020085
That's the point dicklet.
It's nitpicking.

[Anonymous No.11020105]

>>11016688
rip in piss

[Anonymous No.11020138]

Reminder that human cognition is affected beyond 1000 ppm co2 in the air, possibly as low as 700. Your grandkids will be literally handicapped because exxon's cock tastes so good.

[Anonymous No.11020188]

>>11020060
Why would it? Every heard of the greenhouse effect?

[Anonymous No.11020407]

>>11020188
>Why would it?
More so of a "how" would it sort of thing. You see, when the temperature drops to a certain level, water freezes. Salt water might need some colder temps and more tiem.

>Every heard of the greenhouse effect?
Yes, it is what caused Venus to turn into hell. Scientists have calculated that that isn't possible on earth. At least not the same way it happened to Venus.

[Anonymous No.11020439]

>>11020188
because Earth has gone through many heating and cooling cycles, retard

[Anonymous No.11020448]

Everything will be fine. Stop worrying about climate change and just enjoy your life for fuck's sake.

[Anonymous No.11020458]

>>11020448
LOL everything is NOT going to be fine. If it ain't global warming, it's gonna be something else. My bet is on super contagious, anti-biotic resistant, fatal to physically fit people as well as the young and sick, super bug.

[Anonymous No.11020461]

>>11020448
It obviously won't unless we do something. Look at the post you literally replied to...

[Anonymous No.11020465]

>>11020461
LOL he didn't reply to anyone your post is invalid JUST LIKE YOU FUCK YOU SHE PULLS HER DINNER FROM HER POCKET

[Anonymous No.11020472]

>>11020458
>>11020461
You underestimate the human race, it'll be fine. We're quite good at making the environment suit us whatever happens.

[Anonymous No.11020475]

>>11020448
>Global warming
>Automation
>Sentient and sapient AI
>Anti-biotic resistant bacteria
>Resource depletion

[Anonymous No.11020478]

>>11020472
>You underestimate the human race, it'll be fine.

You underestimate complacency, you're the exact reason everything will fall the fuck apart shut the fuck up and go fuck yourself Rome was probably filled to the brim with retards like you preceding it's fall.

[Anonymous No.11020489]

>>11020478
I'm genuinely not worried at all.

Even in the worst case apocalyptic scenario, the thought of society collapsing, survival of the fittest could be a good thing for our genetics.

There's a silver lining in everything, anon.

[Anonymous No.11020494]

>>11020489
>I'm genuinely not worried at all.
It's obvious, you seem like a self-indulgent faggot.
>There's a silver lining in everything, anon.
The silver lining is that we are living Gods' capable of manipulating reality. But no ya sure, what value does that possess? Worthless shit, let's just let everything fall apart so the cycle can continue and eventually lead right fucking back to us and the same existential problems we face now. Maybe that time around we'll actually take ourselves seriously.

[Anonymous No.11020614]

>>11020439
And how many saw a change this rapid? The typical time scale is a factor 100 larger.

Also: we're at the tend of a warm period. If anything, it should get colder, but not as fast as it's rising now.

[Anonymous No.11020630]

>>11020439
>Earth has gone through many heating and cooling cycles
Nah. I don't think so. That right there is bullshit pseudo-science.

[Anonymous No.11020631]

>>11020407
So we're not ending up like a planet that's getting twice the radiation and has a 96.5% CO2 atmosphere at over 90 times the pressure of earth's atmosphere? I'm relieved. I really dislike temperatures around 500 degrees.

[Anonymous No.11020633]

duh, it's just ice, who cares. Anyone can make ice, it's not like we're in a world wide shortage of ice. Just go and make some by yourself.

[Anonymous No.11020650]

>>11016688
We'll probably just do the Futurama thing where we mine ice from comets and drop them into our ocean.. Maybe we could just redirect comets to crash directly into the ocean

[Anonymous No.11021939]

>>11020631
No, because the runaway greenhouse effect that took place on Venus was on behalf of too much water vapor in the atmosphere that stopped heat from escaping. This water vapor accumulated in the atmosphere because Venus does not have a magnetic field like Earth's which allowed the sun to evaporate enough water into the atmosphere to lead to a runaway greenhouse effect.

tl;dr go be a fucking retard somewhere else

[Anonymous No.11021944]

Good bye. Soon we'll be building cities there.

[Anonymous No.11021960]

>>11020085
>2003 to 2009
Laughable

[Anonymous No.11022040]

>>11021939
It's also a lot closer to the Sun, so the threshold for runaway was a lot lower.

[Anonymous No.11022699]

>>11021960
Indeed.
I'm going to give a bit more analysis to the picture here.
>>11020100
Greenland is melting, albeit at a rate which would take 10000 years to melt if sustained.
But we can clearly see a downward trend.
Antarctica seems to be melting as well, but at only 1/20th of greenland in relative terms (it would take 200,000 years at this rate)
Here we can see that the graph is pretty jittery. Look back at the greenland graph, do you see the noise? No. Because in essence the real scale, the percentage scale, is 20 times larger for Greenland.
Here we have a clear trend that drowns out the noise, this cannot be said for antarctica.
So that's why i claim it isn't really melting. It's not drowning out the month to month noise and it would take 200,000 years. Multiple ice ages come and go in that time frame.

To add, I want to point out how disingenuous this graph is, the only one published is the one with (Gt) off course and it ends in 2017, right when two years of very high SMB (snow mass balance) on Greenland began.

So no, antarctica is not melting by any stretch of the imagination. Greenland is but incredibly slowly.

[Anonymous No.11022711]

>>11022699
>right when two years of very high SMB (snow mass balance) on Greenland began.
Source? legit interested

[Anonymous No.11022713]

>>11022699
On top the antarctic sea ice is absolutely stable,
there is no trend and if there is, it's towards becoming slightly larger.

[Anonymous No.11022716]

>>11022711
You can look it up here. Also see gif.
I don't know why
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

There are also discussions here:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-the-greenland-ice-sheet-fared-in-2019
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-the-greenland-ice-sheet-fared-in-2018
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-greenland-ice-sheet-2017

[Anonymous No.11022732]

>>11022716
>Mean 1980-2010 is not a decline tendency
>2018 is higher than 2011
>lowest on record on red - 2011
Its almost as if they were trying to subvert people into thinking its getting worse while evidence shows its not.

[Anonymous No.11022736]

>>11022713
Now the arctic is indeed as OP posted a different story.
It's trending down at 65k square km per year and we thus might start to expect some ice free arctic days in the latter quarter of this century.

Now my question is, why is this so bad if this were to occur? The polar bears already roam around the hudson bay, in Siberia and Spitzbergen during summer.
I'd only worry when greenland actually loses mass at ten times the rate of today, which might happen when the icesheet is gone, but we basically still have a century.
If we dont tax our economies to death, we'll be wielding technology that allows us to become masters of our planet on a scale far more intrusive than CO2 production.
Look up Hall weather machine.

[Anonymous No.11022748]

>>11022732
Hmm, I'm not sure that 1980-2010 is not a decline tendency. But its not a rapid decline for sure.
Hell, even 2003-2017 isn't a rapid decline.

It was a real eyeopener to follow this data as it comes in for a year and then hearing normies autistically screeching when the MSM was making absolute bullshit claims every time greenland experienced a week of 'warm' weather.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/14/us/greenland-sudden-ice-melt-wxc/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/17/health/greenland-ice-sheet-intl-hnk/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/31/europe/greenland-heatwave-climate-crisis-intl/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/world/greenland-ice-sheet-11-billion-intl/index.html