Global Warming Fatalism

[Anonymous No.8212565]

What can we do about climate change?

Anything?

There is always discussion about investment in green energy, carbon taxing, carbon trading, carbon recapture, on and on it goes. Even if we were to do ALL of these things, even if we went carbon neutral TOMORROW, can we avoid disaster?

The debate is always about whether CC is real, but among those who believe that it is, I don't see anything that gives me any hope, no discussion on how this crisis can be avoided, no planning for what happens if the models are right and the planet is toast.

I don't think CC is an existential threat to mankind, but things are going to get really rough no matter what we do (ecosystem collapse, extreme weather, sea level rise, food shortages...), starting negative feedback loops that we can't control.

Excessive waste production has caused mass extinctions before. I think we are in the middle of another Great Dying, and science and politics aren't recognizing or planning for it. But maybe there's nothing we can do anyway, and we might as well keep cranking out the carbon and go out with a bang.

Please help me, /sci/. I want to be wrong on this. Are we all just fucked?

[Anonymous No.8212620]

This is actually not what keeps me up at night.
.
.
.
Scientists (including me) are working out ways to restore the Martian atmosphere through terraforming. It will take a long time and it won't quite be Earth, but the human race will survive. We can kind of "start over" by moving to another planet.

The way it's looking right now, exoplanets are super common and some estimates put the likelihood that planets the size of Earth exist in the Goldilocks zone around any given Red Dwarf (85% of all stars in the Milky Way are Red Dwarves) at 50%, so we will technically always have somewhere to go, no biggie.

Here's the problem:
Right now we are on our first planet, our true homeworld, and we're fucking it up. Climate change driven by CO2 levels higher than the last 4 million years, the acidification of the world's oceans, deforestation, an island of plastic waste the size of Texas, and the largest extinction event ever. EVER. This is the damage that we've managed to cause in only about 200 years. A fraction of a blink of an eye in geological timescales. We fucked it all up and no one seems to care. Our homeworld, with no other well known options immediately available, is dying and no one cares.

That not caring? That's what actually keeps me up at night. How do you think we'll act once we claim our first world? From that point on we will be convinced, "if we fuck up again, we can always just move, so who cares?"

And then we will move from world to world, consuming all the natural resources and laying waste to countless ecosystems for the sake of spreading like a virus throughout the universe. Remember the aliens from Independence Day? That's us. We're destined to become world eaters if we don't fix our own planet before we move on.

So do I work on research to terraform Mars? Do I become the architect who looses a scourge on the galaxy or do I become the man who let his race die?


That's what keeps me up at night. Get your shit together already, humanity. Fuck.

[Anonymous No.8212625]

>>8212565
I don't believe it's an existential threat either, although I wouldn't mind either way.

It will not be too bad in our lifetimes anyway, so who cares. In the future, they may have all kinds of technology we can't anticipate, so some decent time discounting is in order. There is also quite some uncertainty about the effect sizes.

It's generally not easy to prevent. The market for fossil fuels is global and so is the atmosphere. Binding global CO2 reduction agreements are hard to monitor and politically very unrealistic. Even the praised Paris agreement has no enforcement mechanisms.

This means that no one has an incentive to reduce emissions, and those who do will simply find that the same fossil fuels will be burned elsewhere, perhaps a little bit later with some marginal reduction in quantity - but not nearly as much as they themselves reduced. The reason is the global marketplace and the elasticity of demand elsewhere. If one place passes a tax or a regulation that reduces consumption, the global price for fossil fuels decreases because of the reduced demand. But when the price decreases, this doesn't mean the fossil fuels won't be burned - it means other people can buy it more cheaply. It also means that supply goes down, because it is no longer as profitable to extract some marginal oil or coal. BUT this changes in the longer term since fossil fuels are finite, which means that the scarcity will eventually drive prices up anyway.

It's hard to see an energy future where most of the know fossil fuel reserves will not be burned by someone. Knowing this makes it irrational for everybody to reduce emissions, even if they believe in climate change, which many key players refuse (e.g. the US republicans).

[Anonymous No.8212678]

> literally perpetuating /x/ memes
keep /x/ threads at >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8212690]

>>8212565
Earth science student.
>even if we went carbon neutral TOMORROW, can we avoid disaster?

No. It's too late for that. We would need to remove some of the carbon and offset the warming somehow. We can still avoid the worst problems, but we can't avoid problems anymore. We are ALREADY feeling the crisis now and it will just get worse.

Part of the problem we face is consequences to our actions will be felt for well over a thousand years.

For example. The thermohaline circulation takes 1000 years to complete. That means everything we do to the atmosphere TODAY will continue to affect the thermohaline circulation for the next MILLENNIUM.

Reducing carbon is still our best plan. Every other solution has unknown factors and could fuck us even worse (such as iron seeding). But communities are already running out of water. Glaciers are already disappearing. Plants and animals are already dying. Sea levels are already rising. Deserts are already expanding. It just gets worse from here.

[Anonymous No.8212708]

>>8212690
>Reducing carbon is still our best plan.
If that is the plan, then surely you can tell us a solution to the coordination problem described in >>8212625, namely that any local reduction in fossil fuel use will make fossil fuel use cheaper everywhere else and global agreements are not enforcable or monitorable.

Unless some fusion breakthrough provides extreme quantities of energy at extremely competitive prices, or some draconian global surveillance state enforces an eco agenda, most of the known fossil fuel reserves will be burned.

Or do you think a new carbon removal technology will be cheap enough that international funding will enable it?

[Anonymous No.8213322]

>>8212565
Climate change seems to be changing. The modern warm period is coming to an end - with or without human help. Follow the data and invest wisely.

[Anonymous No.8213325]

>>8213322
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8213341]

>>8212708
>global agreements are not enforcable or monitorable.

Yes they are. They totally are. We succeeded in reducing CFCs to nearly zero. The problem isn't that we lack the ability to enforce or monitor, the problem is the public is largely misinformed and doesn't give a shit mostly due to funding by oil and coal companies to obscure the data.

Just look at jackass here as an example.
>>8213322
Hurr durr, it's natural, I know better than anyone, scientists are all liars, the earth is actually cooling!

Look buddy, I can prove you wrong in seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur4I8tYnxP4

But keep using those arguments though. They let me win. It's like clubbing baby seals.

[Anonymous No.8213369]

>>8213341
>Natural environments
You don't even need to show a video of the glaciars.
Just check the average temperature of countries near the equator. There was no snow on Madrid on winter this year.

10 years ago it still snowed. Fucking shills.

[Anonymous No.8213382]

Environmental engineer reporting in.

It's gone far enough that climate will change in an unpredictable way, even if we went carbon neutral today. However, reducing carbon now will bring about changes more slowly so we have time to adjust. Climate change isn't even the real enemy, seeing as it can be a natural process too. Rapid climate change is what will cause mayhem. We aren't talking about the end of humanity here. Coastal towns will deteriorate, established farming practices will have to change, possibly causing famine in poorer countries, and overall the global economic impact will be pretty harsh. We should do everything we can to slow it down, especially since the technology is very much within our reach. Minimal economic investment now will easily pay off.

[Anonymous No.8213384]

>>8213369
I hear you.

Still glaciers are the best visual evidence of climate change that can't be argued against because they take tens of thousands of years to develop and they're disappearing at an alarming rate. They're the canary in the mine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5wpCo0Sqg

[Anonymous No.8213395]

>>8213369
Cuckposters really are the weirdest.

[Anonymous No.8213400]

>>8212565
Was just about to make a thread regarding this OP, record breaking temperatures happening right now , something has to be going on.

Anybody have sources to valid criticism on the simple graphs between Global Land-Ocean Index's and Carbon emissions ?

[Anonymous No.8213437]

>>8213400
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I've seen graphs passed around showing yearly carbon emissions and warming trends trying to argue that warming isn't caused by CO2. Which is a stupid argument because yearly emissions =/= total atmospheric CO2. There are many carbon sinks, the most obvious being plants and a single year's output doesn't reflect changes in total atmospheric CO2.

Total atmospheric CO2 however, which are easily measured by sites such as Mauna Kae are well correlated to global temperatures.

It was basically an argument by a dumbass. Is that similar to what you are referring to?

[Anonymous No.8213446]

The only thing that really can help is investing more and more money into alternative energy sources.

Carbon taxes and quotas is just another way for government to jew money out of people.

[Anonymous No.8213453]

>>8213437
Pretty much,
such a shame either way.

[Anonymous No.8213533]

>>8213453
Easy peasy
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

The only recourse to this data are

1. Lie
2. Accuse NOAA of lying.

[Anonymous No.8213683]

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth and CO2 increase is more beneficial than harmful. At the current rate of 2 ppm/year it would take about 200 years to arrive at a CO2 content of eight out of ten thousand air molecules from the meager four out of ten thousand we have now.

[Anonymous No.8213690]

>>8213683
It won't simply be a change in atmosphere content. That's why they call it climate change. Temperatures, sea levels, climate zones, etc will all change.

[Anonymous No.8213709]

>>8212565

Global warming is poised to kill five million people over the next twenty years.

This is terrible.

Malaria is poised to kill ten million people in 2016 alone.

Get your priorities in order.

[Anonymous No.8213823]

>>8213709
Climate change's solution is simple. Stop burning fossil fuels. Malaria's solution is orders of magnitude more difficult.

[Anonymous No.8213848]

Assuming global warming is real before we start wondering how to fight or prevent it from happening we should first ask if it's really that bad for us? If global warming is not such big deal or benefits of fighting it are not that big compared to the costs then why even bother fighting it

[Anonymous No.8213869]

>>8213690
thats just the propaganda
small changes in CO2 concentration are irrelevant

[Anonymous No.8213871]

Why the fuck does this discussion exist on a science board? Global Warming has not been scientifically proven, so take this somewhere else

[Anonymous No.8213918]

>>8213871
Dint forget about all this evolution threads. It's just a theory, a gauss.

[Anonymous No.8213956]

>>8213341
>We succeeded in reducing CFCs to nearly zero.
That was a fraction of the cost. Substitutes were affordable. Everybody cooperates when the cost is low.

Without some unexpected breakthrough in alternative energies, it's hard to believe humanity will leave most of earth's fossil fuels in the ground. Even alternatives are usually finite in quantity, e.g. you can't grow biofuels without arable land, you need suitable places for wind farms, and so on. Maybe fusion is a solution, idk. You need a large quantity and a lower price, otherwise the market just responds with increased consumption and you're left with the same demand for the remaining fossil fuels as total energy becomes more scarce again.

You're right about the shills though, they're lying through their teeth. The science is very clear.

[Anonymous No.8213961]

>>8212620
>Correcting a given atmosphere by a tiny amount doesn't work
>Hey, let's just go to another planet which is a more hostile environment than even the most forsaken corner of our planet and create a WHOLE NEW ATMOSPHERE FROM SCRATCH!
That'll work, I'm sure.

[Anonymous No.8214016]

>>8213690
>climate zones, etc will all change
Of course it will. The Vikings called it Gronland (green land) for a reason. And when the Little Ice Age began the coastal glaciers came back. Climate change is real, always was: after cold comes warm, after warm comes cold. Here in the North, warm is good and cold is bad. When I look at the timeline I have mixed feelings about what comes next. Malta looks promising..

[Anonymous No.8214027]

>>8213961
Yes, these space cowboys are lunatics. They will try any absurd rationalization to get people to pay for their space adventures.

[Anonymous No.8214131]

>>8214016
Don't you think the scale of that chart is way too large to show what has happened in the last 50 years?

[Anonymous No.8214179]

>What can we do about climate change?
Ordinary granite, which the continental plates are primarily composed of (in other words, if you dig down, you should fairly quickly come to a layer of granite that continues for miles further down), contains around eight to fifteen percent light metal oxides (sodium oxide, calcium oxide, potassium oxide, magnesium oxide) which, if exposed and wetted, will absorb CO2 from the air.

This is one of the main mechanisms by which exposed granite weathers from solid rock to gravel, and one of the reasons CO2 is such a small component of the atmosphere.

If we expose more granite, break it up physically so there's more surface area, get it wetter, etc. it will absorb more CO2.

So we've got a straightforward method of directly reducing the atmospheric level of CO2. It's a big project, but breaking up rock is really not that hard. We could even use big nuclear bombs that produce nearly all of their energy from fusion to do it.

[Anonymous No.8214180]

>>8213823
>Stop burning fossil fuels
That would ensure the death of about 5 billion people. Why are people so energy retarded in the oil age of all times?

[Anonymous No.8214321]

>>8213871
>scientifically proven
Lrn2science fgt pls

[Anonymous No.8214368]

Ok, I turn down, I switch off, I recycle and I walk. All people I know are doing that here because it's normal. But does it matter? Where's the numbers. How much CO2 does human activity really contribute compared to sources we cannot control?

[Sage No.8214370]

>>8213848
Retarded/Bait

[Anonymous No.8214946]

>>8214368
How much of the total CO2 emission is man-made and how much comes from natural sources?
Natural 770,000 - Human-Made 23,100 - Total 793,100 (Million Metric Tons of Gas [per year?])
Source: IPCC, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, 2001
Do the math. Not much left to "control".

[Anonymous No.8215027]

>>8214946
>Look at how big this number is compared to this other number. EVIDENCE

What if I told you a 3% increase in CO2 content would cause a 5 degree rise in global temperature? I'm not saying that's how it is, but it may as well be, since you did absolutely nothing to even address the significance of your claim.

[Anonymous No.8215033]

>>8215027
Why are you even bothering to respond to these retards?

They don't even have the basic education in science.

Nothing you say will convince them not to believe in Alex Jones-tier retardation specifically tailored by Exxon's PR whizzes to bamboozle retards.

[Anonymous No.8215052]

The answer to reducing CO2 emissions is to replace coal power with nuclear power. The leftists oppose this solution that will actually work.
The left solution is to gain more control over businesses through taxes and regulations and more bureaucrats, forcing them to produce less, less efficiently.

The relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic. If you believe the entire increase in the last while has been due to human causes, that's about a 250 ppm increase to get < 1 degree C change.
to get another degree of change we'd have to increase it 2500 ppm...

[Anonymous No.8215183]

>>8212565
>The debate is always about whether CC is real
No.
The "debate" has shifted away from whether CC is real, because it is irrefutably clear to be real.
The denialist "debate" is now whether it is caused by human activity, i.e. burning four gigatons of fossil fuel per year.
In any case, we are at least fifty years (and more likely seventy-five years) too late to "do anything" about it. What we can do now is to help people, crops, and livestock adapt to the change.

[Anonymous No.8215250]

Published measurements of climate sensitivity declining
https://landshape.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/6921/

TCR is the Transient Climate Response (next 20 years)
ECS means Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (sustained doubling)

More about statistical problems:
https://climateaudit.org/2015/04/13/pitfalls-in-climate-sensitivity-estimation-part-2/

[Anonymous No.8215888]

Looks like Bryson got it right.

[Anonymous No.8216360]

>>8214946
I LOVE you guys! Your arguments are so juvenile they just prove that you know absolutely nothing which makes your arguments so easy to destroy. You just give more credibility that you're an uneducated moron and you need to stop, listen to your betters, and agree that man made climate change is real.

Look. The fact is two fold.

1. We know how much natural emissions of CO2 are but your ... heh, "equation" is missing data. All the natural emissions of CO2 have natural sinks. Animals breathe out CO2, plants use CO2. The world is in balance. The problem is we have begun upsetting the balance by putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than we have natural sinks for. That CO2 goes up into the atmosphere and doesn't come out again.

2. We know goddamn well where the CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from. The main types of CO2 use Carbon-12, Carbon-13, and Carbon-14. Carbon-14 has a half life of about 7000 years. There is absolutely 0% C-14 in natural gas and coal because they are millions of years old. By sampling CO2 in the atmosphere we can measure the percentages of C-12 to C-14. Those percentages are going down. Showing, without a doubt, that CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from oil, gas, and coal. There is absolutely nothing natural about it.

You would know this if you were educated, but you're not. You're just an idiot spouting what he heard online. Your argument is nothing, just like you.

[Anonymous No.8216419]

It's too late.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM0uZ9mfOUI

Now all we can do is burn the fossil fuels as quickly as possible to squeeze as much enjoyment out of our remaining time as possible.

If we don't do it, someone else will.

[Anonymous No.8216430]

>>8212565
>What can we do about climate change?

Spread Ebola

[Anonymous No.8216434]

Worn sock puppets. You can smell the despair.

[Anonymous No.8216438]

>>8212565
we're not going to be suffering OP.

It's going to be the third-worlders that die in droves for our convenience

[Anonymous No.8216442]

>>8216438
In fairness, they should have stopped reproducing a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.8216446]

>>8215250
That graph is pure cherrypicking. Ignores most early studies and fills the present with flawed papers that have been publicly debunked.

[Anonymous No.8216449]

>the third-worlders
Mr. Kyoto spelling out the globalist agenda.

[Anonymous No.8216484]

"You control climate change."
Good luck.

[Anonymous No.8216499]

>>8216484
The graph is simply lying.

[Anonymous No.8216541]

>>8215183
>The "debate" has shifted away from whether CC is real, because it is irrefutably clear to be real.
The debate was never whether climate change is real. You bullshitters stopped talking about "global warming" and pretended we were talking about "climate change" all along when it stopped getting warmer for a couple of decades, so you could go on blaming every drought, cold snap, and hurricane on CO2 emissions. Now we're having a couple of warm years, and you're talking like "climate change" meant precisely and exactly "anthropogenic global warming" all along.

It's impossible to talk reasonably with you people because you use every possible weaselly rhetorical trick constantly to imply that anyone who questions your wildest claims about the world ending is rejecting all science and reason, and everyone who agrees with your most trivial and inconsequential premise is endorsing your whole program of global authoritarianism.

Pretty much everyone with any interest in the science has always agreed that the climate always changes, whether humans are around or not.

"Global (year-round-average, surface, land) temperature" is a hard concept to meaningfully define, let alone measure, let alone track over decades of developing science and changing technology, let alone estimate effectively far into a past when no measurements were taken.

Of course there's a heated controversy over whether it's in a sustained, marked rising trend, unprecedented in the past several millennia. If it wasn't a political issue, there wouldn't be a massive imbalance of funding and social reinforcement biasing the field toward claims of certainty on one side, and nobody would see anything wrong with scientists disputing methods and conclusions.

[Anonymous No.8216560]

>>8212565
I'm already paying high electricty costs here in Germany just so that Merkel can use the taxes for some other bullshit while still burning coal and actively taking in hundreds of thousends muslims a year. Why should I care if little Mohammad can't breathe fresh air in the future? He and his backwards religion can go fuck themselves and starve to death.

[Anonymous No.8216569]

>>8216541
>The debate was never whether climate change is real. You bullshitters stopped talking about "global warming" and pretended we were talking about "climate change" all along when it stopped getting warmer for a couple of decades, so you could go on blaming every drought, cold snap, and hurricane on CO2 emissions. Now we're having a couple of warm years, and you're talking like "climate change" meant precisely and exactly "anthropogenic global warming" all along.
Oh my god, you mean two different phrases are used to refer to the same thing? How confusing for you. Global warming refers to the recent climate change. But everyone knows what's being talked about when "climate change" is used because of context. Your attempt to paint this as some sort of nefarious plot is delusional.

>It's impossible to talk reasonably with you people because you use every possible weaselly rhetorical trick constantly to imply that anyone who questions your wildest claims about the world ending is rejecting all science and reason, and everyone who agrees with your most trivial and inconsequential premise is endorsing your whole program of global authoritarianism.
The only weaselly rhetorical trick here besides your incessant barrage of misleading memegraphs and out-of-context quotations is the hyperbolic smearing of AGW proponents as doomsaying authoritarians. Nothing about admitting that scientific analysis has determined that human emissions are the main cause of the current warming trend implies the end of the world or authoritarianism. You are projecting your hack rhetoric on everyone else.

>Pretty much everyone with any interest in the science has always agreed that the climate always changes, whether humans are around or not.
Yes, but the current change is quite different in a number of ways, such as humans being the main cause. Usually people who argue honestly attempt to respond to what an argument actually says, not to whatever pedantic interpretation suits them best.

[Anonymous No.8216587]

>>8216541
>"Global (year-round-average, surface, land) temperature" is a hard concept to meaningfully define, let alone measure, let alone track over decades of developing science and changing technology, let alone estimate effectively far into a past when no measurements were taken.
It's hard, but all of those things have been done. You might have noticed that scientists attempt and sometimes succeed at doing things which are considered difficult. Like making things aerodynamic or mapping the human genome.

>Of course there's a heated controversy over whether it's in a sustained, marked rising trend, unprecedented in the past several millennia.
There is a heated controversy over evolution as well, but not a scientific controversy. The same is true for AGW.

>If it wasn't a political issue, there wouldn't be a massive imbalance of funding and social reinforcement biasing the field toward claims of certainty on one side, and nobody would see anything wrong with scientists disputing methods and conclusions.
Just imagine you are arguing with a creationist and they give this argument. What would you say? Would you say "you're projecting, you are not being scientific and you are arguing purely from your bias"? Would you say "the scientific evidence speaks for itself"? Or would you just ignore him because you realized that no matter what you say, the creationist will always find some conspiracy logic to convince himself that he is right?

[Anonymous No.8216630]

>>8216587
>>"Global (year-round-average, surface, land) temperature" is a hard concept to meaningfully define, let alone measure, let alone track over decades of developing science and changing technology, let alone estimate effectively far into a past when no measurements were taken.
>It's hard, but all of those things have been done.
It's not just challenging, there are fundamental issues with knowing whether you have the right answer.

It's not hard like particle physics is hard, it's hard like psychology is hard. You're dealing with untestable assumptions, framing issues which can only be fairly characterized as belonging in the realm of philosophy, and predicting the behavior of a vast, ancient, chaotic system influenced by variables currently beyond our powers of observation.

>There is a heated controversy over evolution as well, but not a scientific controversy. The same is true for AGW.
>hurrr durr derpity doo
Do you really not see why I see you people as garbage?

AGW isn't a big, rough broad-strokes idea like evolution. It's a highly specific, fine-details idea like whether homo erectus diverged from homo habilis in a cladogenetic manner or the general population of homo habilis evolved together into homo erectus in an anagenetic manner. What's more, it's both a prediction of the future of a unique system and a theory about why what will happen will happen.

Climate science has, of course, no track record of predicting global climate change, even in the short term. Nobody predicted the "pause" in global warming, as measured, and there was no general agreement on when to expect the "resumption". Every year is its own surprise. Yet we're supposed to believe that they know what to expect a century hence. Many AGW "scientists" insisted that if urgent, extreme action were not taken decades ago, today the world would be in the midst of some sort of biblical disaster.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8216638]

>>8212565
Lots of nuclear, starting with many AP-1000s or similar current-gen reactors, and full speed ahead for a full scale commercial prototype of ThorCon, and IFR specifically S-PRISM. Also, if Kirk Sorenson is serious about solving the barrier problem for the two fluid LFTR breeder, then throw some money his way.

Bam - about 0 CO2 production for electricity, and electricity prices will remain about the same, and maybe even drop a little bit if and when ThorCon gets rolling, and maybe for IFR / S-PRISM too.

Then, just scale up some of the research into gasoline from H2 from splitting water with electricity, and using CO2 extracted from sea water or air via electricity. The US Navy has done some research here. "Green Freedom" is also another research project. Also e-diesel is another "research project" on the same topic.

Bam - CO2-neutral transport fuels.

Problems solved.

For an added bonus, we can even pull existing CO2 out of the air / water, but it'll be expensive. By digging up limestone and heating it, it releases CO2 and produces quicklime. We can capture that CO2 cheaply, and pump it into basalt formations where it will form chemically stable bonds in the basalt. Then, we take that quicklime, and dump it in the ocean, where it absorbs CO2. Do this on a large enough scale, and you can lower the CO2 content of the ocean, which will also pull CO2 out of the air.

Bam!

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8216643]

>>8212708
>global agreements are not enforcable or monitorable

They can be. We stopped use of CFCs. But that only happened easily because there were cheap substitutes available, and because CFCs didn't constitute the foundation of the economy.

With cheap nuclear, we can replace fossil fuels while remaining the bottom line for society. Some very rich and powerful people will lose out, and that's what we need to overcome. Plus this bullshit public perception that solar and wind can work, and this bullshit public perception that nuclear is especially dangerous.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8216646]

>>8213446
Carbon cap and trade is a scam which gives more money to bankers, but a simple flat (global) carbon tax - no exemptions for existing emitters - that could be very effective.

[Anonymous No.8216654]

two of these in every single city on the planet

[Anonymous No.8216666]

>>8214179
>sodium oxide, calcium oxide, potassium oxide, and magnesium oxide, if exposed and wetted, will absorb CO2 from the air.

How does this work and where does the CO2 go?

[Anonymous No.8216671]

>>8216643
>With cheap nuclear, we can replace fossil fuels while remaining the bottom line for society.
Any additional energy source will be used to increase total energy consumption, not to replace the previous energy sources. Even though we are already using fossil fuels and nuclear, we still burn wood too.

No reason to assume this will be different for fossil fuels if new sources of energy are added. Assuming they are finite too, all you achieve is a delay and maybe a small reduction in quantity of the most hard-to-get fossil fuels.

You'd outright have to ban them globally for this not to happen.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8216675]

>>8216671
Yes, it may take some international agreements. I'm talking on a massive scale. However, France went from very little electricity nuclear to almost entirely electricity nuclear in a span of IIRC 20 years. If the world came together and devoted serious amounts of money, but still plausible amounts of money, to a worldwide effort, we could nuclearize the electricity grid of every country on the planet in 30 years, probably.

[Anonymous No.8216699]

>>8212620
>terraforming Mars
>pretending we will ever reach another planet outside the solar system

Jesus fucks. >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8216703]

>>8216630
>It's not just challenging, there are fundamental issues with knowing whether you have the right answer.
Like what?

>It's not hard like particle physics is hard, it's hard like psychology is hard. You're dealing with untestable assumptions, framing issues which can only be fairly characterized as belonging in the realm of philosophy, and predicting the behavior of a vast, ancient, chaotic system influenced by variables currently beyond our powers of observation.
What a load of bullshit. It's the temperature. It's not fucking metaphysics.

>Do you really not see why I see you people as garbage?
Of course I can see how your delusional worldview was created to protect your psyche from reality.

>AGW isn't a big, rough broad-strokes idea like evolution. It's a highly specific, fine-details idea like whether homo erectus diverged from homo habilis in a cladogenetic manner or the general population of homo habilis evolved together into homo erectus in an anagenetic manner.
Do you not see how you just contradicted yourself? 'It's not like evolution, it's like evolution!' It's both finely detailed and broad, just like any other scientific theory.

>What's more, it's both a prediction of the future of a unique system and a theory about why what will happen will happen.
So are most scientific theories.

>Climate science has, of course, no track record of predicting global climate change, even in the short term.
Lie.

>Nobody predicted the "pause" in global warming, as measured, and there was no general agreement on when to expect the "resumption".
If you lchoose arbitrary timeframes you can find such "pauses" throughout the record. There is nothing there to predict as this is purely random variation which you interpret as significant solely because you chose what information to consider and ignore. So this is a red herring. Climatologists are not predicting random variation, they are predicting the long term trend, successfully.

[Anonymous No.8216712]

>>8216675
>Yes, it may take some international agreements. I'm talking on a massive scale.
For this to happen, there would have to be a complete turnaround in political pressure, and internationally.

The US are crucial in this as they are among the top 2 emitters together with China and also have international influence. But the rise of Trumpism and the general denial industry in the US is pointing in the opposite direction. Even in Europe, there is an influx of denialism in politics that didn't exist in this form a few years ago.

[Anonymous No.8216716]

>>8216630
>Every year is its own surprise.
See, this just proves my point about the red herring. You don't even understand what you're trying to argue against.

>Many AGW "scientists" insisted that if urgent, extreme action were not taken decades ago, today the world would be in the midst of some sort of biblical disaster.
Who?

And I see you completely ignored the key point I made, which is that your argument is solely made up of conspiracy logic which can be applied to any science you don't want to believe. Your argument is substance-less. You lose.

[Anonymous No.8216722]

>>8216630
>untestable assumptions, framing issues which can only be fairly characterized as belonging in the realm of philosophy, and predicting the behavior of a vast, ancient, chaotic system influenced by variables currently beyond our powers of observation.

Uh, no. Having studied climate and earth systems for 2 1/2 years I can be honest that they are not nearly as difficult as you claim. You claim they're difficult because
1. You don't understand them yourself
2. You hope to win by claiming they're too hard for anyone.

They are quite testable and your 'pause' evidence isn't even supported by reality.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-pause-in-global-warming/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/06/15/a-pause-in-global-warming-not-really/#31f21f375c22
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33006179

But let me guess. They're lying right? Because that's what scientists do right? Lie about things so they can easily be discredited.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8216726]

>>8216712
Yep.

[Anonymous No.8216733]

>>8216722
THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON THE PAUSE
Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”

Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research –2010
Does the Global Warming Pause in the Last Decade: 1999-2008?
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;….Themodels did not provide answers to the physical causes for warming pause. The mechanism still remains controversial….”

Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
The role of natural climatic variation in perturbing the observed global mean temperature trend
“Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”

Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
“…Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides…”

Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”

[Anonymous No.8216735]

>>8216733
Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 15 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
__________________
Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
Global Temperature Update Through 2012
“…The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing…”
columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
__________________
Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 1 March 2013
“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”

Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”

Met Office – July 2013
“The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
….Executive summary
The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”
Source: metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8216737]

>>8216733
>>8216735

Quote as many 1% fringe nutters as you want. Does nothing to demolish the consensus. And your other arguments are bad.

[Anonymous No.8216739]

>>8216735
Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
Climate change: The case of the missing heat
Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.
“Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”

Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
Climate change: The case of the missing heat
Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.
“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…

Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
“A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist……“Now it’s something to explain.”…..

Dr. Jana Sillmann et al – IopScience – 18 June 2014
Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming hiatus
“This regional inconsistency between models and observations might be a key to understanding the recent hiatus in global mean temperature warming.”

Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth et al – Nature Climate Change – 11 July 2014
Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming
Factors involved in the recent pause in the rise of global mean temperatures are examined seasonally. For 1999 to 2012, the hiatus in surface warming is mainly evident in the central and eastern Pacific…….atmospheric circulation anomalies observed globally during the hiatus.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8216740]

>>8216737
>>8216739
Alternatively, you may just be quote-mining. I don't care enough to look.

[Anonymous No.8216741]

>>8216739
Dr. Young-Heon Jo et al – American Meteorological Society – 24 October 2014
Climate signals in the mid to high latitude North Atlantic from altimeter observations
“…..Furthermore, the low-frequency variability in the SPG relates to the propagation of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) variations from the deep-water formation region to mid-latitudes in the North Atlantic, which might have the implications for recent global surface warming hiatus.”

__________________
Dr. Hans Gleisner – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 January 2015
Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends…..Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global-mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes can not explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the pre-hiatus period….

__________________
Dr. Hervé Douville et al – Geophysical Research Letters – 10 February2015
The recent global-warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?
The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper-range transient response of the current-generation global climate models….

__________________
Dr. Veronica Nieves – Science – 31 July 2015
Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating
Recent modeling studies have proposed different scenarios to explain the slowdown in surface temperature warming in the most recent decade…..

[Anonymous No.8216743]

>>8212565
>What can we do about climate change?
>Anything?

Either nothing will happen, or we're fucked.

Seriously, sit back and eat your popcorn, and watch as either nothing happens, or the world goes to shit.

[Anonymous No.8216746]

>>8216737
Even Michael Mann and Co admit it:
Fyfe, John C., et al. "Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown." Nature Climate Change 6.3 (2016): 224-228.

And did you see the Trenberth citations.

You're so tied to your dogma you can't even get your facts straight.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8216748]

>>8216746
Please. I didn't even half read what you wrote. I stopped reading your shit seriously after this:

>>8216630
>It's not hard like particle physics is hard, it's hard like psychology is hard. You're dealing with untestable assumptions, framing issues which can only be fairly characterized as belonging in the realm of philosophy, and predicting the behavior of a vast, ancient, chaotic system influenced by variables currently beyond our powers of observation.

I'm not giving a fuck what you say right now, because you're an idiot, who's spamming, and who ought to be banned for spamming.

[Anonymous No.8216749]

>>8216740
> I just got BTFO

[Anonymous No.8216753]

>>8216748
>>>8216746
>Please. I hate being shown to be utterly wrong.
FTFY

[Anonymous No.8216763]

>>8216743
Well, considering the Arctic sea ice is already melting away, nothing will not happen.

[Anonymous No.8217015]

Do you think deniers will still be around 40 years ago after we all got a nice fucking?

[Anonymous No.8217017]

>>8217015
Flat-earthers still exist.

[Anonymous No.8217177]

>>8216748
>I can't even half read what you wrote.
typical

[Anonymous No.8217202]

>rising greenhouse gas concentrations
stop all human activity
change nothing
GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

[Anonymous No.8217217]

>>8217202
That's fucking dumb
If earths temperature would rise by 1%, it would be 3°C hotter

[Anonymous No.8217225]

>>8217217
Earth was like 5c hotter during the Jurassic wasnt it?

[Anonymous No.8217515]

>>8217225
GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

[Anonymous No.8217528]

As automation increases and as populations with access to proper education increase in size and we learn (hopefully) how to better educate and motivate individuals, a lot more people will be placed in positions of skilled work and research.

I think global warming will be looked back upon as a problem that, once push came to shove, was solved relatively easily through a combination of innovations such as artificial carbon re-absorbtion and perhaps high-scale artificial ozone production, if it comes to that.

To be honest, I don't even care whether or not climate change is real; if it is, it wager that it will be solved and in a manner that we would consider today to be 'surprisingly easier than we would have thought'.

Climate change is not an existential threat to humans, not even close.

[Anonymous No.8217532]

>>8217515
This shows that CO2 levels seem to have an affect on global temperature (see CO2 drop @ 390m y/ago and CO2 rise @ 260m y/ago) but that there exist other factors that come into play over hundreds of millions of years that have a more noticeable effect on temperature.

What's your point?

[Anonymous No.8217607]

>>8213683
>CO2 increase is more beneficial than harmful
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.8217630]

>>8217607
Plants love CO2 f a m

[Anonymous No.8217646]

>>8216749
Uh no, again at no point in time was he BTFO. Mister poopy pants here
>>8216739
>>8216735
>>8216733
Is quoting papers up to 2013. Which have been overturned by recent data.

Do you understand that science learns things? That sometimes mistakes are made and later corrected? That as technology improves our understanding of the world increases?

No. Apparently you don't. Because after I quoted news articles about the fact that they discovered errors in data around 2014-2015 that no pause existed you quote a bunch of sources from before the error was discovered about how it's not.

That's grade school levels of mistakes there mate. Are you a grade schooler?

And let me guess again, you're going to claim that the discovery of errors in data is all a lie, because that's how scientists want to be remembered for all history, as liars.

[Anonymous No.8217652]

>>8217646
ur rhetoric is crap lol

[Anonymous No.8217713]

>>8216666
They form shitty carbonate salts and etc.,

[Anonymous No.8217848]

cw-7

[Anonymous No.8217900]

>>8212565
>green energy, carbon taxing, carbon trading, carbon recapture,

Literally none of this will work. Right now there are three options:
>Migrate towards nuclear
>hope bio diesel takes off
>Invest in large scale geoenginering projects

Since none (but the second) seem to be going anywhere, we're stuck on this course.

[Anonymous No.8218946]

>>8217646
>Do you understand that science learns things? That sometimes mistakes are made and later corrected? That as technology improves our understanding of the world increases?

Do you understand that a pause is a pause is a pause? Even if its 3 years later. That means there was a pause up until 3 years ago, at the very least. The only crap you're talking about is the NOAA replacing good buoy SST data with bad (ship intake - which is warmed by the intake) data to reach a bogus conclusion.

Sorry that dozens of scientists, many of them with outstanding credentials admitted there was a pause. And again, Michael Mann has a 2016 PUBLICATION admitting the pause.

Fyfe, John C. Mann, Michael, et al. "Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown." Nature Climate Change 6.3 (2016): 224-228.

The only thing you guys can do is rewrite history to maintain your unfalsifiable belief system. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.8218969]

>>8217646
This is what happens when you tamper data >>8218946
and maintain a delusional level of reality denial:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/

Climate nutters trapped in the Arctic. Belief in a pseudo-science can be dangerous to your health.

[Anonymous No.8218978]

>>8218946
>>8218969
So your argument is what, that warming has stopped?

Because it hasn't. There is more evidence that warming has continued even if we remove raw temperature data.

How do you explain the loss of ice glaciers and overall snow in the world if it's not still warming?

Oh wait, you can't.

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/snow-ice/index.html

The person denying reality is yourself.

[Anonymous No.8219299]

Only keep stations in and near cities and airports: save funds, harvest the urban heat island effect. Win-win situation. (Pic src D'Aleo)

[Anonymous No.8221016]

>>8214321

Ohh, my fag-meter just exploded.

[Anonymous No.8221062]

>>8219299
Can't find any source for that even with your cryptic hint, image seems to have just circulated through a series of denialism blogs

How about that

[Anonymous No.8221071]

>>8216360

You sir, is an idiot.

So those evil plants that crave co2 DON'T want non-natural, non-gluten-free dirty c12, 13, 15, 16.. only good, nice, non-stale c14.

You don't even understand those words...

Peace and love.

[Anonymous No.8221104]

>>8219299
>that "graph"
what the fuck is it even saying

will the next iteration have numbers on top too?

[Anonymous No.8221106]

Climate Change is nothing but a globalist or internationalist scare tactic.

[Anonymous No.8221112]

>>8221106
lol, it has wide ecological impacts, which should share the spotlight with climate change.

[Anonymous No.8221117]

>>8221112
Who cares


are you worried about extinct species too?

pleb thinker.

[Anonymous No.8221120]

>>8221117
read this

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

[Anonymous No.8221123]

>>8221106
>>8221117

Oh also nice attempt at "exposing the conspiracy" which people will obviously disagree with and take the reverse position to you're obviously facile ideas, yet this would focus their attention only on the climate whilst being blind to all else that moves, hence your attempt at damage control.

[Anonymous No.8221165]

>>8221123
checked for my age, this it also what /pol/'s "red pilling" is, kissing ass pretty much.

[Anonymous No.8221171]

>>8221120
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecologically_sustainable_development

It's pointless

20-30 more years of oil/coal won't ruin earth.

[Anonymous No.8221172]

>>8221171
Do you even know what ecology means? or the scales it's focused upon.

[Anonymous No.8221858]

>>8216541
>You bullshitters
no U

[Anonymous No.8222829]

>>8218978
>>>8218946
>>>8218969
>So your argument is what, that warming has stopped?

Nice strawman argument buddy. I said there was a pause; in global temperatures. Pic related, not to mention all the scholarly sources I have already cited.

Stop trying to change the subject.

[Anonymous No.8223109]

>>8214179
>solving global warming with thermonuclear weapons

Damn you're a genius

[Anonymous No.8223135]

EN was damn short. When the coming LN lets the trend point down, will the climate changers commit sudoku?

[Anonymous No.8223143]

>>8221104
hello there, undergrad

temperature scale is on the left, number of stations on the right. this is very common in graphs trying to show correlation for values on different scales.

you're welcome

[Anonymous No.8223162]

>>8223143
>hello there, undergrad
did you just start grad school or something?

[Anonymous No.8223189]

>>8223109
Go big or go home. Also, if that nuclear winter hypothesis happens to be true after all, we'll get even more decrease in temperature.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.8223556]

>>8218969
>tamper data
Seriously, you're just as bad as moon landing hoaxers.

[Anonymous No.8223916]

>>8219299
We found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed. Unfortunately, when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected. - Guoyu Rean, National Climate Centre (NCC) of China, Beijing

[Anonymous No.8224040]

"These models can't even predict what happened in the past, doesn't that ring alarm bells in your mind about trusting this as a policy tool?"

"Even if climate models were correct, a 50% reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions by 2050 would avert only 0.07°C of warming by 2100."

Pic: There's one notable outlier in this collection: The Russian INM-CM4 was the only model that came close to observations.

Source: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf

[Anonymous No.8224075]

>>8212565

Theoretically we could stop climate change,
but we will not, coz we're dumb.

[Anonymous No.8224261]

>>8222829
t. Ted Cruz

you just have to ask the statisticians from your source (Remote sensing systems). They will tell you that this pause is completely horse crap.

if you take a micro-trend of just over decade, starting with the large warming from the El Nino 1998/1999, you can basically manufacture any short-term trend you want. Climatologists don't do that, they take a moving average over multiple decades to discern the long-term trend

[Anonymous No.8224264]

The Russian propaganda channel RT pushes global warming alarmism aggressively.

I wonder why Putin would want the West to divest from fossil fuels... hm....

[Anonymous No.8224276]

Nothing can be done at this point. Even if we stop fossil fuel altogether this instant.
Just sit back and enjoy the droughs, century storms, and resulting food shortages.

[Anonymous No.8224325]

>>8224264
I'm pretty sure he doesn't, seeing that the entire fucking Russian economy is dependent on fossil fuel exports.

[Anonymous No.8224333]

Aside from all this, is there any evidence towards global warming ?

[Anonymous No.8224354]

>>8224333
CO2 is a liberal hoax.

[Anonymous No.8224373]

>>8212565
I don't care since either i become an immortal cyborg or i die.
Either way, no fucks to give.

Besides, Humanity will be fine.
Sure, i'd be worried about the collapse of the west through subhuman importation, but since homogeneous Japan exist and will exist for the foreseeable future, no amount of climate change will eradicate technological civilisation.
If anything, it'll make sure subhumans die off, either due to the climate of their harassment of human civilisation triggerring a genocidal purge.

[Anonymous No.8224412]

>>8216666
>what is chemistry

[Anonymous No.8224434]

>>8216666
CaSiO3 + 2CO2 + 2H2O => CaCO3 + SiO2 + CO2 + 2H2O

[Anonymous No.8224575]

>>8224333
Yes. RSS land, last 19 years (includes current El Niño):
#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00185447°C per year
Slope may become negative by the end of the year.
The Alberta Government intends to impose a Carbon Indulgence of C$20/tCO2 on of January 1, 2017, and C$30/tCO2 on January 1, 2018.
Global Warmers think that the man-made contribution to the greenhouse effect of 0.3% drives the climate.

[Anonymous No.8224582]

>>8224575
>sample size: 19 years
damn, that's dumb

[Anonymous No.8224693]

>>8212620
>largest extinction event EVER
What in the fuck are you smoking? You have a source for that? I think the dinosaurs would disagree with you.

[Anonymous No.8224752]

>>8224693
The big one that got the dinosaurs ain't got shit to the Permian Extinction. That one killed over 90% of all species on Earth. Obviously the current ongoing extinction doesn't top that. It doesn't even come close to any of the "big five" extinction events in Earth's history.

[Anonymous No.8224761]

>>8223162
Yeah, he probably should've said "high school student" as I could read those graphs in undergrad

[Anonymous No.8224777]

>>8212620
What do you actually do out of curiosity

[Anonymous No.8224815]

>>8224575
>le 0.3% meme
This is such an idiotic lie you have to be delusional to keep repeating it.

[Anonymous No.8224824]

>>8224582
Always start at the Little Ice Age.

[Anonymous No.8224835]

>>8224815
I rounded it up.

[Anonymous No.8225453]

>>8224261
>I got my ass kicked over the temperature pause, so I'm moving the goal-posts. >>8216733 , >>8216735 , >>8216739
>Climatologists don't do that, they take a moving average over multiple decades to discern the long-term trend

Yes they do. Several Climate "Scientists did exactly that. However, since Climate Change is an unfalsifiable pseudo-science, they simply moved the goal posts when their prediction utterly failed. As I've said before, There was no warming in the troposphere for more than 18 years. Prof. Ben Santer said that 17 years was enough time to wait, because then you are outside the 95% confidence interval of the models. (2.5% chance to one side of the interval).
"Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global‐mean tropospheric temperature."

Paper: Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale. 2011, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105

The NOAA said 15 years is enough:
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
Paper: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

15 years is long enough for climate scientist Phil Jones of Hadley Climate Research Unit:
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
Source: http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4199.txt

The pause is statistically robust: McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050

[Anonymous No.8226845]

>>8225453
When you read through the FOIA stuff you can get the impression that these guys are essentially clueless about what's going on and are desperately trying to hide that behind a forged PR consensus.

"Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not got enough middle and low level clouds." (4443.txt)
"There has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. But, there has not been a statistically significant cooling since 2001 either." (news.bbc.co.uk)

Patience, Phil, the 'pause' is not over yet. And then there's this nasty solar activity -> cosmic rays -> clouds thing. You just can't predict the future state of a nonlinear chaotic system: thus spoke the IPCC.

[Anonymous No.8228126]

>>8226845

CERN's CLOUD experiment provides unprecedented insight into cloud formation.
CERN Press Release No.15, 2011.

*ring ring ring*

"Sir, Mr. Funding wants to have a word with you."

Minutes later:

"I have asked the CERN colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters." - Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN, Welt Online 15 July 2011.

[Anonymous No.8228716]

>>8212565
>What can we do about climate change?
We can prepare our people, our crops,
and our livestock for the coming change.

[Anonymous No.8228722]

>>8212565
you need to plant more plants and do seapipes

[Anonymous No.8228736]

>>8213384
The glaciers aren't melting, they are growing at a decreased rate.

[Anonymous No.8228824]

>>8224835
This tells us the current balance, it does not tells us the change which produces the effect. Man-made contribution to warming is more than 100% of the warming because without the man-made contribution, CO2 would actually be decreasing. The change in CO2 we have caused in a hundred years would take tens of thousands of years to occur naturally. So yes, it is a complete lie to say that this cannot drive the climate because you have not shown what drives the climate, you have shown a snapshot of the climate.

[Anonymous No.8228840]

>>8228736
Surface Mass Budget of the Greenland Ice Sheet

The accumulated surface mass balance from September 1st to now (blue line, Gt) and the season 2011-12 (red) which had very high summer melt in Greenland. Melt season starts in June and ends in August.

[Anonymous No.8228857]

>>8216654

>what could possibly go wrong

[Anonymous No.8228922]

>>8212690
>iron seeding could fuck us even worse
How so?

The amount of that is actually sequestered and not simply biodegrades back to CO2 needs to be studied. Also there may be ideal locations where biodegradation is minimal due to the plankton falling into rather anoxic water. But it all seems feasible to help mitigate humanity's carbon footprint.

Significantly cutting in to humanity's carbon footprint for just tens of billions of dollars sounds like a bargain to me.

[Anonymous No.8228958]

>>8228922
Because we have no idea whatsoever what other things happen when you seed the ocean with iron. The consequences of geoengineering can be worse and until we're certain we don't want to try.

[Anonymous No.8228964]

>>8224040
>mid troposphere

This is like saying 'but it's not warming in my home state as much as the global average, therefore global warming is a myth'

[Anonymous No.8228966]

>>8222829
.>>8225453

There is no pause, do you understand that?

Google 'Ocean Heat Content' you uneducated buffoon

[Anonymous No.8228974]

>>8228958
Hence the studying beforehand. We should be putting a lot more thought into it than we are currently. The only explanation why we aren't currently because it would upset the current carbon credit economic interests. And if it works out governments would have no excuse not to throw billions of dollars at it to mitigate global warming instead of making token effort and just hoping for the best.

[Anonymous No.8229109]

>>8228974
Seeding iron in the Pacific may not pull carbon from air as thought
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-seeding-iron-pacific-carbon-air.html
Earlier this month, British researchers published a study showing how much still remains to be discovered: they observed that big icebergs increasingly calving off Antarctica are releasing vast trails of iron as they melt, triggering algae blooms for hundreds of miles — a possible mechanism that one could speculate might eventually push back against the manmade forces implicated in the calving.

[Anonymous No.8229218]

>>8229109
>But the researchers in the new study say that increased algae growth in one area can inhibit growth elsewhere. This is because ocean waters are always on the move, and algae also need other nutrients, such as nitrates and phosphates. Given heavy doses of iron, algae in one region may suck up all those other nutrients; by the time the water circulates elsewhere, it has little more to offer, and adding iron doesn't do anything. The study appears today in the leading journal Nature.
Obviously we just need to put those other nutrients in the seeding shipment The question then becomes if we add a proportional amount of nitrates and such how many more supertankers of material will we need?

Also, placement of the blooms may matter. IF there is an ideal spot where a bloom would cause the sequestration of a lot of carbon and then sink to some spot where it won't significantly decompose then the fact that nutrients are being stolen from other parts of the ocean where it would decompose doesn't matter strictly from the perspective of sequestration.

There are historical instances of where the right location and the right plants lead to significant reductions in CO2. Look at the Azolla event. If we can simulate that in today's oceans then we may be able to sequester a LOT of CO2.

[Anonymous No.8229233]

>>8229218
Algae blooms can be very beneficial but they can also devastate the ecosystem.

In some areas algae blooms actually play a big part of the ecosystem as well. For instance at certain times of the year a lot of nutrient rich dust gets blown up from the Sahara desert and into the South American rain forest as well as the Atlantic Ocean. This dust acts like fertilizer and plays a role in sustaining the rain forest. Furthermore the algae blooms they cause have some role in mediating different fish populations and feeding frenzies (I don't remember the details). The point is that blooms are essential to the ecosystem to the point that if someone were to somehow stop dust from blowing in from the Sahara it could be devastating to fish in the Atlantic Ocean as well as wildlife and plant life in the rain forest.

[Anonymous No.8229234]

>I believe in climate change

Google: "academic dissent over climate change" lmao. I can't believe there is a thread on sci about a literal meme

[Anonymous No.8229386]

>>8212565
My vegan friend told me to watch "cowspiracy" it said that if we stop eating meat we will save earth and also that animals which we eat are extremely unecologic. Is anything true about it?

[Anonymous No.8229437]

>>8229386
un-mulls-fart-tax-methane
after watching the cowspiracy do a search?q=lierre+keith+the+vegetarian+myth

Q: Why are so many vegetarians mentally unstable?
A: Wrong diet, imbalanced brain chemistry.

[Anonymous No.8229485]

>>8229437
What should I search?

[Anonymous No.8229492]

>>8229386
Yea, maintaining livestock like cows is bad for the environment because it's super inefficient. Hopefully in the future people discover ways to efficiently manufacture the meat without the cow.

[Anonymous No.8229686]

>>8229437
>Lierre Keith
>On MY 4chan?
>>8229386
>>8229485
By all means, read The Vegetarian Myth. Read any of Keith's work. She an anarcho-primitivist and radical feminist who thinks most of society's problems are caused by pornography and who had an eating disorder she pretended was veganism until being vegan wasn't punk anymore, at which point she got into beef stew and wrote a book of baseless ramblings about how being vegan is actually bad for the environment, against all evidence to the contrary, in order to sooth her bleeding heart over her newfound taste for meat.

I have never seen Cowspiracy. Apparently it exaggerates the magnitude of agriculture's effect on climate change as a whole. However raising animals on plants in order to eat their bodies and secretions is thermodynamically extremely inefficient (the larger the animal the less efficient as a rule of thumb).

[Anonymous No.8229706]

>>8229437
Is a vegan diet healthy?
>All major health organizations say yes
>Uneducated uppity professional protestor who is only known outside of her friend group because of her decades of dedicated retardation says no

What was that you were saying about mental instability?

[Anonymous No.8229782]

>>8229233
Cutting off a finger to save the arm.