/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1220532]

Sup /sci/

I've been working on this climate change education package and I'm looking for some input. Some of you may remember the old version I posted a few months ago, which contained significant weaknesses which I'm trying to address with the new version.

[Anonymous No.1220550]

>>1220532


It will be structured in 4 major sections, like so:

1. The Scientific Method
2. History of Climate Science
3. Recent Scientific Developments
4. Solutions

My concern is that a layperson or a non-science educated politician will find it completely boring and prefer something short and simple. In any case the super-detailed version will be made available to fellow /sci/entologists who are interested. There will be three different packages: one for 4channers, one for politicians and bureaucrats, and one for the general public. I think I'll finish it by mid-July, whereupon I'll upload all three packages so that you may use them for lobbying/trolling/educational purposes. There will also be a fourth upload containing every sourced article that will be made available through a link on the 4chan version.

[Anonymous No.1220556]

DO YOU NOT SEE THE CP RAID? GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN.

[Anonymous No.1220565]

>>1220550

Another major concern: I don't know if I should tone down the "alarmist" stuff because that makes people want to tone the shit out rather than pay closer attention. It certainly motivates me, but I can't say the same for most other people I've spoken to. I'm definitely going to have a big fat feel-good section on climate change solutions, however.

Anyway, I'd like some input from you guys on how I should be going about this.

Here's what I have so far:

http://www.mediafire.com/?nxnwnknyth1

[Anonymous No.1220579]

>>1220556

Whatever mang, just use the greasemonkey filter

>>1220565

And in return for you comments, I offer you the following:

The Fourth IPCC WG I report, in one convenient download location:

http://www.mediafire.com/?zgx0zzmizk0

An extremely frightening Scientific American article:

http://www.mediafire.com/?nttym1tjtlg

Lastly, a package of articles and other materials you can use to respond against bullshit denialist claims. The EPA report is the first thing you should look it, it's comprehensive as all fuck. Anything you've ever heard spoutted about global warming denial is rebutted in this massive report. There's also a section on Climategate which contains three of the four investigation reports and come other commentary.

http://www.mediafire.com/?0iewjqwthnj

On that note, if you find the topic of this thread too boring, I'm more than happy to reply to sincere skeptics and troll skeptics alike. BRING IT ON

[Anonymous No.1220627]

>>1220556

Whatever mang, just use the greasemonkey filter

>>1220565

And in return for you comments, I offer you the following:

The Fourth IPCC WG I report, in one convenient download location:

http://www.mediafire.com/?zgx0zzmizk0

An extremely frightening Scientific American article:

http://www.mediafire.com/?nttym1tjtlg

Lastly, a package of articles and other materials you can use to respond against bullshit denialist claims. The EPA report is the first thing you should look at, it's comprehensive as all fuck. Anything you've ever heard spoutted about global warming denial is rebutted in this massive report. There's also a section on Climategate which contains three of the four investigation reports and some other commentary.

http://www.mediafire.com/?0iewjqwthnj

On that note, if you find the topic of this thread too boring, I'm more than happy to reply to sincere skeptics and troll skeptics alike. BRING IT ON

[Anonymous No.1220647]

lol, this is science and math?

[Anonymous No.1220662]

>>1220647

Apparently so

Comment on my draft pl0x

>>1220565

[Anonymous No.1220671]

>>1220556
i lol'd

[Anonymous of Holland !BEER2OFsSI No.1220752]

Alright OP, I'll bump your thread, but only because you promised me CP.

[Anonymous No.1220767]

>>1220752

LOOK AT /sci/

And you said it was "boring."

[Anonymous of Holland !BEER2OFsSI No.1220807]

>>1220767
Well, right now, it's still boring only in an even worse way.
I hear Stephen Hawking posts here in the weekends. COINCIDENCE?

[Anonymous No.1220999]

Bump

[Anonymous of Germany !WvzhzxDiIQ No.1221237]

If you put in too much alarmist stuff it's gonna seem as if you're some sort of a recruiter instead of a scientist. Like paracelsus said, it's all about the right dose. In General though I think the split in diffrent types is a good idea, just one thing I keep wondering... just what are you trying to accomplish?

Are you just doing this for yourself or do you have some sort of an objective?

[Anonymous No.1221348]

>>1221237

I'm actually not certain if I want to endorse a certain policy or not. I want this to be usable in any country where English is spoken, so I'm not sure about mentioning anything specific. I could endorse an international initiative like 350.org or Cap and Dividend, but I dunno.

I guess at this point the main objective is education on the general issue, and dispelling the denialist memes from the public mind.

[Anonymous No.1222878]

Another bump now that the spam has stopped

Miku not related

[Aniki-tan !VGirlUzMOE No.1223391]

This topic of conversation
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
>my head

[Anonymous No.1223392]

Clouds produce rain.

[Anonymous No.1223412]

there is no conclusive evidence supporting manmade sustained climate change

[Anonymous of Holland !BEER2OFsSI No.1223414]

You know, I don't think all of us posting in here is going to help your thread.
Like, at all.
I mean look at this picture, it might just unchain a shitload of pokegirls posts!

[Anonymous No.1223418]

>>1223414
I like that picture.

[King Mitch of Manitoba !!kmdJxXe8n7d No.1223425]

I like where this thread is going

[Anonymous No.1223506]

>>1223391
>>1223392
>>1223412
>>1223414
>>1223418
>>1223425

THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HELPFUL COMMENTS GUYS

[Anonymous No.1223610]

Hey OP. I support your cause although I am no by means a climate change expert (I can almost bet no one in 4chan is although there are plenty of pretenders). I know a good amount of chemistry if that's any help although for climate change it's mostly about the models and predictions than the basic sicence. If anyone denies the basic science they are downright fanatics. I'll I can really do for you is bump the thread.

Good luck

[Anonymous No.1223629]

>>1223610

Thanks dude.

In the meantime I'll link my old package which I used to post.

http://www.mediafire.com/?m3yewzevxow

[Anonymous No.1223666]

>>1223629

No problem. Looks like a very large package. I'm not sure I'll be able to understand much if you are linking to scientific papers.

[Anonymous No.1223695]

>>1223666

There's a readme, which provides a bit of guidance into how to get into the material. The first thing any layperson should do is torrent that Teaching Company course.

Anyway, I realized that providing the sources in the form of scientific articles isn't really helpful to most people. In the new version I'm working on I only provide a link to where you can download them.

The incomplete draft of the new version:

>>1220565

[Anonymous No.1223730]

>>1223695

Not to be an ass or to imply an argument from authority, but what is your scientific background for this? I actually just want to know just capable you are from abstracting real information and digesting it for the non-specialists, rather than someone who might blemish the whole work under misinterpretation.

[Anonymous No.1223787]

bump, for justice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Anonymous No.1223891]

>>1223730

Woah, I must be sucking on my crack pipe the wrong way. What I meant was:

>Not to be an ass or to imply an argument from authority, but what is your scientific background for this? I actually just want to know whether you are fully capable of abstracting real information and digesting it for the non-specialists, rather than someone who might blemish the whole work under misinterpretation.

[Anonymous No.1223958]

>>1223891

My science background is a single undergraduate course in environmental science for non-majors. Yeah, I know it's not enough, which is why I'm asking for help on this.

[Anonymous No.1223980]

>>1223958

Also, I've listened to a TTC course (the torrent for in the old package). On top of that I've read some popular science books like Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming.

[Anonymous No.1223990]

>>1223958
>environmental science
>science

[Anonymous No.1224027]

>>1223990

I dunno dude, is learning about how atmosphere, oceans, and biological systems interact somehow nonscientific?

[Anonymous No.1224096]

as an aspiring geologist, i would approach this without any alarmism (just data and prediction models), and present the other side (non anthropogenic) as well.

[Anonymous No.1224111]

What am I looking at?

[Anonymous No.1224121]

>>1224096

I can't let you do that Dave

What you're asking me to do is like presenting evolution alongside creationism.

[Anonymous No.1224131]

>>1224111

Just looking for comments on my draft so far

>>1220565

[Anonymous No.1224165]

>>1224121
there are some reasonable hypotheses from geologists regarding other mechanisms for heating the planet. i personally see it as logical that increased atmospheric co2 would cause heating based on black body radiation and the absorption spectrum of co2. i do, however, wonder how much co2 the earth is capable of processing through photosynthesis and ocean processes like biologic caco3 precipitation. when i say other side, i certainly don't mean the conservative spin machine arguments.

[Anonymous No.1224206]

>>1224165

I was under the impression that anthropogenic emissions were happening way faster than could be processed by the Earth, otherwise there wouldn't be as much warming.

In any case, for the aims of this project if I included a "well, maybe it's not anthropogenic after all" section I'd just confuse people, and it's not supported by much evidence.

[Anonymous No.1224278]

>>1224131
Hey OP I took a class on global warming last fall and I have to say it was extremely enlightening. If you want some help or maybe want some info/slides from the class, please shoot an email to my gmail, hanbacca.

[Anonymous No.1224281]

Hey OP serious question about cc here:

how reliable are predictions about the actual climate 20, 50 and even 100 years from now?

were there any predictions incorporating timeframes of that magnitude, in the history of mankind, that proved to be reliable?

[Anonymous No.1224302]

>>1224206
i would speculate that the input of co2 is too much to be properly handled by the earths systems, but i have not looked too deeply into it. i have too much to do as it is at the moment. when we were going over the chemistry behind global warming, the chemistry department gave us this link to give us the other perspective: http://www.friendsofscience.org/
while i agree that it might be confusing, it is good to know the argument on both sides. this ensures that you are able to address these points when they come up and that the people reading are well informed on the issue.

[Anonymous No.1224343]

>>1224281

Well, we won't know for sure until 20 years from now, will we?

So far the models have been too generous. The IPCC was a product of the "lowest common denominator," meaning that scientists were more likely to agree on a conservative consensus rather than an alarmist one. When you have major oil producers like OPEC, Canada and Russia influencing the report, it tends to lowball estimates. Right now it seems like observations are exceeding the most pessimistic scenarios in the IPCC. ESPECIALLY the melting Arctic, ice loss is one-third worse than expected.

Since adequate computing power was only available to us in the past two decades, no, we've never had a chance to prove how reliable a projection was. Arrhenius tried to calculate the climate sensitivity of doubling CO2 in 1896 and found it to be somewhere around 4-5 C, which is surprisingly close to the estimates contemporary computer models have come up with.

[Anonymous No.1224372]

>>1224302

>http://www.friendsofscience.org/

WHOA WHOA WHOA, hold the fucking phone

The Friends of Science is a notorious industry-funded astroturf group. There's no way I would include anything they say in something I intend to provide people with an accurate understanding of the latest science.

[Anonymous No.1224393]

Any reason why global warming has now been changed to climate change?

[Anonymous No.1224406]

>>1224393

Blame Frank Luntz, it was his idea

Long-term climatic shifts has always been known as "climate change," whereas the current period of warming is specifically known as "global warming." Luntz's advice to the Bush administration was to use "climate change" as an umbrella term that sounded less threatening. Environmentalists, eager not to sound too "alarmist," went along with the Bush government and the IPCC and started to call AGW "climate change" in their press materials too.

[Anonymous No.1224408]

>>1224393

So when the Earth starts cooling in the next 75-100 years, the alarmists won't technically "be wrong."

[Anonymous No.1224445]

>>1224393
Because lay people can't get it in their heads how when mean temperatures rise, some places experience cooling.

So it's better to say climate change so as to make guiding the shee... guiding the public easier.

[Anonymous No.1224450]

>>1224406
Ok then. Lets assume that climate change is real. Why spend huge amounts of resources trying to reverse it when we can spend the money on ourselves and leave the problem for the next generation?

[Anonymous No.1224459]

>>1224408

>when the Earth starts cooling in the next 75-100 years

Wat

And you better not cite the Competitive Enterprise Institute or Christopher Monckton as your source

[снайпер No.1224470]

>>1224450
What happens if someone invents an immortality drug?

[Anonymous No.1224480]

>>1224450
Because some people like the idea of current civilization lasting for more than a century?

[Anonymous No.1224482]

Climate change is real.
Every summer, it gets hotter. Every winter, it gets colder. Climate has been changing for billions of years, and it's not going to stop just because you do or don't pump ridiculous amounts of CO₂ into it.

[Anonymous No.1224485]

>>1224302
>i would speculate that the input of co2 is too much to be properly handled by the earths systems,

WTF does this even mean? The closest approximation to what you are saying I can think of is that there is currently more CO2 in the atmosphere (or being put into the atmosphere) than there would be naturally under current conditions.

[Anonymous No.1224486]

>>1224450

We ARE the next generation.

Morally, we have the responsibility not to fuck things up for future generations. Think of it like this. You're at a house party, and it's some guy you barely know in some other city. Assume for a second there's no police and none of his friends know you. You'll probably never see him after tonight's party. So you steal all his shit and set his house on fire.

Climate change is different, in that we're not intentionally trying to fuck people over, but in the end that's what we're doing. We need to take responsibility. And besides, if we're going along the pessimistic edge of the scenario projections, then we'll be completely fucked in a few decades. Even if you couldn't be assed to care about anyone other than yourself, it's going to affect you too. And you're probably going to say that you'll never have kids, but that's not guaranteed either.

[Anonymous No.1224495]

>>1224470

We'll probably all starve to death.

[Anonymous No.1224502]

>>1224485
dear lord. earth is filled with systems that handle various chemical inputs. co2 pumped into the atmosphere is consumed by photosynthesis, organisms in the ocean will use co2 mixed into the water to precipitate shells of calcium carbonate. the amount of co2 humanity is pumping into the atmosphere through combustion processes is enormous. what i said there is that i would speculate that the amount of co2 we put into the atmosphere is unable to be processed by these systems into other chemical species. argh.

[Anonymous No.1224503]

too bad we can't get china to lower there emissions, since they make most of the polution

[Anonymous No.1224513]

>>1224343

>we won't know for sure until 20 years from now, will we?

exactly my point. also do these predictions include ongoing engineeric advances such as carbon scrubbers?
I actually do think that man made global warming is real.
It's just that the proposed methods of dealing with it are total rubbish and do more harm than good.
Especially when looking at the combination of the uncertainty of the effictiveness of proposed methods of dealing with cc, the effect of cc itself and the immense costs that are coupled with policy changes now.

[Anonymous No.1224523]

>>1224503

That's not necessarily true from a cumulative standpoint. In that case, USA takes the fucking cake. And you can't say "INDIA AND CHINA SHOULD MOVE FIRST" without sounding like a huge hypocritical dickweed.

>>1224502

The problem was that these carbon cycles were pretty well-balanced over the late Holocene, and ice ages came and went on a predictable schedule. Right now we've added a injected an enormous amount of carbon into the system that can't be handled by the processes that stabilized under the previous carbon regime. It's dealing with this extra CO2 that's the problem.

[Anonymous No.1224558]

>>1224523
like i said, i speculate it to be the case. but without properly researching or experimenting i can't be certain. until i look at the data itself that says it's the case, i cannot just take what someone says on an image board to be the truth. that would be crapping on the scientific method. i don't know if the added co2 has caused forams and coccolithophorids to go nuts and propagate to an extreme degree to handle this. if plants are going nuts and thriving under increased co2 concentrations, etc.

[Anonymous No.1224568]

>>1224523
are you talking about cumulative since the dawn of time, or yearly, and btw do you know how many regulations on emissions the US has? and you say china is better?

[Anonymous No.1224571]

>>1224513

Uncertainty should be a motivator for more substantive action. We don't know for sure how much worse it's going to get, but it's very likely to be extremely bad. It might be only "very bad," but it might also be "catastro-fuckingly bad." If we, say, trigger a mass extinction event (which some scientists argue is actually occurring right now), we would have made the wrong choice. Observe this projection "roulette wheel" for 2100. If you hit above 6 C anomaly, we could end up triggering the same kind of mass extinction as the P-T event.

On the other hand, land-use changes, energy efficiency, technology grants, ending fossil fuel subsidies - all these things are doable and technologically very feasible. The main obstacle is political. Carbon taxes and cap-and-X schemes are recommended only because the world is so market-oriented that we don't want to try actually being serious about climate change. If we did get serious, we wouldn't regret it. In fact, ending fossil fuel subsidies, deregulating nuclear, and energy efficiency are all money-SAVING or -making reforms.

[Anonymous No.1224579]

climate science isn't real science

[Anonymous No.1224584]

>>1224579
you base this opinion on... ?

[Anonymous No.1224586]

>>1224568

Are you being intentionally dense? Of course cumulative emissions means since the usage of fossil fuels as an energy source began in each respective country. China only overtook US in annual emissions in 2008, and the US has always been the world leader in per capita emissions since the start of the 20th century. I reiterate: the US has emitted, by far, the most cumulative emissions.

[Anonymous No.1224604]

>>1224586
and I reiterate, that we have done more than china(to lessen emisions) and continue to do more than china, you said they passed us in 2008 right? what are they doing about it?

[Anonymous No.1224621]

>>1224584
Its lack of use of the scientific method?

[Anonymous No.1224629]

>>1224621
interesting. and how is it they fail to use the scientific method? i am guessing you haven't studied much earth science.

[Anonymous No.1224641]

>>1224604

>we have done more than china(to lessen emisions

WHAAAAAAT

>what are they doing about it

Building enormous "Green cities" as prototypes? Investing in renewable technologies? I heard they were poised to overtake the US market in wind turbine production. It would be unfortunate if the US was forced to buy its renewables from China and further exacerbate the trade disparity.

Also, none of what you said in that post denies that the US has produced the greatest share of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere, and thus holds a greater responsibility compared to other nations.

[Anonymous No.1224694]

>>1224571

I've heard that argument before, the sheer possibility of disaster is enough to do anything at any cost right now.

Think about this: By driving a car you take the risk of losing your life in a traffic accident. By working a job you increase your stress level and risk getting sick or worse. By going outside accept a higher risk of death, well you get the point.

We always do trade offs, and we always reevalute our own preferences, the worst case scenario influences our decisions but it's nonsensical to base all our decisions solely on them.

[Anonymous No.1224762]

>>1224641
so having a "green" city prototype makes them better? what makes the new city green? probably because it won't have any factories. wind turbines? don't make me laugh, yeah they make power but only at certain times, when they don't make power you have to have a backup (usually batteries) fyi batteries are not very environmentally friendly to make. finally you say we've done the most eco damage, and I would say you're right, that's why we hold ourselves to a higher standard, but the fact remains that none of the alternative forms of energy we have now( and I'm talking about right now) work economically, just look at how many coal power plants china has and continues to make

[Anonymous No.1224772]

>>1224694
>By going outside accept a higher risk of death
fuck, 4chan is going to be immortal...

[Anonymous No.1224782]

>>1224694

In this case, the trade-off associated with business-as-usual is too great in my opinion. The 2005 Stern Review predicted that the world may end up losing up to 20% of its GDP, a permanent depression that makes the Great Depression look like nothing. This is based on the scenarios produced in the 2001 IPCC report, which were exceeded by the observations and new scenarios of the 2007 IPCC report, whose worst-case projections are exceeded by the observations in recent years. Stern's team did not attempt to model famines, refugees, political chaos, or war. While no one has attempted an economic review of climate change impacts as comprehensive as Stern's, it's clear that the economic damages caused by climate change will be far worse.

This isn't about the decision whether or not to get into a car. Each individual car trip, if you follow the rules of the road and don't drink and drive, has a relatively low probability of a fatal accident. 4-6 C of warming by 2100, on the other hand is likely (>66%) and >6 C of warming a clear possibility. Compared to getting into a car every day to go to work, business-as-usual in terms of climate change is more like strapping yourself to a pack of C-4 and running towards an American checkpoint in Baghdad.

[Anonymous No.1224788]

>>1224762
No country is going to switch from making 90% of its energy from coal to 90% of its energy from wind or solar in a few years.
China builds new coal plants to keep their economy running, while researching alternatives and experimenting with them. Once they are refined, they will become more economically feasible than coal and be quickly implemented.

[Anonymous No.1224807]

just look at Spain and their economy after they went green, lol

[Anonymous No.1224811]

>>1224782
Any idea what kind of timescale they're talking about (in terms of how quickly green technology is used to replace our current stuff?)
Because the way I see it, complete overhaul of infrastructure and industry tends to generate jobs and spur later economic growth. Look at the end of WWII: Germany and Japan lost huge amounts of population and industrial capacity, but because the US gave them money to invest in new technologies, when they rebuilt they became world leaders in industry.

[Anonymous No.1224820]

>>1224762

China is forced to open new coal plants because they literally need them to keep the lights on. In other words, fossil energy production expanding in China and India and the like is a matter of survival, and they STILL sink a large proportion of their treasury into renewable technology R&D. Contrast this situation with the US, which has the cheapest energy prices in the developed world, is not faced with such a dilemma, and chooses to bow down to industry lobbyists while providing sweet, sweet tax breaks and subsidies to companies like BP.

As for your insistence on renewables being toxic and shit, I'll direct you to the /new/ thread. At the very end there's some good discussion on the feasibility of a renewable-based energy infrastructure.

>>>/new/1399412

[Anonymous No.1224829]

>>1224807

> Implying that has anything to do with green energy

[Anonymous No.1224835]

>>1224807
Spain's economy is in the shitter because they invested too heavily in real estate and now that bubble burst. There's also sort of a global banking crisis going on.
They're basically in the same shape as the US, but you don't blame the US' economic problems on not investing in green technology, do you?

[Anonymous No.1224839]

>>1224807

That's neither here nor there. Germany and Denmark are doing fine.

>>1224811

Pretty much. What we need is a motherfucking Marshall Plan, but without a Hitler it's unlikely. We'll have to wait until something terrible starts happening like methane explosions or rapid Greenland ice sheet collapse. We might be irreversibly fucked at the end, but hopefully not. I think Churchill said something like "The Americans always do the right thing, but only after they've exhausted all other possible options."

The Arctic is projected to have ice-free summers between 2016-2060, but the newest data indicates it could be as early as 2013. Maybe then we'll start getting serious.

[Anonymous No.1224847]

>>1224811
>>1224839

Oh yeah, and it's technologically possible to have a 100% renewable economy (even without nuclear and hydro) by 2030. I'll upload the article in a second.

[Anonymous No.1224848]

>>1224839
with the arctic gone, we'll probably be pretty fucked. in your research have you run across any projections for thermohaline circulation under the business as usual model?

[Anonymous No.1224868]

>>1224848

It's extremely unclear at this point. Paleoclimatologists know that disruptions have occurred in the distant past, but these took millenia to occur due to the tremendous momentum of ocean currents. However, since everything else is happening way faster normal in nature, it's possible that the thermohaline circulation could be significantly slowed by the end of the century. The likelihood is unknown.

Expected effects would make winters in northern Europe extremely cold, but summers would remain hot under the new higher global temperatures. It could also be a precursor to a total shutdown of ocean currents and the anoxification of one or all the oceans.

[Anonymous No.1224886]

ocean shut down? ha we're fucked.

[Anonymous No.1224889]

>>1224847
No, I agree it's next to impossible to do that. But saying we can't reach some arbitrary guideline is a shitty reason to not even start. A lot of countries are generating +20% of their total energy demands from renewables

[Anonymous No.1224896]

>>1224782

well yeah, I'm not convinced by the malthusian scenarios. also has something to do with how overly politicized cc is and that no climate scientist gets more funding if they don't come up with reasons why their budgets should be increased.

[Anonymous No.1224903]

The thing is, there have been major climate shifts in the fairly recent past.
Go back 4000 years, and the Middle East was a lot closer to Southern Europe's climate; i.e. temperate with substantial rains. That's why civilisation started in regions where today, farming is very difficult. As soon as the climate shifted, entire cities were abandoned and people moved to better climes.
Something like this happening today would mean the US, China, and India would be unable to feed their people and Siberia would become the breadbasket of the world.

[Anonymous No.1224913]

>>1224896
i always find the concept of a global conspiracy by every climate researcher to fabricate data in order to secure funding when they most likely will get funded one way or the other somewhat suspect. especially when considering that if a geologist was in it for the money, they would work for an oil company and make upwards of double what they would in other sectors.

[Anonymous No.1224941]

>>1224913
Seriously. No one is going to go through 10 years studying something that is completely bullshit, spending 10 hours a day in a lab fabricating results, just so they can get their shitty $50000 a year and grants to do more bullshit in their lab.

[Anonymous No.1224949]

>>1224896

How do you propose to do research without any money? Anyway, journals like Science, Nature and PNAS reject the vast majority of submitted articles (over 90%). You submit a "politicized" paper, like Soon's pieces of shit, you won't get published and you won't get your research grants. Soon doesn't need to publish good science because he gets is money from other sources.

The main body of climate science is grounded in physical facts. You can't tell me that animal migrations, glacier melts, fossil records, ice cores, flower blooming times, and satellite measurements are a matter of politics.

>>1224889

Politically it's next-to-impossible, but technologically it can be done. I'm half-hoping for a catastrophe that makes this possible.

The article:

http://www.mediafire.com/?mqetenonftm

>>1224886

It probably wouldn't happen for centuries anyway, so that's the least of your worries. Heat waves, food prices and refugees should be your worries.

[Anonymous No.1224968]

>>1224903

Siberia won't be too easily converted into a breadbasket. Farming on bedrock is not exactly easy or economical. Otherwise, you make a good point. BAU would mean tremendous dislocations and upheavals, and all the social, political and military strife that would entail.

[Anonymous No.1224975]

>>1224949
of course the data is relatively objective, except for all the temperature measuring stations right outside AC exhausts, tin roofs, and so on. The issue is that many climate scientists assfuck the data, leaving out large swathes, picking only the hottest points, massaging models and using only the most dramatic graphs.

[King Mitch of Manitoba !!kmdJxXe8n7d No.1224984]

Clouds produce rain!

[Anonymous No.1224999]

>>1224968
It's not bedrock, it's primarily taiga forest. It's easy to start growing crops immediately by slashing and burning the forest, though this will burn off most of the nutrients so only a few seasons of growth will occur.
However, if Russia applies proper growing techniques (crop rotation, fertilisers, etc.), it would be just as good as any other cropland. And Siberia has a lot of rivers to provide irrigation.

[Anonymous No.1225000]

>>1224984

THANKS MITCH, YOU SAID THAT ALREADY

[Anonymous No.1225004]

>>1224968
>siberia = bedrock
lolno
a fraction at most

also lol at future americans eating siberian bread and producing unlimited power from the relativistically spinning McCarthy

[Anonymous No.1225013]

>>1224975
This is total bullshit. Simple statistics says that you get the most precise models by using as many sources of information as possible, and no scientist would only use 1/2 of their sources to get a better (but more uncertain) result.
That, and research was done on whether climate stations in cities, etc. showed significantly higher temperatures than the ones outside. they didn't.

[Anonymous No.1225027]

>>1224999

>this will burn off most of the nutrients so only a few seasons of growth will occur.

That will be the problem, won't it? We'll never have the same yields we could get before, at a time when population continues to grow exponentially. Felling all those trees would also release even more carbon into the atmosphere. If Siberia were warm enough to be arable, the Amazon and the Sub-Saharan rainforests would probably have all burned down and turned to deserts by then. Making a bad problem worse.

>>1224975

My point is that even the non-surface station data points to anomalous, anthropogenically-driven warming. Even so, taking out the "bad" stations reveals a slight <span class="math">cooling[/spoiler] trend, and the most warming as occurred over the Arctic where there are very few permanent surface stations, and those are certainly far from asphalt and AC vents. Furthermore, the surface data is very close to satellite and weather balloon data.

[Anonymous No.1225045]

>>1225027

A map to illustrate the last point.

And another question: how should I address skeptic arguments? There's some surveys which reveal that if you show the myth and the truth side-by-side in a pamphlet, more people will think the myth is true than before they read it.

[Anonymous No.1225046]

>>1225027
I never said that Siberia being arable would be good or a long term solution, just saying that climate change has happened in recent history and is accompanied by shifts in food production.

[Anonymous No.1225049]

>>1225045
Just make a list of common arguments against climate change, and then list a series of arguments against them. Good, clear arguments. and a fuck lot.

[Anonymous No.1225053]

>>1225046

I know, I'm agreeing with you.... I think.

[Anonymous No.1225078]

>>1225004
>implying we won't just annex canada

[Rainsford !!S/3urkTHWWH No.1225093]

Clouds produce rain!

[Anonymous No.1225095]

>>1225078
yeah...that + China and India raping Russia. And don't even ask what will happen to sweden.

[Anonymous No.1225114]

>>1225046
Siberia needs to get some forest growth on it to build up some topsoil before we can start farming it

alternatively, we could look into highly engineered food forest systems (engineered to be perennial and as self-regulating as possible). I hope everyone likes fruits/nuts.

On the plus side, it will give many people jobs for a while picking the tree food until we can engineer robots to do it for us like we have with giant fields of grains.

[Anonymous No.1225136]

>>1225114

Forest farms sounds like a great idea actually. If you use that for fruit, nuts, disposable paper products and so forth, they can be carbon neutral and sustainable. At the rate that fucking CANADA is being deforested, it'll lose the whole goddamn boreal forest in only 140 years.

Another possibility is skyscraper farms. Sounds cool, and seems like there's a lot of advantages, but I'm not sure about the feasibility. Will be uploading another Scientific American article about it in a second.

[Anonymous No.1225143]

>>1225136
>Boreal forest

Who needs oxygen, anyways?

[Anonymous No.1225184]

>>1225136

And here it is. This sounds so awesome I hope it's actually feasible.

http://www.mediafire.com/?jnqoftmymge

>>1225143

There is actually the very frightening possibility that ocean acidification driven by global warming could kill off the vast majority of oxygen-producing sea plants. Almost as bad as the breathing-battery-acid scenario Peter Ward has in this articles:

>>1220627

Anyway, acidification would take at least a century to get to that point, so I hope we can get our shit in shape by then.

[Anonymous No.1225219]

>>1225136
skyscraper won't work, unless the sky scrapers are specifically set up so they don't cast shadows on each other. So only in relatively underdeveloped urban areas.

[Anonymous No.1225222]

>>1225184
that's a lot of sulphur appearing out of fucking nowhere...

[Anonymous No.1225223]

>>1225219
>trees won't work, unless the trees are specifically set up so they don't cast shadows on each other. So only in relatively underdeveloped grassland areas.

[Anonymous No.1225233]

>>1225222
so... you didn't read the explanation in the upper left hand corner at all did you?

[Anonymous No.1225236]

>>1225223
yes, trees scatter seeds and pollen over a large area so their sapplings aren't in the shade next to the parents.

[Anonymous No.1225245]

>>1225236
oh, i know this one

what is a 'rainforest'?

hint: different plant chemistries work ideally at different levels in the forest. forests are not a canopy of all one type of tree

[Anonymous No.1225267]

>>1220550
OP:
1) Don't worry about boring. Worry about the truth.
2) Don't worry about the "way out," as long as you have the evidence to demonstrate the probability of it happening.
3) Don't use 3D perspective graphs when a 2D graph will do - it's easy to misinterpret 3D, and they are only attractive to people whose favorite activity is eating pudding (editors). I like the climate dioramas, though.

[Anonymous No.1225296]

>>1225267

What you're suggesting is a lot like my original idea. Then I thought it would be too dry, I was thinking maybe someone would tell me to go the Republican-style PR route with flashy pictures and appeals to emotion, but I guess having a concrete and undiluted message would be more useful to the thoughtful reader.

Speaking of dioramas, damn I wish I had CG skills. I don't know if I should bother with pencil illustrations.

[Heterosexual Faggot Kobrakai !1UATouUUMA No.1225428]

>>1224984
Fuckin' clouds, how do they work?

[Anonymous No.1225433]

>>1225428

With water man

[Anonymous No.1225675]

Okay, OP here

Last bump of the night, if this thread is still here tomorrow I'll continue from there

If not, I'll post another thread tomorrow evening.

Good night dudes