Climate change wat do

File: 107 KB, 800x600, 0-800.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 21:21:07 2011 No.3810806 [Reply] [Original]

Climate change

wat do

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 21:26:07 2011 No.3810819 File: 112 KB, 720x360, Russia_TMO_2010224.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] In b4 "skeptics"

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 21:26:07 2011 No.3810820 Climates always have and always will change. Whether they will be our fault in the future or not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 21:29:07 2011 No.3810827 Build off-world colonies asap.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 21:30:07 2011 No.3810834 File: 174 KB, 848x495, USA_floods_May2011.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3810820 Forest fires have always existed and always will. Therefore arson is a myth In after one "skeptic"

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 21:33:07 2011 No.3810844
File: 278 KB, 970x653, joplin_after.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3810827

"ASAP" would probably mean a couple of centuries, which is probably be a little too late to be helpful to humanity. Ideally the Earth should remain habitable enough that space colonies are a monument or a luxury rather than a necessity

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 21:41:07 2011 No.3810866 Drop a giant ice cube into the ocean.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 21:44:55 2011 No.3810869 >>3810866 That was in Futurama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdgrB6J4JFY

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 21:46:07 2011 No.3810874 >>3810866 That was in Futurama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2taViFH_6_Y

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 21:51:07 2011 No.3810896

>>In after one "skeptic"
I don't recall denying anything. Just pointing out that change happens if you cause it or don't.
I don't there are any viable solutions at present outside of implementing policies to reduce global population.

"Green" stuff is nonsense and only creates more consumption.
Rationing won't work since nobody will enforce it and nobody will follow it.
Carbon offsets are just another imaginary marketplace for nonexistent commodity trading.
And there's no currently viable substitute for liquified dinosaurs.

I'm only skeptical of there being anyway to fix something you can't really prove you fixed.

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:06:07 2011 No.3810948

>>3810896

>I don't recall denying anything. Just pointing out that change happens if you cause it or don't.

You will eventually die

Therefore there's no difference between being alive and killing yourself right now.

Do you see why your argument is logically incoherent?

>I don't there are any viable solutions at present outside of implementing policies to reduce global population.

That's just silly.

>"Green" stuff is nonsense and only creates more consumption.

We can agree on that, for the most part. For now, it's mostly just a marketing fad

>Rationing won't work since nobody will enforce it and nobody will follow it.

As far as I know, I've never heard of a climate mitigation strategy that consists solely of "rationing." I'm not sure what you mean by it.

>Carbon offsets are just another imaginary marketplace for nonexistent commodity trading.

Probably. But you you're referring to carbon markets in general, and not just offsets, ETS works in some places. Most notably in the 1980s to present day in reducing emissions resulting in acid rain, and it has met with limited success in the EU and in some American cities (RGGI).

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:08:07 2011 No.3810954
File: 86 KB, 540x405, Proterra-Battery-Electric-Bus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3810948

>And there's no currently viable substitute for liquified dinosaurs.

Battery electric cars and expanded public transit and rail for personal transportation, renewables and nuclear for energy production. Lithium-air batteries are theoretically capable of reaching the same energy densities as gasoline. When you leave out externalities and subsidies, fossil fuel prices are kept artificially low. So the cost argument only works to a point, and it only works because society fronts the cost for externalities and supported the vast public expenditure into creating the infrastructure in the first place.

>I'm only skeptical of there being anyway to fix something you can't really prove you fixed.

You can't "prove" anything, but if temperatures and GHG concentrations stabilize, we can reasonably say that human action has "fixed" climate change.

yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 22:11:07 2011 No.3810961

>>3810954
Public transportation isn't going to work in the US. The only place with a population density high enough to warrant an intricate PT system is the Northeast but from current trends, they're leaving that area and moving to the south where populations are much less dense = very bad for public transportation.

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 22:15:07 2011 No.3810982 >>3810954 Also, I'm pretty sure fossil fuels are subsidized in the US (feel free to show me a link as I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong).

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 22:17:07 2011 No.3810999 >>3810982 are not subsidized* sorry

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:19:07 2011 No.3811013 >>3810961 >Public transportation isn't going to work in the US. But we have it. I use it. It works for me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:20:07 2011 No.3811017 >>3810820 the issue is the rate of change of climate due to human activity. not whether or not climate changes.

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 22:21:07 2011 No.3811024 >>3811013 Not to the scale hes talking about as a replacement for cars (and in comparison to Europe).

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:21:07 2011 No.3811028

>>3810961

Plan new development so that places are walking-distance and mass transit is accessible

Even for the suburban widely-spaced environments, bike lanes and more bus routes could help. Oil prices will increase anyway, making alternative transportation more desirable and affordable, and such considerations must be factored into new development and renewal projects. And of course battery-electric vehicles are fine on roads designed for ICE-powered ones.

The roadblocks aren't so much technical, economic or practical, but the opposition exists mainly due to politics and culture wars.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:22:07 2011 No.3811034 protip: fusion power, as fast as fucking possible. oh wait never mind people are too busy caring about stupid ass politics and small problems in their lives.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:24:07 2011 No.3811054 File: 35 KB, 537x395, prt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3811024 >Not to the scale hes talking about as a replacement for cars (and in comparison to Europe). PRT. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgvsrHsgeQg

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 22:25:07 2011 No.3811056 >>3811028 We already are doing that really. I've traveled a lot over the east coast and lots of places have bike lanes and most rural places that have bus routes, they don't get used much and have to be subsidized out the ass.

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:26:07 2011 No.3811060

>>3810982

That's correct, I believe the latest numbers totalled $20bn annually in benefits to the fossil fuel industry, if we count tax cuts, non-payment of royalties and other forms of preferential treatment. Some oil companies even manage to get a net payment from the federal government, and themselves pay $0 in taxes.

>>3811034

US funding for the ITER reactor was dropped to $0 in 2009. There will not be commercial fusion power in at least 50 years at this rate.

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 22:27:07 2011 No.3811064 >>3811054 & how much does that cost?

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 22:29:07 2011 No.3811074 >>3811060 See >>3810982 >feel free to show me a link as I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong). >link Most big corporations get tax breaks~.

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:30:07 2011 No.3811082

>>3811056

For rural areas, there will not be much choice other than to use cars and trucks. This is not where the bulk of the problem lies. If we can get the urban and suburban areas to use gasoline cars less, then it is both practical and will have the largest impact overall.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:31:07 2011 No.3811088 >>3811060 that's really fucking depressing, any idea why billionares aren't investing in fusion energy now? they would make a fucking fortune if it worked, and probably be loved for thousands of years to come by greatful future generations

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:31:07 2011 No.3811090

>>3811064

>& how much does that cost?

About one quarter the cost per mile of track compared to light rail.

I know this is my position, not yours, so you're still in the adversarial mindset. But instead of trying to find reasons to dismiss this for competitive, argumentative reasons, pretend I didn't show you the idea but you found it yourself. Research it on your own time, you'll be impressed by how solid the idea is.

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 22:33:07 2011 No.3811097 >>3811090 I don't really have to. I'm in a transporation studies class (Civil Engineer) and EVERY expert says we won't be going to public transporation anytime soon because of population dynamics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:33:07 2011 No.3811099 >>3811074 Oh I found a link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-times-support-for-renewables-s tudy-shows.html Globally, fossil fuel subsidies equals $557bn. Imagine what you could do with that money!

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 22:34:07 2011 No.3811109 >>3811099 We're talking about the US, not the world. It says nothing about US subsidizes in that article.

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:36:07 2011 No.3811118

>>3811088

Actually my bad, it's way more than $20bn. And the reason is that fusion is just too far away for private investors to see any potential. Like most science-y megaprojects, the government is eager to slash funding when it doesn't show immediate results. Fusion itself is not a guaranteed silver bullet, by most accounts it is notoriously difficult to harness as an economy source of energy. If it were easy it probably would have been done already and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 22:36:07 2011 No.3811121 & FYI I'm not talking permanently. Eventually the cost of oil will go up enough to negate even population dynamics.

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:42:07 2011 No.3811154

>>3811109

So I found this:

http://www.eli.org/pressdetail.cfm?ID=205

$72bn over 7 years, so about 10bn a year. It appears I was mistaken. Still, quite a hefty sum.

>>3811097

>because of population dynamics.

So why is it that in the US, people are flocking to the exurbs and the rural areas, but most of everywhere else shows the opposite trend of increasing urbanization?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:43:07 2011 No.3811159 >>3811118 it's not like we have much of an alternative, it probably isn't easy, but there has not been enough effort to at least try, I mean like badass effort, (space race style), we need this ! anyway, ill be quiet now, im being idealistic i guess

yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 22:46:07 2011 No.3811167

>>3811154
People moving to the south mainly from what I understand. It's supposed to be our next big area of development. You see people in China and shit moving inward to work in factories, etc but that is not exactly the case in the US anymore haha.

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 22:50:07 2011 No.3811183 >>3811167 I should have added, the south is way far away from needing a good PT system (I live in the Panhandle of Florida).

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 22:52:07 2011 No.3811195 >>3811167 But don't Southern states lag behind others in economic growth? Climate change is not exactly going to be friendly to the region, but of course people generally don't factor that into their house buying decisions.

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 22:54:07 2011 No.3811204 >>3811195 The economics of the states is beyond my scope, sorry.

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 22:57:07 2011 No.3811215 >>3811195 Second page of this . http://www.businessfacilities.com/Rankings/BFJulAug10_STATE_RANKINGS.PDF I'm sure it varies greatly by source so if theres a better one, please show me as I'd like to read it.

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 23:04:07 2011 No.3811249

>>3811215

Economics isn't my strong suit either, which is why I asked. It's interesting to see that in your source, the top tens are all resource extraction states or southern states. I'm not sure how "Business Facilities" ranks as an authoritative publication, but my Google skills have failed to find a better journal covering the same topic.

Interesting to see Texas as simultaneously the number one wind power producer in the US and also the one being ravaged by wildfires and Rick Perry. Maybe he's doing something right by cutting funding to firefighters and forest services, apparently it is correlated with a positive business outlook.

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 23:09:07 2011 No.3811272

>>3811249

In terms of economic recovery from the recession:

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm

Northeast has done pretty well, but other parts are mixed up. Texas and Louisiana have done well while Oklahoma and Arkansas have lagged behind. I don't know if this says anything about long-term prospects about moving in to the region.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 23:18:07 2011 No.3811308 File: 20 KB, 469x304, notsure.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >2011 >Still believe the theory of human caused climate change Next you guy's will tell me you're all young earth creationists...

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 23:18:07 2011 No.3811313 >>3811097 You've chosen to take the "I'm right no matter what" attitude. That's a shame. I had hoped you would be more high minded.

yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 23:28:07 2011 No.3811348
File: 5 KB, 120x150, garber.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3811313
All you have to do is google and link and I'll read. I didn't say ANYTHING that implies, "I'm right because I'm right." In fact, read all of my post. I've said multiple times, provide a link, I'll happily read it, and admit I'm wrong.

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 23:28:07 2011 No.3811351
File: 501 KB, 972x1117, noaa sotc 2009 s26 fig 2.5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3811308

We have pretty solid evidence that humans are causing climate change. If you want to falsify anthropogenic climate change, you'd have to either

a) disprove modern physics; or
b) find a negative forcing that exceeds anthropogenic forcing; or
c) prove that all the scientists are lying (lol climategate)

yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 23:32:07 2011 No.3811366

>>3811313
& while we're on the subject, how many of my points have you looked up on your own? Is it only important I understand yours but not the other way around? This works both ways (except I understand that if I'm making the claim, I should prove it).

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 23:41:07 2011 No.3811405

>>3811348

It doesn't have to be a battle. Just start with the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit

It's an incredibly promising technology. It spreads out the weight of a train into 4 person modules so that the track doesn't need to be strong enough everywhere to support that entire load. The result is track that's 1/4 the cost and vehicles that can leave the track where needed and intelligently mingle with traffic in the city. Masdar city has banned cars and is replacing them with an underground PRT system as we speak. They traverse a branching network of tracks, with pods routed by computers like packets on a network such that they never collide, take the shortest route to your destination and you're never left waiting longer than 5 minutes for one to show up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 23:43:07 2011 No.3811412 File: 31 KB, 464x474, shortshorts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3811348 i herd u liek engineering

yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 23:45:41 2011 No.3811427 [DELETED]

>>3811313
>>3811376
Ok then, since you seem to really like this idea we can start with the most basic question. How do you plan on paying for this implementation in the US? Transportation is GROSSLY under funded in the US. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) estimates that we need to invest $300 BILLION on top of our current spending just to get a C- overall. I know you're going well just spend that money on these but you can't. Those are designed for people which basically says fuck you trade. Bad roads = bad movement of goods = bad economy.

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Mon Sep 26 23:46:07 2011 No.3811435
File: 49 KB, 671x325, 1294749397959.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3810806
>wat do
LFTRs
Evacuated tube maglev
PRT in really congested areas
Automated electric cars
Solar roadways that can replace ugly above-ground power lines and also power vehicles

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 23:49:07 2011 No.3811443

>>3811405

yeep's problem with PRT is not its feasibility in a general context, but specifically in the US and where he lives (Florida). yeep isn't saying that PRT cannot work, but that it wouldn't be feasible in the deep south of the United States. At least that's my understanding.

yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 23:51:07 2011 No.3811454

>>3811405
From the wiki: "Thus, in central cities, where heavy travel volumes could justify investment in guideways, vehicles would be far too small to meet the demand. In suburbs, where small vehicles would be ideal, the extensive infrastructure would be economically unfeasible and environmentally unacceptable."
Was kind of what I've been saying the entire time :P. I'm not saying this doesn't have a future, its very interesting and very impressive. I never disputed that. I just think it is down the line a bit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 23:52:07 2011 No.3811457 >>3811435 What do we do about air travel?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 26 23:52:07 2011 No.3811458 File: 44 KB, 500x667, 1zq91si.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >wat do Well that's exactly wat they were waiting for! Got carbon credits? carbon is the element of life and controlling it is... so cutting right to the chase...

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 23:54:07 2011 No.3811463 >>3811454 There is some criticism to his statement as well if anyone wants to read but either way, transportation is sadly grossly underfunded in the United States :(.

Anonymous Mon Sep 26 23:56:07 2011 No.3811471

>>3811458

I have no idea what you're trying to say

>>3811457

Air travel probably can't be saved, at least not in the widespread and affordable way that it is now. It would take some pretty major advancements in hydrogen-fueled jet engines or biofuels to make it work. High-speed rail and passenger ships would probably take over.

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Mon Sep 26 23:58:07 2011 No.3811480 >>3811443 Thank you. >>3811405 >It doesn't have to be a battle. My apologies, that is just the usual attitude I'm used to on 4chan haha.

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Tue Sep 27 00:00:07 2011 No.3811489 >>3811471 Though I haven't read anything to suggest this, maybe one day when public transportation is way up in the US and car ownership is down, airplanes will come back. No need in Europe since its a lot smaller geographic.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:00:07 2011 No.3811490

>>3810961
"Public transportation isn't going to work in the US. The only place with a population density high enough to warrant an intricate PT system is the Northeast "
LOL what else is worth saving?
The south are all inbred and California are all illiterates who can't even understand the TV.
If earth had lasted long enough then maybe more of the US would matter but except for the industrial drones in the great lakes region why would anyone even consider spending money on anything outside the North Atlantic coast?
Farmers and minorities can't pay for space travel. Do they even understand what it means?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:01:07 2011 No.3811493 humans are by far one of the hardest animals on earth to kill, basically on the scale of rodents; climate change is the least of our worries as a species.

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Tue Sep 27 00:03:07 2011 No.3811499 >>3811480 >that is just the usual attitude I'm used to on 4chan >>3811490

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Tue Sep 27 00:05:07 2011 No.3811509 >>3811490 Anyway, if you had bothered to read the thread, a link got posted earlier stating that most of the top 10 states for expected economic growth are in the south.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:05:07 2011 No.3811510 >>3811457 Ideally we'd get rid of it, with evacuated tube maglevs there's no need. Or we could use hydrogen powered planes or solar powered airships or something. Planes are a really inefficient form of transportation

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:06:07 2011 No.3811515

>>3811493

If we're speaking of climate change as if it were capable of killing every human being on Earth, we've already fucked it up beyond all hope

The problem of course is not that climate change will make us go extinct, it's that it'll make many other living things go extinct and that it will seriously impact our standard of living.

>>3811490

What the flying fuck are you talking about?

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:08:07 2011 No.3811524

>>3811351
I do not wish to falsify anything, you seem to think people just object to something for no reason other than to be a contrarian or to feel 'different,' in fact it's just that I, and others feel this particular extraordinary claim has not met it's burden of proof, the required extraordinary evidence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:13:07 2011 No.3811543 The only true alternative to fossil fuel is nuclear energy. Too bad you greentards destroyed that industry.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:16:07 2011 No.3811553 Hydrogen and electric powered cars, nuclear, solar, wind and hydro power.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:17:07 2011 No.3811555 >>3811351 >a) disprove modern physics; If you knew something about moder physics you will know how hard is to predict climate trends. Chances are that you are a climatologist that barely passed Calculus.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:22:07 2011 No.3811572 >>3811515 As long as we have chicken, beef, pig & fish as poultry. And Corn, Rice, Wheat, Other Veggies we are going to be OK.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:22:07 2011 No.3811573 File: 7 KB, 225x180, 225px-Al_Gore_31.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3810866 I support this endeavor 100%. So says the emperor of the moon.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:23:07 2011 No.3811578

>>3811524

You have not truly grasped how enormous the mountain of evidence is that humans are causing global warming. We understand, in excruciating detail, the wavelengths absorbed by carbon dioxide and re-emitted in the infrared. We can detect this spectral signature in laboratory experiments, with ground instruments pointing to the sky, with satellite instruments pointed at the ground, and all of this can be replicated in any reasonably-equipped university physics lab. It's the reason why we can be fairly certain that a heat-seeking missile will track and destroy a non-stealthed target, and it's the reason why industrial CO2 lasers can be used to cut human flesh in surgery.

A while back on /sci/, there was a troll who kept asking for more and more evidence, and he was never satisfied. He never had to offer a source or citation of his own (yet insisted he was up-to-date on the literature), just fronted some bullshit argument which he never gave up on. Once or twice it was "undersea volcanoes." Nevermind that CO2 emissions, even from undersea volcanoes, are accounted for, and even if we take the absolute maximum estimate of global CO2 emissions from volcanoes it is still a dozen times smaller in magnitude than anthropogenic emissions. "Maybe the scientists haven't found ALL the undersea volcanoes!" he'd say, and then repeat twenty times more.

I had a sneaking suspicion that he was you. I hope this isn't the case.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:29:07 2011 No.3811599

>>3811543

>Too bad you greentards

Like James Hansen and Mark Lynas? Know your shit before you spout it

>>3811572

Pretty sure you can't have a functioning ecosystem supporting food crops without bees and other pollinating insects. Much of this support system is invisible and you don't really think about it, but rest assured it is quite important that we keep it healthy.

Again, you're missing the point: it's not that we just want to survive, we also want to maintain a similar standard of living as we currently have come to enjoy. Killing off everything except corn and pigs doesn't seem like the best way to go about it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:33:07 2011 No.3811613 >>3811599 >implying bees will go extinct Anything that has survived massive extinctions from the past will survive this evil human induced climate change.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:36:07 2011 No.3811626

>>3811578
>You have not truly grasped how enormous the mountain of evidence is that humans are causing global warming. We understand, in excruciating detail, the wavelengths absorbed by carbon dioxide and re-emitted in the infrared. We can detect this spectral signature in laboratory experiments, with ground instruments pointing to the sky, with satellite instruments pointed at the ground, and all of this can be replicated in any reasonably-equipped university physics lab. It's the reason why we can be fairly certain that a heat-seeking missile will track and destroy a non-stealthed target, and it's the reason why industrial CO2 lasers can be used to cut human flesh in surgery.

That's all jolly good, however the question is whether or not there is a enough evidence to suggest the human contribution to CO2 is enough to affect the climate in the future, and what, if any role this might have played in the slight overall warming trend of the last century.

>I had a sneaking suspicion that he was you. I hope this isn't the case.

Your suspicion, not based on evidence or logic, is incorrect.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:39:07 2011 No.3811636

>>3811599
>James Hansen
Greentard that made NASA become from the pioneer of SPACE to the voodo witches of Earth Science. He's a political shrill and a enemy of any human that wishes to go one day to space.

>Mark Lynas
>"Why We Greens Keep Getting It Wrong"[4] and the same year was the main contributor to a UK Channel 4 Television programme called "What the Green Movement Got Wrong." In these he took a line similar to environmentalists such as Patrick Moore, Bjorn Lomborg and Richard D. North, explaining that he now felt that several of his previous strongly held beliefs were wrong.
He realized the mistakes he made, I respect a man that can say he made a mistake.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:39:07 2011 No.3811637
File: 59 KB, 800x606, mcleanprojection.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3811555

>If you knew something about moder physics you will know how hard is to predict climate trends.

You mean weather trends? Weather is indeed very hard to predict past the second week from starting conditions. Climate is a different story. It is a very basic error, confusing weather and climate.

If the "skeptics" were better at calc than climatologists, then I'm sure they'd make better predictions than mainstream scientists. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case about 100% of the time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:41:07 2011 No.3811648 >>3811578 You realize that CO2 is a trace gas, its a gas that is irrelevant in the great scheme of things.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:42:07 2011 No.3811652

>MFW I'm neither a denier or an alarmist

Thing is I don't think there's persuasive evidence to push me off the fence on this. I do hope however that no one here regards that book and movie by Mr. Gore as having any more scientific validity than a pamphlet from the creation museum.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:43:07 2011 No.3811659 >>3811637 Aww the good ol hockey char, how cute. Do you realize that this increase in temperature is because of an increase in urbanization in the areas of temperature measurement.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:46:07 2011 No.3811674

>>3811613

How do you explain the extinction of the Cave Lion, the Giant Moa, the Dodo, Stellar's Sea Cow, the Auroch, the Passenger Pigeon, the Golden Toad, the Baiji River dolphin, and about 1200 other catalogued plant and animal species? Plus a couple hundred megafauna from about 10,000 years ago, which coincided with the Neolithic Revolution. What a coincidence.

To the point, no, the extinction risk from climate change is not equal to zero. Animals that may have been able to migrate during past interglacial-glaciation cycles have been cut off by human development. See Curt Stager's TED Talk or this Nature article:

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/83/

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:47:07 2011 No.3811675 >>3811637 Climate predictions have been infamously inaccurate, where you been? Also I hope those quotation marks weren't an attempt to demonize or belittle skepticism in general, you know that thing that is an integral of the scientific method...

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:50:07 2011 No.3811689 >>3811674 All those animals where either very specialized or very big for their enviroment, bees wont go extinct as long as angiosperms survive.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:50:07 2011 No.3811690

>>3811659
Not to mention increase in human population. All lifeforms produce heat, especially mammals. More people means more heat, which means higher surrounding temperature, which translates to global warming. If anyone has even ridden on a packed bus or train, they would know what I mean.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:50:07 2011 No.3811692
File: 13 KB, 484x350, Vostok1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3811659

That's not a hockey stick. Do you honestly not realize what that's from? I thought it was obvious from the context.

>>3811648

Dude, ALL greenhouse gases are trace gases. If the greenhouse effect did not exist, or there were no GHGs, the Earth would be a frozen iceball. Small concentrations can make a big difference.

Pic related. If we scale the temperature as Kelvins, we can make ice ages look completely insignificant. But a difference of a few degrees of average global temperature means the difference between New York today and New York under a mile of ice.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:52:07 2011 No.3811705 >>3811692 We are in an icehouse earth and we wont become a green house earth for the time being. Hell in a couple of thousands of years we go to another Ice Age. I would love to see how greentards from the future will blame us for that too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:53:07 2011 No.3811711 >>3811692 >implying temperature is linear

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:53:07 2011 No.3811714 >>3811692 The biggest green house gas on earth is water vapor, CO2 is nothing compared to Water vapor.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:54:07 2011 No.3811720 When will you guys realized that AGW or ACC is a politically based supposition created to control the population!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 00:59:07 2011 No.3811748 >>3811720 I think AGW is full of shit. But I also think you're full of shit. For the same reason. Extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:02:07 2011 No.3811762

>>3811748
The evidence is right there man, its all part of a conspiracy by the NWO. They want people of the 1st world countries to be scared so they can give their liberties to the elites so the elites can then purge the 3rd world and get resources from them. Then they are going to install chips on us to make us their slaves!

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:04:07 2011 No.3811769

>>3811626

I am glad that you aren't that uber-troll. I am happy to answer your questions.

>whether or not there is a enough evidence to suggest the human contribution to CO2 is enough to affect the climate in the future

Firstly, we have already determined that changes in CO2 concentration can change the climate. We know this from the evidence mentioned in my earlier post about the mass spectrometry analysis, and this is also confirmed by observation and paleoclimate proxies. Increase the CO2, and you will increase the temperature. Doesn't matter whether humans or volcanoes does it. This is an unambiguous feature of physics that is unchallenged even by most skeptics.

We know that the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is from human sources, because the C12/13 ratio is shifting towards the heavier isotope, linking it to the combustion of fossil carbon. Future carbon emissions will cause more warming, consistent with the previous observation. You cannot increase carbon emissions without also increasing the temperature, barring some kind of equal or greater negative forcing. So far, no strong negative forcing has been identified.

>>3811652

The Inconvenient Truth is actually quite accurate and contains few errors. It is very inaccurate to compare it to a creationist pamphlet. But no, it is not a valid scientific work, just like Planet Earth is not a proper substitute for a semester studying geography. Pretending that AIT is trying to be anything more than a documentary is quite silly.

But if you're actually interested in learning more about the science, I can recommend the following books:

David Archer - Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast

John Houghton - Global Warming: The Complete Briefing

Ray Pierrehumbert - Principles of Planetary Climate

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:10:07 2011 No.3811786

>>3811769
>The Inconvenient Truth is actually quite accurate and contains few errors.
No, No, NO!.

IT is a political leftist propaganda by a man that wants to gain political and economic power. Did you know he got a D taking the class that inspired him that he had to change humanity?

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Tue Sep 27 01:10:07 2011 No.3811789 Can we at least agree that where economically viable, green energy should be used? Really nothing to lose from it.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:10:07 2011 No.3811791
File: 229 KB, 755x533, Monckton being retarded.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3811675

>Climate predictions have been infamously inaccurate, where you been?

Broecker predicted warming in 1975. He was right.

Hansen predicted warming in 1988. He was also right.

The IPCC, in their First Assessment Report in 1995, also predicted warming. They were right.

McLean, as illustrated above, predicted a gigantic temperature decline in 2009. He was wrong.

Don Easterbrook predicted cooling in 2008. 2009, 2010, and 2011 were all hotter than 2008. Easterbrook was wrong.

Roy Spencer is so fucking wrong the editor-in-chief of a journal he submitted to resigned when he found out Spencer was trying to take advantage of him.

Monckton.... Well, Monckton is Monckton.

So in conclusion, climate predictions have been quite accurate, at least those from actual climate scientists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:12:07 2011 No.3811793 >>3811791 You sure cause its quite cold here in australia.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:12:07 2011 No.3811794

>>3811769
CO2 has had a minor influence on climate in the past as indicated by ice core records, however it has never been the primary driving force of a climatic change.

>The Inconvenient Truth is actually quite accurate and contains few errors.

haha oh wow.

>notsureifserious.jpg

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:13:07 2011 No.3811800 http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html No please greentards, take this pseudoscience out of /sci/ and back to /x/ where it belongs!

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:15:07 2011 No.3811805

>>3811786

>IT is a political leftist propaganda by a man that wants to gain political and economic power.

[citation needed]

Seriously dude, there's worse people out there then fucking Al Gore. Don't get so hung up on him, he's not some kind of monstrous evil supervillain

At least read one of the three books I mentioned. Houghton and Archer are light reads, and Archer only requires a tiny bit of math and chem. Houghton has no math at all. Pierrehumbert is pretty hardcore, so you should only tackle it if you have a good grasp on calculus and classical mechanics. All three books should be part of an education pack listed on /rs/.

If you prefer online learning, there's an MIT CourseWare course on climatology, and also there's these two blogs:

http://scienceofdoom.com/
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:15:07 2011 No.3811806 >>3811789 >Really nothing to lose from it. We lose land. Solar farms and wind farms take up lots of land. An ordinary power plant wouldn't require that much land.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:18:07 2011 No.3811819

>>3811806

Depending on whether it's coal, oil, or gas, a fossil fuel plant needs:

- a site for the plant itself
- an air pollution buffer zone
- gas terminals
- shipyards and maintenance facilities for LNG ships
- open pit mines
- mountaintop removal mines
- pipelines
- offshore drilling rigs
- etc.

It takes up quite a bit of land.

yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Tue Sep 27 01:19:07 2011 No.3811825
File: 108 KB, 600x329, solarwindow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3811806
Man always finds a way. This is obviously not a single solution but a good step in the right direction. Currently installed in delux suites in Sears tower in Chicago.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:20:07 2011 No.3811829

>>3811805
Im an Engineer so Calculus is piece of cake for me, now the time it would take for me to read this is another story. I will read them with an open mind but I still dont trust them and I have read a lot in the subject and hate how the voice of dissent are shut down in closed quaters.

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Tue Sep 27 01:20:07 2011 No.3811831 >>3811825 By the way, the biggest cost in big buildings is climate control and not only do these provide power, they reduce the greenhouse effect inside the building.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:21:07 2011 No.3811836 >>3811825 Solar energy is to much of an hassle, we need to put panels in strategic places where the sun shines a lot. Nuclear is the better option.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:21:07 2011 No.3811837 File: 90 KB, 650x534, map-blended-mntp-201001-201012.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3811793 Just because it's cold today doesn't mean it's cold everywhere. Didn't Australia get unprecedented flooding this summer?

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:23:07 2011 No.3811851

>>3811819
Land required by wind or solar farms:

-Land to build the solar panels or wind generators
-Land for roads leading to the farm
-Land to park the vehicles used by the maintenance crews, technicians
-Land to build the factories that make the solar panels or wind generators
-Land to mine the materials used for the factories
-etc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:23:07 2011 No.3811852 >>3811837 Yea but im sure its not because the evil humans.

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Tue Sep 27 01:24:07 2011 No.3811856 File: 116 KB, 1000x753, solar-panels.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3811836 Though I realize this isn't realistic due to the shitty wiring etc. It could do way more than it is doing now though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:25:07 2011 No.3811863 >>3811856 >hurr lets pave over spain with solar panels i cant believe no one has done this to solve our energy issues yet

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:26:07 2011 No.3811867
File: 143 KB, 700x443, figure-6-3-l.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3811794

>CO2 has had a minor influence on climate in the past as indicated by ice core records, however it has never been the primary driving force of a climatic change.

That's not what I gathered from the literature.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

>Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

>The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf

>Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years

Etc.

>>	yeep !HCCDB7tu.A Tue Sep 27 01:26:07 2011 No.3811869 >>3811863 Do you know where Spain is?

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:27:07 2011 No.3811873

>>3811851

So overall, there's no difference between land used for a fossil fuel plant and land for a solar plant.

Actually, since you can put a solar panel pretty much anywhere, you can chalk that up as a victory for solar. You should probably drop the "takes up too much land" argument.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:29:07 2011 No.3811882 >>3811836 Can't be 100% nuclear. A nuclear plant can't wind down production the way other power plants can. The excess production would be wasted, a situation which utilities loath. It must be combined with other sources of energy.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:32:07 2011 No.3811895

>>3811794

I'm actually not joking. There's like two errors, one is a wrong citation and the other was attributing Kilimanjaro melting as evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Compare and contrast with Christopher Monckton, Ian Plimer, Bjorn Lomborg, or The Great Global Warming Swindle, which has so many errors it almost seems like they're intentionally lying. Unlike Monckton, Gore has never claimed to invent a cure for AIDS and then sell it on his website.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:34:07 2011 No.3811906 >>3811869 yeah i live like 2 hours from the border...not like the fuckers are doing anything productive for themselves anyway, maybe instead of coming here they can get a job and use the desert for something useful

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:36:07 2011 No.3811914 >>3811906 And this is the same mentality of the NWO elites, the thing is that they will force the people to submit to them!

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:37:07 2011 No.3811921

>>3811873
A solar panel can generator at most 1000 watts per square meter at 100% efficiency. In practice, it generates about 100 watts per square meter. On the other hand, a gas electric generator using approximately the same area can generate over 12 KW. Generators can be stacked on top of each other to conserve land use, but solar panels can't.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:40:07 2011 No.3811929

>>3811829

>I will read them with an open mind but I still dont trust them and I have read a lot in the subject and hate how the voice of dissent are shut down in closed quaters.

Voices of dissent are clearly not being shut down. Skeptic papers get published all the time, even if they suck terribly, because editors are afraid that they'll draw attention to themselves if they incur the wrath of skeptics. It's a real catch-22 for journals and scientists: if you reject a skeptic paper, it's a conspiracy! If you accept it, that means global warming isn't real! and/or your journal gains a reputation for publishing shit.

As far as I know, Ian Plimer has profited greatly from his relationship with the Australian coal and mining industry, and made a killing off his book and speaking engagements, but he still teaches at the University of Adelaide. He hasn't been censored, reprimanded, or punished for his views. It's the same with pretty much every skeptic. Their horns get tooted all the time, especially in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Fox News, and so forth.

If you feel like you don't have much time to go over a thick textbook like Pierrehumbert's, I recommend watching Richard Alley's AGU talk which I linked earlier. He also wrote two popular books, The Two-Mile Time Machine and Earth: The Operator's Manual. If you would prefer to read something like that, I believe you can pick those up at any big bookstore.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:41:07 2011 No.3811932 >>3811921 Solar panels definelty not have 100% effcency.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:42:07 2011 No.3811940 >>3811932 Read the next sentence.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:43:07 2011 No.3811944

>>3811921

Do you remember what this thread is about?

Two themes dominate: one is that climate change is a problem, and no matter how useful fossil fuels are, they must be phased out eventually. Secondly, fossil fuels are limited, they will reach peak production soon, and it will become very expensive to use whether climate change is real or not.

We are discussing solutions here. Small gas generators are not going to be part of that solution.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:44:07 2011 No.3811950

>>3811929
They might be sceptics that are shirlls paid by the coal, oil industry but you also gotta admint that there's lots of shrills paid by green or leftist organizations. I personally believe that we should shutdown the coal industry and invest on Nuclear Power but environmentalist instead of persecuting this industries persecute the nuclear industry!

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:46:07 2011 No.3811957

>>3811921
Land use is not an issue, as far as solar goes its a total non issue since most solar plants are IN THE FUCKING DESERT, we are NOT going to run out of land any time this millenium, fresh water and arable land are harder to come by but the fact that a 50km^2 solar plant takes up vastly more space than a .5km^2 coal plant isn't the issue, the issue is it costs fucking billions of dollars to make and doesn't work at night.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:47:07 2011 No.3811961

>>3811944
>one is that climate change is a problem
Nope, we must learn to adapt to the changes in our environment, we aint the lords of the universe, not yet atleast.

>Secondly, fossil fuels are limited, they will reach peak production soon

Defined soon, still I agree that we relied to much on dead animals for our way of living. Oil should only be used for polymers and not for fuel. We should switch or dependancy of fossil fuels with next generation nuclear plants.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:48:07 2011 No.3811968 >>3811957 People live in that fucking desert. Are you going to tell them to get the fuck out of their historic land just because we westerners cant find other solutions to our energy dependency?

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:52:07 2011 No.3811978

>>3811950

>but you also gotta admint that there's lots of shrills paid by green or leftist organizations.

Are there? No one even listens to Greenpeace these days. Your visceral reaction is probably the same as it was for Al Gore. Almost every scientist I can think of works for public or private research universities. They don't (and can't) make money by milking a cash-strapped NGO or green energy startup. That situation just doesn't happen.

>I personally believe that we should shutdown the coal industry and invest on Nuclear Power but environmentalist instead of persecuting this industries persecute the nuclear industry!

It's kind of a myth that the environmentalists are the ones who killed nuclear. When did reactor construction peak in the US? It was the early 1970s, before Chernobyl and before Three Mile Island. So safety wasn't the main concern there. The truth is, nuclear waste is an enormous burden for energy companies, because their insurance liabilities are basically infinite. Combined with high construction costs, it was impossible to gain the trust of private investors. So everywhere in the world, the nuclear industry is heavily subsidized by government.

Is nuclear expansion necessary? It may well be. But it wouldn't be the cheapest option, and you'd basically have the nationalize the whole industry if you want it to succeed. Otherwise it is a fantastic source of reliable baseload power and has the best safety record of any energy source.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:56:07 2011 No.3811990

>>3811978
If I had enough money I would invest in Nuclear, absolutely. The problem is not lack of government intervention, is the opposite the government intervention with its excessive regulations have made it impossible to invest on Nuclear. Also we could use the nuclear waste for other kind of nuclear plants.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:57:07 2011 No.3811995

>>3811961

>Nope, we must learn to adapt to the changes in our environment

Adaptation to medium levels of emissions will equal a few hundred trillion dollars, plus $890 trillion of unavoidable damage, according to a 2009 IIED study. I can't think of a single set of research that supports a conclusion of adaptation as being less expensive than mitigation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:58:07 2011 No.3811997 >>3811968 Yes, there are people living in every square mile of all of the earth's deserts, how silly of me, sorry.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:59:07 2011 No.3812002 >>3811995 But the Earth will change regardless of how much we might affect the Earth. Did you know that in the antiquity the Sahara was a grassland not a desert?

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 01:59:07 2011 No.3812005

>>3811895
>I'm actually not joking

Then you're just apallingly ignorant, and even worse, ignorant of your own ignorance.
Yeah very accurate film, you know except claiming sealevel rise of 20' is likely to occur, claiming evacuations of island population that simply has not happened, that Thermohaline circulation may cease, that the melting of kilimanjaro's snow is caused by climate change, despite the fact that that region has not experienced any warming, and the glacier has been melting for 125 years, in reality due to nearby deforestation, claiming that the slight warming trend of the last century has influenced hurricane strength and frequency; it has not.
These are just a few of the many errors, must I go on?

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:00:07 2011 No.3812008

>>3811990

It's not just regulation. France has the most nuclear-friendly environment in the entire world, and they get most of their energy from nuclear plants. But their nuclear industry is still completely nationalized. Private investors won't touch it, except Bill Gates who is swimming in cash.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:04:07 2011 No.3812015

>>3812002

In even deeper antiquity, the oceans were degassing methane and hydrogen sulfide and animals drowned in battery acid. DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A GOOD THING

Change will happen, sure, but it would be better for us for the change to benefit rather than harm us.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:05:07 2011 No.3812019 >>3812002 You're thinking of the sahel zone, not quite the same thing

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:07:07 2011 No.3812030

>>3811961
Gorge Monbiot spoke with an International Energy Agency spokesperson, as reported in the Guardian newspaper in December 2008.

“In terms of non-OPEC [countries outside the big oil producers' cartel]“, he replied, “we are expecting that in three, four years’ time the production of conventional oil will come to a plateau, and start to decline. … In terms of the global picture, assuming that OPEC will invest in a timely manner, global conventional oil can still continue, but we still expect that it will come around 2020 to a plateau as well, which is of course not good news from a global oil supply point of view.” ~ http://www.monbiot.com/2008/12/15/at-last-a-date/

The report is here: http://www.iea.org/weo/2008.asp

The IEA Energy Outlook for 2011 is due November 9th. Whether it will include a revised peak estimate is not known.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:11:07 2011 No.3812040

>>3812005

>claiming sealevel rise of 20' is likely to occur,

It's actually inevitable past a certain level of warming. Paleoclimate records attest to this. It will take hundreds of years at least, but it will happen assuming high concentrations of GHGs.

>claiming evacuations of island population that simply has not happened

Gore mixed up his tenses. Tuvalu, for example, is not currently evacuating to New Zealand, but they are making preparations for wholesale evacuation if shit hits the fan. If you're going to call him out on grammar, then sure, that makes 3 errors.

>that Thermohaline circulation may cease

Yep, I've seen some papers on that.

>that the melting of kilimanjaro's snow is caused by climate change

That was one of the two real errors I mentioned earlier. Did you miss it or something?

>has influenced hurricane strength and frequency; it has not.

Actually, yes it has.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/abs/nature03906.html

>Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07234.html

>The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:12:39 2011 No.3812044 File: 8 KB, 480x360, 0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] you faggots are missing the point, its the fact that earth's climate has changed in such a short timescale which is the big deal. 0/10 shitty thread would rage again etc

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:13:07 2011 No.3812047 >>3812019 No the Sahel is the region of today that has grasslands, in the antiquity North Africa had a much better climate than the harsh desert of today. It wasnt lush or anything but it was better than the shithole is today.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:15:07 2011 No.3812051 >>3811882 I will just point out that LFTR has, among other great features, far better load following compared to current reactors.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:16:07 2011 No.3812059 >>3812040 Do you realize that in the past there wasnt records of hurracanes as extensive as today? Hell the only hurracanes that where noticed where the Major Hurracanes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:17:07 2011 No.3812060 >>3812051 It's kind of funny how everyone on /sci/ is always pimping LFTR Seriously though, while it sounds like a great technology, I don't think it will be commercialized in time to make a difference. Would be nice though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:19:07 2011 No.3812066 >>3812047 the Sahara was a vibrant savannah, with numerous copses of trees and water, just as Kenya is today

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:22:07 2011 No.3812076

>>3812059

We've had almost 40 years of satellite observations now, and we wouldn't miss a single tropical depression. Over that time the size and intensity of the strongest storms has increased. In the North Atlantic basin, the numbers have increased as well. Those are the facts.

If, before the era of weather satellites, only strong storms were noticed, it wouldn't make a difference to our observations on the strongest hurricanes. Observation bias would inflate the numbers of the smaller and less powerful, not the largest ones.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue Sep 27 02:22:07 2011 No.3812077 File: 53 KB, 800x600, 1299580126948.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3812060 http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/01/china-starts-lftr-development-project.html IF CHINA CAN DO IT, SO CAN WE

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:23:07 2011 No.3812080 >>3812066 So are you saying the Sahara is going to turn into fertile farmland soon?

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:25:07 2011 No.3812088

>>3812077

>A large scale LFTR program would enable China to replaced fossil fuel energy sources with nuclear power by 2050, if LFTR development had a 20 year gestation period.

20 years to commercialization? After that we'd need another few decades to reach high market penetration. 2050 sounds quite optimistic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:25:07 2011 No.3812090 File: 59 KB, 633x480, 600 babies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3812077 I require this bumper sticker

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue Sep 27 02:27:07 2011 No.3812095

>>3812090
http://www.cafepress.com.au/+nasa+bumper-stickers?cmp=knc--g%20--au--pol--bsm--search-b--Nasa_bumper
%20stickers&pid=3607873&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=Google&utm_campaign=Politics%20BSM
%20-%20AU&utm_content=search-b&utm_term=Nasa-bumper%20stickers&gclid=CODLh-nlvKsCFWVV4go
dXTY6sw

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:27:07 2011 No.3812096 carbon capture then nuclear then fusion fuck renewables and all that noise

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:27:07 2011 No.3812097 >>3812080 We dont know, climate is really hard to predict. Anyone that says the contrary is either ignorant or a shrill. Still its an interesting case on how the Earth changes and we are just mere spectators.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:28:07 2011 No.3812099 >>3812076 Not all Major Hurracane hit shore.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:29:07 2011 No.3812100 >>3811348 you're in school, learning stuff you're in no position to have enough authority to even HAVE a fucking opinion, much less say anything other than , yo! waz happening?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:29:07 2011 No.3812101 >>3812077 >Using x as multiplication Fucking americans.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:30:07 2011 No.3812105 >>3812077 Writing <span class="math">v^2_{esc}[/spoiler] as <span class="math">v_{esc^2}[/spoiler] I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:33:07 2011 No.3812120 >>3812105 Yeah thats a big mistake, its funny because thats a pretentious "smart" bumper sticker.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:35:07 2011 No.3812125
File: 15 KB, 697x351, hurricane.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3812040
>>3812040
>It's actually inevitable past a certain level of warming. Paleoclimate records attest to this. It will take hundreds of years at least, but it will happen assuming high concentrations of GHGs.

Of course. But the context in which it was presented made it seem an imminent threat. Sea level, temperature, and CO2 levels have all been much higher and much lower than they are today.

>Gore mixed up his tenses

Yes, and just because preparations are meant in case of a possible event, does not mean it is okay to present it in a manner implying that such actions have already been undertaken.

>Yep, I've seen some papers on that.

Are you acknowledging what I said, or are you claiming to have seen papers stating thermohaline circulation is slowing? If so they were incorrect. I've seen papers claiming the earth is 6,000 years old and that every bible prophecy is true. That does not make it the case. Indications of a sustained thermohaline circulation strengthening have been observed since the 1980s.

>That was one of the two real errors I mentioned earlier. Did you miss it or something?

No, just wished to elaborate and add the deforestation as the likely cause.

>Actually, yes it has.

Incorrect. Pic related.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:37:07 2011 No.3812129 File: 238 KB, 453x391, 1316665046128.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >ITT: Climate science

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:45:07 2011 No.3812140 >>3812125 Holy shit bro how can a cold period like the 50's had so many hurracanes?!?!?!?!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:46:07 2011 No.3812146 >>3812140 Fucking magnets.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 02:58:07 2011 No.3812169 but alex jones told me its all a communist conspiracy! science is just a liberal tool to get people to give handouts to hippies

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 03:05:07 2011 No.3812178

>PHD in HVAC
>Any indoor climate I want
>No sweat starting

So for some reason I thought this thread would be different but alas it is the same usual bad arguments about issues which should have already been settled. Nothing will get done so long as people hold on to ideas like 'we shouldn't do anything', 'nuclear is bad', and 'renewable energy is useless'. Even less (yes less than nothing) will get so long as we're counting on the market forces to save us.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 03:07:07 2011 No.3812182

>>3812076

The frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes, tropical storms and cyclones have been decreasing over the past several decades and recently his an all time low.

Svensson et al shows NO change in flood magnitude or number.

Weather gets less intense as the climate warms. Sorry, thanks for playing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 03:16:07 2011 No.3812198 >>3812169 You've clearly never listened to Alex Jones. Besides, everyone knows he's more than likely controlled opposition backed by the CIA and Vatican.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 03:20:07 2011 No.3812208 >>3812182 Which fucking Svensson? Google shows at least three Svennsons working in the field

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 03:30:07 2011 No.3812229 >>3812208 The one with the flood study, who did you think?

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 03:31:07 2011 No.3812236

>>3812229

Also, here.

"The results of this analysis, according to Svensson et al., indicate "there is no general pattern of increasing or decreasing numbers or magnitudes of floods, but there are significant increases in half of the low-flow series." These real-world observations are not consistent with model predictions of river flow response to global warming, since the world's climate alarmists claim that the planet experienced a warming over the latter part of the 20th century that was unprecedented over the past two millennia. If anything, therefore, and if the warming was truly as great as they claim, the data tend to support just the opposite relationship between warming and flood and drought occurrences."

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 03:46:07 2011 No.3812274

>>3812236
fail again, bro, as your "quote" has no source, and we all know that any monkey can be trained to type a "report."

regardless of dubious sourcing methodology on your part (which is not atypical of climate change denialists) I note the use of the pejorative "alarmists"

the use of negative adjectives by a "scientist" is generally held to be unseemly, unscientific and an argument by ad hominem

go blow a goat

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 03:53:07 2011 No.3812291 >>3812274 Svensson, C., Kundzewicz, Z.W. and Maurer, T. 2005. Trend detection in river flow series: 2. Flood and low-flow index series. Hydrological Sciences Journal 50: 811-824. Thanks for playing, kid.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 03:53:07 2011 No.3812293 File: 33 KB, 510x338, 1316805006481.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3811351 A neutrino would like to have a talk to you.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 03:57:07 2011 No.3812301
File: 37 KB, 468x269, geo-engineering schemes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Geo engineering to solve the crisis. Building mirrors in space to reflect sunlight for example, or creating artificial clouds out of certain materials to do the same thing. Dumping tonnes of rust into the oceans so that they take up more carbon. There's plenty of methods. The only problem is that if they fail we're screwed, and we don't have a backup population on Mars that will ensure our survival if we turn the earth into another Venus.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:00:07 2011 No.3812304

>>3812274
it's not the bad science but the presumption that I might be a "kid" that actually riles me the most, nevertheless, I riposte

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_p
hysical_science_basis.htm

that's
1,500 climate scientists= 1
madcap Swedish goat blower= 0

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:02:07 2011 No.3812308

>>3812301

Dumping iron dust into the ocean has already been tested. It resulted in the growth of algae that produces a deadly neurotoxin and much marine life died.

If they're so retarded that they couldn't see that might happen what makes you feel good about these same retards releasing millions of tonnes of sulfuric acid aerosols into the atmosphere in an attempt to mimic the effects of a volcano.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:04:07 2011 No.3812313

>>3812304

"Speaking to the difficulty of establishing scientific consensus on the precise extent of human action on climate change, John Christy, a contributing author, wrote:

Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts. We have no control over editing decisions. Even less influence is granted the 2,000 or so reviewers. Thus, to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality."

Again, thanks for playing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:06:07 2011 No.3812319 >>3812304 I like how you generally act maturely in the first parts of your posts but then keep referencing your opponents sucking goat penis.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:10:07 2011 No.3812332 >>3812301 This is the most retarded thing I've ever seen. >oh noes, teh earth is naturally warming >nasty fossil fuels pollute evereythang >pollute more to save urs

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:10:07 2011 No.3812333

>>3812304

This argument reminds me of an anecdote I heard once.

In response to questions about the Nazi scientists who denied the theory of relativity in a book called "100 scientists against Einstein" Einstein said "It doesn't take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes a single fact."

This is why the argument from consensus is generally unacceptable.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:20:07 2011 No.3812366

Why is this argument still going on.
Didn't the latest figures show the 10 year temperature rise was a blip and it's now cooling again leading to militant hippies like OP to call it climate change and not global warming.
Because changing climate is supposed to be surprising. I'd laugh so hard if we suddenly plummeted into a natural ice-age after you fired billions of mirrors into space. That would shut you up and your Prius wouldn't work in such cold temperatures.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:21:07 2011 No.3812371 >>3812366 This argument is still going on because nobody wants tards doing tard shit with the only habitable planet we have like puting mirrors in space and dumping iron into the ocean.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:25:07 2011 No.3812378 >>3812319 >referencing goat penis de rigeur on /sci/, or, "no theory is complete until penis reference".

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:26:07 2011 No.3812381

>>3812371
So why do we allow these people to have the debate to them selves when they inevitably skew public and government opinion which will lead us to do something fucking retarded like blocking the sun out with man-made volcanoes.
I mean the BBC has said it won't allow any "climate sceptics" to air opinions any more as it's a completely 100% accepted fact that we will all die half way through this century if we don't start riding bicycles.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:28:07 2011 No.3812387 >ITT: leftist utopian ideologies and fart sniffing masked as saving the earth from a manufactured threat based on bad science

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:30:07 2011 No.3812388 >>3812381 Right we don't let them. That's why we're still arguing.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:30:07 2011 No.3812391

>>3812333
While an entertaining anecdote, science actually does rely on consensus. It's called 'peer review," and part of the scientific method.

If climate change had an identifiable tipping point, such as an asteroid, or a series of supergiganticcouldn'tmiss'em solar flares or something, then one whistleblower might carry some weight in this particular argument, but the science itself is about as ironclad as it gets.

The only remaining scientific argument is "it's bad, but just how bad, really?"

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:32:07 2011 No.3812395 >>3812388 But we're being neutered, it's accepted as fact these days and governments won't see past the bullshit. They're already spending billions on shit tech that will never work, like windmills.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:37:07 2011 No.3812411

>>3812391
>but the science itself is about as ironclad as it gets
>it's bad, but just how bad, really

Yea bro, I mean absolutely nothing survived the last time the earth was 6 degrees warmer... how can it when this rock solid science (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article1480669.ece)) is telling me that an average temperature rise of 6 degrees would leave nothing but desert and fireballs assploding out of the ocean...

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:38:07 2011 No.3812414

>>3812395
that's a political argument, and has zero to do with climate change as a statement about observed reality

Figure out how you want to live your life and do accordingly, but plan on the fact that governments are going to shut down your petroleum car use sooner than you think, if nothing else, just because they can

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:44:07 2011 No.3812426

>>3812411
your ironic comedy is justified, but governments (and especially their defense departments) are making very real plans against mass migrations, water resource wars, famine and crop failures and other contingencies. Nobody in their right minds is talking extinction on all life on Earth or it becoming a burned cinder.

And stop reading the gutter press and corporate media. Your paranoia and resulting paralysis means their profit.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:45:07 2011 No.3812428

>>3812391

No. Peer review is an editorial process. Science doesn't rely on consensus it relies on reproducibility.

Everyone agreeing with you wouldn't mean much if nobody bothered to try to repeat your experiment (or analysis, etc) to see if the results were the same.

>The only remaining scientific argument is "it's bad, but just how bad, really?"

Sorry but no again. The scientific community has been turned on its head an innumerbale amount of times. How do you think we got here? You can't say a complicated and still confusing branch of science has only one remaining argument.

>the science itself is about as ironclad as it gets.

The 15 global climate models used by the IPCC to produce the AR4 were used in a test of reliability in 2006. They were used to predict future ENSO's under a doubling of CO2. The results were as follows: 7 of the models predicted no change, 5 predicted a weaker ENSO and 3 predicted a stronger ENSO. This is not "as iron clad as it gets," it is the definition of uncertainty.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:46:07 2011 No.3812429

>>3812426
>And stop reading the gutter press and corporate media. Your paranoia and resulting paralysis means their profit.
I don't believe a word of it, just find it funny that this is what people believe.

>but governments (and especially their defense departments) are making very real plans against mass migrations, water resource wars, famine and crop failures and other contingencies
Which are? I see no evidence of this at all.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:47:07 2011 No.3812436

>>3812411

>6c Increase

>Life on Earth ends with apocalyptic storms, flash floods, hydrogen sulphide gas and methane fireballs racing across the globe with the power of atomic bombs; only fungi survive

>Chance of avoiding six degrees of global warming: zero if the rise passes five degrees, by which time all feedbacks will be running out of control

BWAHAHAHAHA

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:52:07 2011 No.3812447

>>3812429
>no evidence

That's because you read the gutter press. Food riots have been going on for some time, just for starters. Fires are burning down the state of Texas as we speak and Gov Steve Perry has fired 1,500 firefighters. That's only a teeny tiny glimpse of the shitstorm ahead. Google 'military prepares for climate change' or any variation thereof. Google food riots, rising sea level. Just look around a bit, the stuff is available. And turn off your TV.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:56:07 2011 No.3812458

>>3812447
Don't start this patronising "turn off you tv, stop reading the papers but read some other papers, but on the internet" bullshit.
We've just had the coldest and wettest summer for 20 years.
Forest fires happen, food riots happen and any increase would be population based.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 04:59:07 2011 No.3812461 >>3812447 I wouldn't call The Times the gutter press.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:00:07 2011 No.3812465

>>3812458

Agree with this except the food riots we're seeing now (and they are major) have been caused by the diversion of food toward the production of biofuels.

The UN's special rapporteur on the right to food was correct to call it a crime against humanity. People are eating mud pies made of actual fucking mud so that douchebag liberals can feel better about themselves when they read that their gas is 10% biofuel.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:02:07 2011 No.3812468

>>3812458
where was it "wet and cold"? Not in Southern California or west Texas or southern Arizona or any other number of places

Your local weather is not the climate of the planet

And I'll patronize anyone I like, thank you, especially visitors from /b/, and any and all amateurs.

>>3812477
if in fact the quote from the Times about oceans "asploding" is accurate, then I would say that the Times has joined the gutter press.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:07:07 2011 No.3812476

>>3812465
The misallocation of food-production land is the result of douchebag liberals being propagandized by the gutter press' corporate owners as to viable alternatives to oil. Again, that's a political problem to which the response is proper education.

Good luck on finding that in Americathelandoflibertyandfootballforall™

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:07:07 2011 No.3812477

>>3812468
>Southern California or west Texas or southern Arizona
What do you want, closer to the equator = hotter, if you don't like it, move north and stop being a bitch like you said "Your local weather is not the climate of the planet".
>where was it "wet and cold"?
Northern Europe, again "Your local weather is not the climate of the planet".
>And I'll patronize anyone I like, thank you, especially visitors from /b/, and any and all amateurs.
Ok I see any semblance of an adult conversation has gone out the window.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:09:07 2011 No.3812483 >where was it "wet and cold"? Not in Southern California or west Texas or southern Arizona or any other number of places >Your local weather is not the climate of the planet No yours is, right? Lol!

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:16:07 2011 No.3812491

I lost interest in responding as an adult as soon as the Swedish weathergirl red herring was dragged in.

If you want to argue about this shit, go to the source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

meanwhile, I'm gonna go watch a movie.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:20:07 2011 No.3812499

>>3812491

How coincidental. The movie you watch will likely be as fictitious as the bullshit on the site whose url you just posted. Figures that was where you were getting your info.

By the way, that site doesn't allow debate. It shuts down dissenting opinion as fast as it can.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:21:07 2011 No.3812500

>be a butthurt hippie
>get called out on being wrong
>call other childish names
>say you debate as an adult then storm off
>go to watch a movie while lonesomely masturbating into a hemp condom
>still doesn't realise his ilks retoric and knee jerk reactions will do more damage to the planet than my fuel guzzling car ever would

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:29:07 2011 No.3812519 >>3812491 >part of the Guardian environmental network Gutter press you say.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:31:07 2011 No.3812523 File: 286 KB, 337x343, greendragon.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to1naH2A7GU Just leaving this here, this is pretty much what all climate change deniers are like.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:32:07 2011 No.3812524 >>3812523 >hurrdurr

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:37:07 2011 No.3812532 >>3812524 If you're gonna post shit like this: >>3812500 ...then you are in no position to complain when I do the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:48:07 2011 No.3812555 >>3812523 >Cool story bro >Cool story bro >Cool story bro > Environmentalism a religion >ALL OF MY HATE

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:49:07 2011 No.3812559
File: 44 KB, 288x306, Newman catches a dart in his mouth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3812523
Pic related is the people in that video. Saving ourselves one at a time.

This is you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8tfuBIutLI&feature=related

Go back to smoking wiener.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:50:07 2011 No.3812566

>>3812519
Give me some impeccable sources, so we can put them on that list, thus automatically making them garbage. Any source listed there has to be garbage because it's an environmentalism site. Let's put everything on it and turn the world into a solipsist paradise.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 05:52:07 2011 No.3812569

>>3812559

Yours is a fictional character. My example was of real people, and in fact a large and well funded political action group typical of those organized for the purpose of discrediting climate science on behalf of industralists like the Koch brothers.

You had to find a fabricated caricature. I merely held up a mirror.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 06:04:07 2011 No.3812604 Legalize and promote abortion. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 06:10:07 2011 No.3812620 >>3812569 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-ww f-papers/#comment-298859 How's that for a mirror, douchebag?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 06:12:07 2011 No.3812623 >>3812620 >How's that for a mirror, douchebag? That appears to be the blog of Anthony Watts, professional climate change denier.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 06:16:07 2011 No.3812633 >>3812623 As opposed to a professional environmentalist. >PhD in Basket Weaving >any job i want >300k peace beads starting

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 06:18:07 2011 No.3812640 >>3812623 See how it links to a comment? Read it. This is the person he mentions btw: http://www.wri.org/profile/jennifer-morgan

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 06:18:07 2011 No.3812643

>>3812633

As opposed to credible science resources people have been linking you to for this entire thread, only for you to casually dismiss them the same way a creationist dismisses "professional evolutionist" websites.

And for the record, once again, you pulled the exact same shit here: >>3812519

You continually complain to me of tactics you yourself, or those of your same viewpoint, regularly employ. Turnabout is fair play.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 06:20:07 2011 No.3812650

>>3812640

>See how it links to a comment? Read it.

See this? >>3812519

You dismissed his source, so I get to dismiss yours. People like you are too accustomed to those on the science accepting side arguing honestly and playing by the rules, and you take advantage of it. So I'm going to play dirty, just like you, and we'll see how you like it.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 06:22:07 2011 No.3812654

>>3812643
You told everyone to stop reading the gutter press, only to post links to a website that is involved with the Guardian, a highly biased leftist publication whose sole readership makes their living off the state and whose diet consists mainly of soya and white guilt.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 06:31:07 2011 No.3812673

>>3812654

That wasn't me, I joined fairly recently. Also be aware that using terms like white guilt pejoratively outs you as the sort of person who assumes anyone not equally racist must simply be feigning lack of malice towards other races out of guilt rather than legitimately bearing them no ill will, but wanting to prevent people like you from acting out against them.

And again, you're complaining that he linked to a bias source. Even though you yourself linked to the blog of someone who has made it their career to publish opinion pieces promoting denial of climate science. Is it for some reason difficult to see how that is hypocritical?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 06:33:07 2011 No.3812674 >>3812673 I didn't link to any blog. I think we've all got confused here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 06:35:07 2011 No.3812678 >>3812650 That wasn't me. Now read it, thanks.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 07:19:07 2011 No.3812758

>The US Government Cannot Help the Climate

http://vimeo.com/22237651
>Jeff Sachs recommends an informal international mostly academic collaboration to come up with actual options and get around the noise-making. He points out that expectations of leadership from the US government are unrealistic in the near future.

>Fox News: it doesn't matter that climate change is a fact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjYj6RsQvag&feature=player_embedded

>Bill Clinton: Climate Denial Makes USA Into A 'Joke'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg0hc1y7JQk&feature=player_embedded

I guess the conservative republicans want to wreck the planet as a revenge against reality having a leftist bias.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 07:25:07 2011 No.3812769 File: 77 KB, 400x300, ayn-rand-210.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Disregard evidence, Pursue selfishness.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 07:27:07 2011 No.3812782 >>3812769 Disregard evidence Cop out with faggoty meme when you get smacked down

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 08:11:07 2011 No.3812878 We installed solar panels on top of my home and the monthly payment plus the little more in grid energy we use comes out to about 70% of what our electric bill was still talk shit on solar?

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 08:21:07 2011 No.3812894

>>3812523
>Deadly to the gospel of Jesus Christ

Ok...

>Environmentalism = Religion
wtf is this shit? Then again, it's quite normal to hear that nowadays. Next.

>Wendy Wright.avi
God damn it,/sci/. That was the third headphone I broke because of her.
I'm expecting $90 bill from you guys by next week.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 27 08:22:07 2011 No.3812895 >>3812878 The facility (>3,000 m^2) where I work installed solar panels. Tthe estimate is about three years to pay off the loan. In the meantime, during the day we sell excess current to the city and draw some back at night, but we still make out.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 09:37:07 2011 No.3813070

>>3812125

>made it seem an imminent threat. Sea level, temperature, and CO2 levels have all been much higher and much lower than they are today.

You know when temperature and CO2 levels were much higher than today? The P-T event. Look it up. Also, at this point you are merely arguing semantics. We need to go back millions of years to see a situation similar to where we're headed, and the sea level was indeed much higher than it is today.

>Yes, and just because preparations are meant in case of a possible event, does not mean it is okay to present it in a manner implying that such actions have already been undertaken.

Not that it's much consolation to small island states. I grant you that one mistake. As I already mentioned. Sure like beating dead horses don't you?

>are you claiming to have seen papers stating thermohaline circulation is slowing?

No, it is a potential risk. It is discussed pretty often in the scientific literature.

>Incorrect. Pic related.

Oh you're fucking serious aren't you? Numbers of landfalls don't prove anything: we are speaking of the total number of hurricanes, and the strength and size of hurricanes. US landfalls alone is blatant cherrypicking.

Anonymous Tue Sep 27 09:44:07 2011 No.3813088

>>3812313
>>3812333

>implying that the IPCC is not an authoritative summary of science

John Christy? You know who that guy is right? Asking whether Christy thinks the IPCC is wrong is like asking Ron Paul if he likes libertarianism. You're arguing from authority in order to complain about arguments from authority.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that 97.5% of climate scientists are wrong, that they are all wrong in exactly on direction, and that all the ice sheet wastage and increased flooding and drought and higher fucking temperatures are all just a really big coincidence. I don't need the IPCC to prove it, they don't even conduct research. But if I linked you the relevant papers and datasets, would you read them? Would you read them and take what they had to say seriously? I doubt it.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math