/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1720830]

Is global warming real?

[Anonymous No.1720841]

No, it's just part of the natural climatic cycle of the Earth. Scientists are just parroting the Global Warming hoax for personal profit.

[Anonymous No.1720847]

>>1720830
yes. Though people still fight why it happens at what this implies why most ordinary folks take this discussion as a fight over if it is happening at all (which is boosted by the interested side in the aforementioned discussion)

[Anonymous No.1720852]

>>1720841
Don't worry, your tinfoil hat will protect you from their evil psionic powers.

[Anonymous No.1720877]

I'm tired of people confusing "global warming" with "anthropogenic global warming." If everyone could be just a little more precise, 90% of debates would vanish.

[Anonymous No.1720912]

>>1720877

>confusing "global warming" with "anthropogenic global warming."

OH GOD, I KNOW

[Samefag No.1720924]

>>1720830
I don't know why people think this won't work. Fucking idiots.

Everyone knows that the luminiferous Aether functions as a decent heatsink, but the ozone layer prevents effective heat exchange. All you need is an air conditioner held up by air balooons to exchange heat between Aether and Aetmosphere, and you're golden!

[Anonymous No.1720960]

>>1720830

Yes.

The most prominent synthesis reports on climate change, including the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the 2007 IPCC report, the 2009 US Global Change Research Program, the 2009 Copenhagen Diagnosis, the 2010 NOAA State of the Climate report, among many others all point to the same conclusion: man-made greenhouse emissions are causing global warming. In 2001, 32 national science academies issued a joint statement affirming the consensus position. Major scientific organizations such as the AAAS and AGU, and meteorological groups such as the AMS and Met Office, have all released similar statements. At the time of this writing, there are zero scientific organizations or national weather services left that explicitly reject the consensus position.
List of consensus statements compiled at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Major synthesis reports:
http://amap.no/acia/
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009.php

[Anonymous No.1720971]

>>1720960

A common argument against scientific consensus is it's merely <span class="math">argumentatum ad populum.[/spoiler] This simplistic argument ignores the process in which science is in conducted. Science is a fundamentally self-correcting process, since any errors in a scientists' work will be found out by colleagues and grad students eager to upstage their superiors. Shoddy work is either rejected by the peer review process or torn apart by commenters. The level of consensus achieved on global warming is extremely hard to come by in any field, not just climate science.

Just how strong is this consensus? When the field has had nearly two centuries to mature (Weart 2009), combining corroborating evidence from widely disparate and independent fields (Ibid), of which 97% of active climatologists agree on climate change (Doran & Zimmerman 2009), and zero new research articles disagree with the consensus position (Oreskes 2004), and on top of all that, there's a huge credibility gap between pro-consensus and anti-consensus scientists (Anderegg et al 2010), you can be damned sure that global warming is real and caused by humanity.

Sources:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

[Anonymous No.1720981]

>>1720960

A common argument against scientific consensus is it's merely <span class="math">argumentatum~ad~populum.[/spoiler] This simplistic argument ignores the process in which science is in conducted. Science is a fundamentally self-correcting process, since any errors in a scientists' work will be found out by colleagues and grad students eager to upstage their superiors. Shoddy work is either rejected by the peer review process or torn apart by commenters. The level of consensus achieved on global warming is extremely hard to come by in any field, not just climate science.

Just how strong is this consensus? When the field has had nearly two centuries to mature (Weart 2009), combining corroborating evidence from widely disparate and independent fields (Ibid), of which 97% of active climatologists agree on climate change (Doran & Zimmerman 2009), and zero new research articles disagree with the consensus position (Oreskes 2004), and on top of all that, there's a huge credibility gap between pro-consensus and anti-consensus scientists (Anderegg et al 2010), you can be damned sure that global warming is real and caused by humanity.

Sources:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

[Anonymous No.1720992]

>Global warming
no
>global climate change
yes
>Significant change in climate due to human activity
probably
>OMG WE GONNA DIE
no

[Anonymous No.1721000]

>>1720841
I was taught geology by Plimer, famed global warming denier. I'm not certain, but I bet he's richer than all my other lecturers and tutors combined (net worth of course, combined they'd probably beat him by having houses bought through mortgages. He's still fairly wealthy though)

[Anonymous No.1721003]

By far, the cheapest, simplest, and most effective solution to global warming: google "garden hose to the sky." It would still cost millions, but compared to the "trillions" it would cause in other damages, its the best solution anyone's offered.

[Anonymous No.1721009]

Global warning no.

Global CHANGING yes.

[Anonymous No.1721016]

>>1720992
Except the overall global trend is towards warming. Any other climate change is just a regional phenomenon.

And yeah, we're not all gonna die. We're westerners! Of course, it's not exactly going to be super pleasant for us either.

[Anonymous No.1721023]

>>1721016
yeah but I live in a region that climate models show may actually get cooler and wetter, so I appreciate the difference between the terms.

[Anonymous No.1721039]

>>1721023
Guess it's all down to taste. You like thinking in terms of the complex effects on climate, while I like thinking in terms of the simple thermodynamic cause.

[Anonymous No.1721060]

global warming = the average (mean) temperature across the earth increasing in comparison to a privous avrage

It is real and we are the largest driver of it. But its not a bad thing. One degree increase at the equator = a 10- 15 degree change at the poles. More of the earth will be life supporting, convective forces will work better there will be rainforest's where deserts are now greenland will be green. Some places like florida will get sunk if they dont make dikes but who really cares about florideans anyhow.

[Anonymous No.1721067]

>>1721000

lol Plimer

How can that guy get away with lying his ass off all the time?

>>1721003

Geoengineering, or at least the solar-radiation-management aspect of it, has a lot of potential problems. The two greatest issues I argue are the fact that it does not do anything about the underlying cause of global warming (enhanced greenhouse effect), so if a sulphate injection program suddenly stopped due to a war or some failure of political cooperation, we'd be back to square one. Or square +5 C as the case may be. Secondly, it doesn't do anything to help fix ocean acidification. See Alan Robock's work.

Also, SuperFreakonomics is bullshit

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Three-studies-illustrate-significant-risks-complications-geoengineer
ing-climate.html

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/12/04/climate-superfreakonomics/

As an aside so is the original Freakonomics

http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2005/11/long-awaited-freakonomics-post-this-is.html
http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2006/03/freakonomics-review-part-2-heterodox.html
http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2007/01/this-has-been-so-absurdly-trailed-it.html
http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2007/09/freakiology-yes-folks-its-part-4-of.html

[Anonymous No.1721075]

If worse comes to worse, doomsday scenario style, could global warming turn Earth into a planet akin to Venus?

[Anonymous No.1721098]

>>1721075
yeah.

[Anonymous No.1721101]

>>1721060

>More of the earth will be life supporting

Global warming has linked to mass extinctions in the distant paleoclimatic past. Look up the PETM and the P-T extinction event. Hell, any mass extinction that wasn't the K-T was probably driven by global warming. We are also experiencing unprecedented biodiversity loss (100-1000 x the background extinction rate) that is primarily driven by human activity, including global warming.

>convective forces will work better

Wat

>there will be rainforest's where deserts are now

I'm sure that will make up for the destruction of the Amazon

>greenland will be green

niggayoujustwentfullretard.png.zip.tar.gz

[Anonymous No.1721102]

my face when oil companies have given billions of dollars over the last 10 years to climate research groups reporting climate change.
get more money, sell less product, get better regulatory protection from market forces, make it all look like you are being forced into it, makes sense really.

[Anonymous No.1721103]

>>1721067
I like how their whole analysis of sex work is "Whores with capital who chose their job because they love it get more money and are better off, but whores who have to do it because of drug addiction, high unemployment, or fear of my pimp hand are poor and live bad lives. If they decided to become wealthier, they'd be better off!"

[Anonymous No.1721104]

>>1721075
No, worst case we end up like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora

[Anonymous No.1721119]

>>1721102
Wut? The only advantage to oil companies is oil burning plants becoming slightly more profitable than coal burning plants. That is, unless the policy's bad.

[Anonymous No.1721120]

>>1721102

>oil companies have given billions of dollars

>to climate research groups

Just in case you're not a troll or irredeemably retarded, you should know that your statement is 180 degrees opposed to reality.

Google "Friends of Science," "Global Climate Coalition," "Koch Industries," "The Heartland Institute," "George C. Marshall Institute" for starters

[Anonymous No.1721130]

>>1721104

Yeah, because nothing can go wrong with changing climatic conditions to the way it was tens of millions of years ago within the space of decades.

[Anonymous No.1721155]

>>1721067

Geoengineering, I'm sure, has its pitfalls. But, halting the combustion of all forms of carbon has economic pitfalls several orders of magnitude greater. Should we all stop driving cars and using electricity? And the starving children? Hell, the "poor" countries that climate change is supposed to harm would be harmed even more if we decided to stop burning carbon. You're entire world, all the progress we've made so far, would end if we decided, right now, to stop emitting CO2. Stop being a pathetic wishful-thinker, and start being pragmatic. The world won't stop using CO2.

The way it is, geoengineering is the best solution. It's by no means a perfect solution, but it beats doing nothing, and sure as hell beats rearranging the economy to eliminate CO2 emissions. Stop thinking of the fishies in the ocean, and start thinking about humanity, for goodness sake.

[Anonymous No.1721181]

>>1721130
I don't say bad things will happen, just saying there will be more good than bad.

The earth has countless ways to bury carbon but hardly any to bring it back up. If we don't use any carbon we will end up a frozen wasteland.

To me these conditions sound plesant.

the temperature gradient from equator to pole was only half that of today's, and deep ocean currents were exceptionally warm.[3] The polar regions were much warmer than today, perhaps as mild as the modern-day Pacific Northwest; temperate forests extended right to the poles, while rainy tropical climates extended as far north as 45°.

It was all ended with the greatest global catastrophe since the formation of the moon. Something called the Azolla event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event

[Anonymous No.1721184]

>>1721130
I don't say bad things wont happen, just saying there will be more good than bad.

The earth has countless ways to bury carbon but hardly any to bring it back up. If we don't use any carbon we will end up a frozen wasteland.

To me these conditions sound plesant.

the temperature gradient from equator to pole was only half that of today's, and deep ocean currents were exceptionally warm.[3] The polar regions were much warmer than today, perhaps as mild as the modern-day Pacific Northwest; temperate forests extended right to the poles, while rainy tropical climates extended as far north as 45°.

It was all ended with the greatest global catastrophe since the formation of the moon. Something called the Azolla event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event

[Anonymous No.1721200]

>>1721130
nice picture there
bullshitscience.jpg

[Anonymous No.1721214]

>>1721200
why, seem legit to me...

[Anonymous No.1721226]

>>1721214
Uv radiation kills remaining life just for starters

[Anonymous No.1721243]

>>1721184
l2 volcano

>>1721155
Uh, nuclear power? Solar concentrator mirrors? Hydroelectricity? Wind power? Photovoltaics?

[Anonymous No.1721266]

>>1721243
Why everyone forgets geothermal energy in his threads is beyond me...

[Anonymous No.1721289]

>>1721155

>halting the combustion of all forms of carbon has economic pitfalls several orders of magnitude greater.

The IEA estimated that stabilization of CO2 concentrations under 450 ppm would have a total up-front cost of 45 trillion dollars, spread over 50 years. This is not a total economic cost, as some of the investment (namely energy efficiency and efficient land use) saves money, and if peak oil arrives on schedule, renewable energy generation will even be profitable. The IPCC's economic forecast estimated that an effective mitigation policy would thus slow global GDP growth less than 0.12%.
To put these figures into perspective, the 2006 Stern Review (using outdated data and leaving out many variables) projected that unmitigated global warming could have an economic impact of up to 20% per year, forever. This is the equivalent of a never-ending Great Depression. The 2009 IIED study (again using too-optimistic assumptions and leaving out a few variables) pinned the figure of global warming impacts at a whopping $1240 trillion.

Geoengineering won't be as simple as "herp derp let's blow up some SO2," there will need to be an international, legally-binding treaty between all the major players, and given how awfully those have been going, it is supremely unlikely that geoengineering treaty will be go any more smoothly than previous attempts at climate treaties. And we'll need to count on geoengineering going smoothly, everyone holding hands and cooperating, forever and ever as more and more SO2 is pumped into the atmosphere. Useful as an emergency, last-ditch stopgap measure? Most likely. A REPLACEMENT for mitigation? Absolutely-fucking not.

>Should we all stop driving cars and using electricity?

This must be the fifty thousandth time I've seen the myth that mitigation involves TURNING AS BACK TO THE STONE AGE.

[Anonymous No.1721294]

>>1721289

>And the starving children? Hell, the "poor" countries that climate change is supposed to harm would be harmed even more

Bullshit. Got any numbers to back up that view?

>Stop thinking of the fishies in the ocean, and start thinking about humanity, for goodness sake.

I love the fact that we have all kinds of cool creatures living in our oceans. If I have kids, I hope they will be able to see them at least in documentaries and aquariums. But let's pretend for a second that the "fishies" have zero intrinsic values, and merely exist to satisfy human desires.

At the current rate of overfishing, we can expect to see the extinction of all human-edible fish by 2048. The the current rate of ocean acidification, we'll see a mass extinction of calcifying organisms well under way by 2100.

Let's say you don't give a shit about fisheries, tourism, medical research, or any number of different economic activities benefiting from healthy oceans. Phytoplankton depletion is occurring at 1% per annum. I should remind you that the majority of the world's oxygen is generated by phytoplankton.

>Stop being a pathetic wishful-thinker, and start being pragmatic.

Pragmatism my asshole. What's real wishful thinking is believing that we have any real choice other than self-preservation. While I disagree with Obama on many different things, he was quite right when he said "the choice we face is not between saving our environment and saving our economy. The choice we face is between prosperity and decline."

[Anonymous No.1721308]

>>1721200

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223130549.htm

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/5/397

[Anonymous No.1721321]

>>1721226

UV radiation in strong doses is harmless? Damn, I guess the ozone hole and wearing sunscreen are bullshit science too

Look at this bullshit press release and bullshit science article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223130549.htm

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/5/397

[Anonymous No.1721340]

>>1721184

You're completely missing the point. If we do get 4-6 C of warming by 2100, the world won't magically transform into a gigantic enchanted rainforest. In fact, most of the rainforests will die.

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/42/15144
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/abs/nature06777.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/5994/940
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00133.x/full

[Anonymous No.1721347]

>>1721289
Why that's 8c per first-worlder per year! We could easily do that.

[Anonymous No.1721354]

>>1721340
Predictions of global-warming-driven drought are based on 90% bullshit and 10% computer wizardry. It doesn't work that way in real life. Warmer global climate = wetter global climate.

[Anonymous No.1721360]

>>1721340
Yeah. In the long run the environment will probably be better off with a warmer climate. In the short and medium term it's going to be pretty bad, and we all have to live in the short-medium term.
As Keynes said, in the long run we'll all be dead.

[Anonymous No.1721385]

This thread is causing personal condensation up hither physical tethers.

[Anonymous No.1721392]

>>1721354

Sigh

Let's go over something really basic: where do you think the extra precipitation comes from? New water does not magically appear in the atmosphere from Professor Dumbledore's cock. It evaporates. The places where the water evaporates from will experience drought.

You know what Hadley cells are, right? The tropical Hadley cell has been observed to expand. This is not "bullshit and computer wizardry," but can be observed from the ground and from satellites. If the worldwide band of deserts that encircles 30 N expands further, it will destroy much of the world's breadbaskets.

[Anonymous No.1721394]

>>1721354
Maybe for you jerks who live on the right side of a mountain range.

Oh well, we can always move to Antarctica.

[Anonymous No.1721461]

>>1721392
Learn to saturation.
Warm moist air from the ocean comes to land. The land cools at night and moisture precipitates out. Hotter air can hold more moisture, as the earth warms up there will be more rain further inland. As the ground further inland becomes saturated by moisture it will start to keep the air even further inland humid during the day and allow rain to fall even farther. This is the effect that creates tropical rainforest's like the amazon. If you increase the temperature you increase the size and range of tropical rainforest's. Some weather patterns may shift and you could get forests dry out but you will get far more new forests than dying ones.

[Anonymous No.1721470]

>>1721394
As temperature increases the amount of moisture able pass over the mountain increases. Some of this moisture will be deposited each night as evening rain or dew.

[Anonymous No.1721480]

>>1721392
Yes, water evaporates from the land and the oceans and comes down in precipitation. The warmer the climate, the faster this happens, and the more fresh water is available, and the wetter the environment is in general. The earth's climate has had two modes over the last million years or so. Warm and wet; and cold and dry.

[Anonymous No.1721499]

>>1721461

Nothing in your post rebutted any of the points I made in my post. You made a fundamental error in assuming that all changes happening across the world due to global warming would be entirely uniform. This is patently untrue.

It's obvious we won't get anywhere arguing about eighth-grade science alone. I've posted reputable sources to claims that there will be a significant net decrease in the size and health of rainforests in a previous post. Now, do you have a source for the claim that rainforests will expand instead?

[Anonymous No.1721505]

>>1721392

fuck year that chart shows western WA bumping from 15 days per year over 90F to 30 per year.

I'm ok with this.jpg

[Anonymous No.1721537]

>>1721499
I have a geological record of a time with much more co2 than we have now or will have for quite some time at current rates of consumption.

At the start of the Eocene, the continents were close to where they are now, but the average annual temperature in arctic Canada and Siberia was a balmy 18° C (65° F).
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/

At the beginning of the Eocene, the high temperatures and warm oceans created a moist, balmy environment, with forests spreading throughout the Earth from pole to pole. Apart from the driest deserts, Earth must have been entirely covered in forests.
Polar forests were quite extensive. Fossils and even preserved remains of trees such as swamp cypress and dawn redwood from the Eocene have been found on Ellesmere Island in the Arctic. The preserved remains are not fossils, but actual pieces preserved in oxygen-poor water in the swampy forests of the time and then buried before they had the chance to decompose. Even at that time, Ellesmere Island was only a few degrees in latitude further south than it is today. Fossils of subtropical and even tropical trees and plants from the Eocene have also been found in Greenland and Alaska. Tropical rainforests grew as far north as the Pacific Northwest and Europe.
Palm trees were growing as far north as Alaska and northern Europe during the early Eocene, although they became less abundant as the climate cooled. Dawn redwoods were far more extensive as well.

[Anonymous No.1721541]

>>1721499
...contenued

Cooling began mid-period, and by the end of the Eocene continental interiors had begun to dry out, with forests thinning out considerably in some areas. The newly-evolved grasses were still confined to river banks and lake shores, and had not yet expanded into plains and savannas.
The cooling also brought seasonal changes. Deciduous trees, better able to cope with large temperature changes, began to overtake evergreen tropical species. By the end of the period, deciduous forests covered large parts of the northern continents, including North America, Eurasia and the Arctic, and rainforests held on only in equatorial South America, Africa, India and Australia.
Antarctica, which began the Eocene fringed with a warm temperate to sub-tropical rainforest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora

[Anonymous No.1721566]

>>1721499
nice strawman no one is saying it will be uniform

Also geologic record of similar conditions > biased models and simulations.

[Anonymous No.1721584]

>>1721566

Your own words:

>Hotter air can hold more moisture, as the earth warms up there will be more rain further inland. As the ground further inland becomes saturated by moisture it will start to keep the air even further inland humid during the day and allow rain to fall even farther

Your central argument was that no dought would be caused by global warming, instead we should see the expansion of tropical climate. It appears to me that you're saying the air will be hotter and moister, everywhere. Note how you never mentioned latitude, or recognized the existence of Hadley cells.

[Anonymous No.1721587]

[Anonymous No.1721594]

>>1721584
Thou fool. I speak nothing about localized air current patters only generalized ones.

[Anonymous No.1721613]

As you can see the earth has been cooling, this is most likely caused by the sequestration of carbon. We are starting to reverse this dangerous trend. With your tiny mind you think that because its going to get hotter than it was last year that everything will die. Changing to a warmer climate is a good thing. The earth was healthiest when temperatures where much warmer.

[Anonymous No.1721624]

>>1721613

Thou fool. The Jurassic period (no polar caps) had some of the most violent storms ever to ravage the planet.

See Walking With Dinosaurs episode 2.

[Anonymous No.1721629]

>>1721624
itt people think storms are bad for us.

learn 2 monolithic dome.

[Anonymous No.1721633]

>>1721537
>>1721541

Quoting from Wikipedia does not really prove anything. Nevertheless I will respond to your inferred argument.

It is not 50 million years ago. We are not Basilosauri or Mesonyx. We (and most other large organisms) will die from heat stress in the conditions that prevailed during the Eocene, and we do not have the luxury of millions of years to evolve adaptations to a radically altered climate. The majority of the Earth's habitable land would effectively be rendered uninhabitable.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552.abstract

Furthermore, how much higher was the sea level during the Eocene? Antarctica didn't have an ice sheet, so that means it would be about 80 m higher than today. Tell me why exactly 80 m of SLR is a GOOD thing for humanity.

[Anonymous No.1721653]

OP global warming is sooo 2000's, now its callled climate change, gets with the times!

[Anonymous No.1721674]

Go read the research from the QUAD-Lab at Roskilde University. The Ar-Ar dating of the Atlantic Archives show 55 gigatons of greenhouse gas was released and a thermal maximum followed. The ocean went up 5c and was rather acidic. There is a direct relationship between CO2 concentrations and acidity in bodies of water.

[Anonymous No.1721686]

>>1721633
Nigga please, I live in the fucking tropics and its fucking awesome. We have humans living in fucking deserts, dont worry will survive.

[Anonymous No.1721693]

>>1721633
That sounds like bullshit to me. There are plenty of humans living in places that have an average temperatures well over 12C above the average temperatures of the temperate regions. They are not dying of heat stress.

[Anonymous No.1721694]

>>1721633

the temperature gradient from equator to pole was only half that of today's

the equatorial temperatures where not much hotter than what we have today, the increase in temperature shifted to the poles by convective ocean currents.

the average annual temperature in arctic Canada and Siberia was a balmy 18° C (65° F)

There where fucking cold blooded animals living in the arctic year round.

Also we have the luxury of air conditioned homes and drive air conditioned cars not that it will get too hot for us to live anyway we just get to be comfortable.

[Anonymous No.1721700]

>>1721693

As an aussie I can tell you that droughts are no picnic, even when you can use beer and aircon to cool off.

[Anonymous No.1721708]

Lets set things straight. Carbon Dioxide is a PRODUCT of temperature change, not a cause. You guys now that CO2 is a fucking trace gas! You now whats a more powerful greenhouse gas, H2O. And please don't say we should tax fucking water!

[Anonymous No.1721711]

>>1721674
Who the fuck cares. Acid oceans =/= dead oceans just different ones. Those acidic conditions are what drove the formation of almost all of the adorable cephalopods like cuttle fish.

[Anonymous No.1721717]

Lets set things straight. Carbon Dioxide is a PRODUCT of temperature change, not a cause. You guys know that CO2 is a fucking trace gas! You know whats a more powerful greenhouse gas, H2O. And please don't say we should tax fucking water!

[Anonymous No.1721724]

>>1721700
Do they try to tell you that the Aussie droughts are due to global warming? (spoiler: it's the el nino.)

[Anonymous No.1721725]

>>1721717
dont make me open my can of sulfer hexifloride

[Anonymous No.1721730]

>>1721725
You dont have to thank me for telling the truth.

>>1721724
Doesnt surprise me, today they try to blame fucking everything to Global Warming.

[Anonymous No.1721741]

>>1720981
Well shit, half those people appear to be either looking at their cell phones or staring at their shoes. No wonder they don't know what the fuck's going on.

[Anonymous No.1721743]

>>1721717
No. In past changes of climate, CO2 acted as a forcing driver after some trigger began a global warming event. That is why CO2 levels historically lag temperature rises. However, in the current case, an abrupt rise in CO2 levels is *also* acting as the trigger for a change in climate. Every modern climate model predicts this.

The biggest argument for combatting climate change is purely economic. Our civilization's entire infrastructure is based around the current climate. Cities are on rivers, surrounded by easily irrigated farmland. Larger cities are near larger sources of food and other resources or in beneficial (or strategic) landscapes. Changing climate means changing landscapes (including rivers, prime growing areas, and so forth). That means that if we want to keep our cities where they are, we're going to suffer heavy economic losses as production becomes less efficient.

[Anonymous No.1721751]

>>1721743
>Every modern climate model programmed to predict this predicts this.
FTFY

There is no evidence that CO2 acts to amplify or drive temperature at ANY phase of ANY cycle.

[Anonymous No.1721769]

>>1721743
Those with he means to move will survive, niggers in new orleans will riot and kill each other over tv's once the white police leave.

[Anonymous No.1721770]

>>1721743
>Every modern climate model predicts this.
Yeah because a computer model cant be programmed with a bias, nop not at all.

[Anonymous No.1721774]

>>1721743
Those with the means to move will survive, niggers in new orleans will riot and kill each other over tv's once the white police leave.

[Anonymous No.1721782]

>>1721743
>Yeah other climate change CO2 wasn't the driving force but now it is!
How convenient isnt.

[Anonymous No.1721787]

>>1721743

Damn right! In the past, climate change was driven by volcanic activity mostly. Carbon dioxide and methane are emitted as a feedback cycle, but they ARE greenhouse gases, they DO trap infra-red radiation that would otherwise escape.

Water vapour in the atmosphere is just about constant at the moment and thus is of no concern as a greenhouse gas.

I always say - Sustainability isnt an environmental idea - it's an economic one. It is highly detrimental to see your farmland destroyed, fish extinct and gulf stream shut down.

[Anonymous No.1721794]

Guys, listen. I have a plan to fight the rising sea level.
What we have to do is simple. We dig large holes in the ocean floor with machine, and then we sell the excavated dirt. Over time, the dirt will spread across the land. This way, we both raise land levels and lower sea levels.
If we do this on a massive scale, I think we can beat global warming.

[Anonymous No.1721796]

>>1721770

Oh noes! If it shows warming, it must be a conspiracy by all scientists to cut our oil profits and usher in a new wave of hippies and introduce COMMUNISM and sap and impurify our precious BODILY FLUIDS!

[Anonymous No.1721799]

>>1721787
>Damn right! In the past, climate change was driven by volcanic activity mostly.
ohwow.jpg

[Anonymous No.1721800]

>>1721794

No, at a tremendous cost you'll beat sea level rise.

That's minor compared to the other shit.

[Anonymous No.1721803]

>>1721633
>Antarctica didn't have an ice sheet, so that means it would be about 80 m higher than today.

Thats just ignorant, storage in ground watter will increase as the earth is allowed to become saturated, there is huge unused water storage capability in aquifers and the like.

[Anonymous No.1721804]

>>1721686

>We have humans living in fucking deserts,

Now add 12 C to the temperature curve. How does 50 C plus humidity sound to you?

In any case, even if we have air conditioning and potable water for every human being living in such an environment, which we obviously do not, there is no way around the food problem. Under no scenarios do yields for major cereal crops increase under expected climate change. As the population increases, our capacity to feed ourselves will decline. This is perhaps the greatest threat that global warming poses to the stability of human civilization, since the Earth turning into the Eocene is pretty unlikely unless we fuck up extremely, implausibly bad.

[Anonymous No.1721806]

This is not photoshopped. It's a man swimming in an 'infinity pool' on top of a skyscraper

[Anonymous No.1721814]

>>1721633
>Antarctica didn't have an ice sheet, so that means it would be about 80 m higher than today.

Thats just ignorant, storage in ground watter will increase as the earth is allowed to become saturated, there is huge unused water storage capability in aquifers and the like.

[Anonymous No.1721816]

>>1721804
You underestimate the ability of human to fucking adapt. We lived in a fucking ice age, we can live in fucking deserts and high mountains.

[Anonymous No.1721818]

>>1721804

We will just breed new crops that thrive in the new climates. Corn is pretty much an entirely man-made vegetable anyway, and Russian Winter Wheat isn't far behind. Those two crops right there compose most of our food supply.

[Anonymous No.1721820]

>>1721796
thats floridation bro

[Anonymous No.1721828]

so many trolls/retards in here

[Anonymous No.1721833]

>>1721751

>There is no evidence that CO2 acts to amplify or drive temperature at ANY phase of ANY cycle.

lol wat

Tyndall experimentally confirmed the heat-trapping properties of CO2 in 1859

In various laboratories, it's been confirmed again

http://www.jstor.org/pss/108724

and again

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1086/140516

and again

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=josa-43-11-1037

and again

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVR-46BSN76-3&_user=10&_rdoc=
1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_versio
n=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8f27c50c3f28cb09cec5d5191579632e

and again

http://www.stormingmedia.us/49/4989/0498907.html

It's been confirmed to fucking death, denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is like denying gravity at this point. Increase CO2, and all other factors held equal, temperature WILL increase.

[Anonymous No.1721838]

>>1721828
I know fucking retarded trolls think pole to pole forests and farmland is a bad thing for some reason.

[Anonymous No.1721850]

>>1721816
We *can* live in shit climates, yes, but it's way better if we don't have to. Because not everyone has the option of just moving, you see, and also because it's really expensive... far more expensive than just cutting CO2 emissions and not having to move everything around.

[Anonymous No.1721851]

>>1721838
> doesn't understand desertification

[Anonymous No.1721852]

>>1721838
Maybe they are scared that they wont be able to have a snow fight after school.

[Anonymous No.1721857]

>>1721751
No model is programmed to predict it. It's a natural consequence of the observed facts. You seem to have missed some of the more critical ones.

[Anonymous No.1721858]

>>1721816

>We lived in a fucking ice age, we can live in fucking deserts and high mountains.

Sure thing dude

How many humans were alive during the time of the ice ages? Were there billions of hunter-gatherers back then? Were there cities?

Of course humans are (probably) not in danger of extinction, but to assume that humans will automatically preserve the majority of their populations, their societies, their nations and their cultures completely intact, is contrary to scientific evidence and based on little more than wishful thinking.

>>1721818

>winter wheat

>global warming

Wat

Also, the USGCRP 2009 report showed that corn would be detrimentally impacted by global warming.

[Anonymous No.1721861]

>>1721850
People who cant afford to move = people that are not able to adapt = inferior and must be allowed to die for the good of the future. Real world example everyone who stayed in New Orleans should have died the human race would have been stronger with out them

[Anonymous No.1721885]

>>1721858
Bullshit.
Eggplants, chillies and pepper/capsicums will grow well no matter how hot it gets. So will sweet corn.
http://www.tropicalpermaculture.com/tropical-vegetables.html

The hotter the year is the better the corn crop is.

[Anonymous No.1721905]

>>1721885

Who to believe, the USGCRP, or www.tropicalpermaculture.com?

Shit, I dunno, the second one looks pretty legit

Thank God most of our food is derived from chili and eggplant, who gives a fuck about wheat and rice

[Anonymous No.1721923]

>>1721905
Rice would grow well, too
http://www.tropicalpermaculture.com/tropical-vegetables.html

rice is a fucking tropical plant numnuts


...Annual temperature in arctic Canada and Siberia was a balmy 18° C (65° F).

So we cant find anywhere cool enough to grow wheat.


Global warming = MORE ARABLE LAND

[Anonymous No.1721929]

>>1721861

0/10, i ain't even mad

[Anonymous No.1721933]

>>1721923

Meanwhile in actualscienceville:

Tao et al 2008 - "Global warming, rice production, and water use in China: Developing a probabilistic assessment"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V8W-4R2Y42W-1&_user=10&_cover
Date=01%2F07%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_origin=browse&_sort=d&vi
ew=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=08e82d85818bfde037
85e69039a613fa

You et al 2009 - "Impact of growing season temperature on wheat productivity in China"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V8W-4VFBY41-1&_user=10&_cover
Date=06%2F15%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=
c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6c04bce0bab1196d47a9e
2aee598fb57

Zhao & Running 2010 - "Drought-Induced Reduction in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 2000 Through 2009"

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/329/5994/940

In any case, this discussion is completely academic. We're not going to see the return of Eocene conditions within the next century. Things are going to get bad enough without having to think about apocalyptic scenarios.

[Anonymous No.1721935]

>>1721923
Have you seen the extant infrastructure in northern Canada? No? Neither has anyone else, because there is fucking nothing up there.

Also, the soil is shit for growing because... well, because nothing grows there. You need nutrient-rich soil to grow food. It's not just a matter of temperature. And don't say "lol derp we can just use fertilizer" because it doesn't work like that. Until someone comes up with an efficient way of artificially fixing nitrogen, we can't simply move all our agriculture to the north.

[Anonymous No.1721943]

>>1721933
...Drought-Induced...
Pritty sure we already beat you to death with this one. Global warming wont make the world dry, perhaps places here and there but not the world. The us is having a stellar wheat year what matters is global averages not localized incidences. Once again your small brain is only looking at the little picture.

I'm sighing off perhaps I can kill you with my logic again tomorrow evening.

[Anonymous No.1721946]

>>1721943
I felt my brain cells dying from this logic upon the first exposure.

[Anonymous No.1721950]

>>1721935
With a warmer and more humid temperature the soil will become more fertile.

[Anonymous No.1721953]

>>1721935
LOLL your fucking in the dark ages its called fertilizer bro get some.

Also infrastructure is built as it is needed, no point in making it early now is there. We are already seeing permafrost start to thaw I cant wait, I wonder how I can most effectively spur global warming.

[Anonymous No.1721954]

>>1721946
Clearly your body is starting to purge the defective brain cells.

[Anonymous No.1721956]

>>1721943

>USGCRP

>United States Climate Change Research Program

The title of their major synthesis report?

>Global Climate Change Impacts In the United States

You nailed it. Yeah, looks like the US will have fantastically ginormous bumper crops thanks to global warming.

You didn't even bother reading the abstracts of the articles I posted, did you?

[Anonymous No.1721959]

>>1721953
>>1721950
> facepalm.jpg
And where do you propose to get enough fertilizer to put down an entire layer of arable soil, enough to feed 7 billion plus people?

And fertilizer existed long before the Dark Ages, "bro"

[Anonymous No.1721961]

>>1721954
I can only hope so, lest the stupid they have absorbed infect the rest of my brain.

[Anonymous No.1721963]

>>1721953

I love how you didn't even bother reading the entire two or three sentences of that post before you composed a response. This is hilariously, retardedly sad.

[Anonymous No.1721983]

fertiliser is set to become a precious commodity, look at recent corporate billion dollart bust-ups over potash producers.

it's not like seawater, it's more like gold.