So global warming is real and all that but is it really worth freaking out about? It seems to get way too much attention.
>It seems to get way too much attention.
lol so true!!!
Who needs to live above ground anyway!
![meme_lol_008_by_sofidesiings-d4yfbn5[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/DKq1dW6.png "meme_lol_008_by_sofidesiings-d4yfbn5[1].png")
>>8090404
>Thinking man kind can destroy God's creation
Being a bit egocentric aren't we?
>>8090404
It could potentially turn the Earth into Venus 2.0, through a chain reaction as >>8090459 said.
It's not perfectly understood, though, so we don't know how far along we are or what the largest cause of it is.
>earth could turn into venus if we dont act soon
ITT, the latest tack from the deniosphere: It's happening, and it might even be manmade, but it's not that big a deal.
Do you even have a single original thought among the lot of you?
>is it really worth freaking out about?
I try not to stress over things that are out of my control. As the Earth warms it melts methane ice and the permafrost which releases co2. It's currently a chain reaction that is "out of our control." Hence no, it's not worth freaking out about.
>>8090404
Sustainable energy would have intrinsic merits even if climate change were moving in the opposite direction.
Getting a bunch of normies on board by scaring them isn't such a bad thing.
>>8090404
We re fucked imo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-cVI1Mao9U
>>8090468
50 to 200 years isn't tomorrow, but it's not a long time for human societies or the Earth itself.
I'm actually confidant that increasingly efficient solar and nuclear power sources will prevent us from going over the edge completely without a lot of government pressure. Economics alone dictates that sometime this century oil will become an unreasonably expensive energy source.
I fear for the ecological damage we will cause before that happens, though. I'd like to have some natural beauty left to enjoy by the time I retire.
>>8090404
I'm not exactly a climate change denier but it seems pretty obvious to me that alarmists are fucking retarded.
Back when earth day first became a national holiday a group of intellectuals from all realms of academia came together and compiled a list of the most provocative claims about the future of our civilization. Including but not limited to:
>Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
> “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
> “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
>>8090485
If you're interested in reading more of this dog shit
https://fee.org/articles/18-spectacularly-wrong-prophecies-from-the-first-earth-day/
>>8090480
The cost of solar is about to go negative in 5-10 years and currently your panels will pay for themselves in four.
I'm not too worried. Unfortunately the manufacturing process isn't the cleanest.
>>8090485
>people with the most extreme viewpoints are dumb
Imagine that.
>>8090485
To be fair, we've massively increased our agricultural output of our farmland in response to those statements. You should be arguing that those alarmist statements helped us advert catastrophe.
>>8090496
>Imagine that
Imagine if these extreme viewpoints were the mainstream. Sure, that's a bit of an exaggeration but governments are taking extreme measures based off of the advice of people who hold similarly extreme viewpoints (albeit not quite as retarded).
>>8090490
>The cost of solar is about to go negative in 5-10 years and currently your panels will pay for themselves in four.
Yeah, solar is gonna be huge real soon. Unlike oil and coal, it just keeps getting cheaper, which means that for the people who OWN all that oil and coal the best decision will be to sell out, which will crash the price to lower than the cost of extraction - thus dooming the industry to niche applications.
>>8090404
As a sociopath, I don't think we should overreact to global warming. The evidence suggests that it will bring about a mass-extinction event, but I am skeptical that this will be significant enough to bring down first world countries. I think we will band together and pull through, but most third world countries will be completely obliterated. Especially if we become oil independent or in other ways remove ourselves from those other third world countries.
>>8090499
>implying that alarmist statements increased agricultural output rather than increased demand for food as a result of a growing population
>>8090499
forgot my pic
We've increased our yields without increasing farmlands.
>>8090505
The thing with people who support eugenics or welcome the apocalypse is they always assume that they would survive
>>8090505
1st world countries rely on their natural resources or land. If the land become an arid desert and is unfarmable, or worse, too hot to support human life then the the only countries with real power will be those in position near the poles. Canada will be the rulers of the new world order. Now if you excuse me I need to transfer all my USD to CAD.
>>8090426
Don't you have some infidels to slay or something?
Q: What will be the new narrative when the glacial rebound begins?
A: Climate Change 2.0
>>8090496
In Australia we had a scientist called Tim Flannery who was ringing the alarm bell around the late 90's/early 00's... He said outrageous stuff that was proven to be outright lies within a few years, he predicted that our dams would be completely dry by now and so on... The guy won 'Australian of the Year', a fairly large prize, received millions in funding, was on the news constantly, and advised governments directly leading to them introducing laws regarding climate change....
He was the mainstream.
He has never had to explain his lies that have been proven wrong by time.
>>8090511
140 IQ from any online test
excellent memory
great spatiolateralized creativity and problem solving
visual acuteness of a 7 year old boy
think outside the box on a daily basis
5'11 own a home gym
BSc and theoretically a PhD if i applied myself (smart but lazy)
hobby is watching aikido instructional videos and practicing wing chun
frequently hike and walk trails in the mountains
can start a fire with a match and wood
think i'd do ok bud
>>8090524
Okay, were they lies, or was he just wrong? I'm not trying to be an apologist for the guy, I'm just asking that even though he was wrong, how much damage did he do?
>>8090523
>Governments are doing N O T H I N G
You clearly know nothing about environmental regulation and the bureaucratic cluster fuck that is the EPA. Billions in subsidies to solar energy firms have not created a single practical solar panel. All they've accomplished is furthering government involvement in the economy through cronyism.
>>8090474
how the hell did they calculate the global temperature in 1850
>>8090529
>have not created a single practical solar panel
I literally make solar panels. They are very practical. The efficiency rises every month, and the savings on your energy bill will pay for your panels in four years or less. Companies like musk's solar city even offer financing options for them.
You're an idiot and you don't know anything about what you're talking about.
>>8090541
They drill out rods of ice at the pole and there is gas pockets of old atmosphere in the ice from those timeframes and they use that as a base
>>8090527
>theoretically a PhD if i applied myself
>>8090543
and you're a pathetic faggot who works in a dead end industry. The only reason solar panels are marginally affordable is because they are heavily subsidized by the government. These subsidizes have been going on for literally decades but despite this the companies who receive them still haven't been able to sustain themselves.
>>8090474
This is sorta worthless unless it goes back to... about 900-1000, since Little Ice Age is a thing.
150 years isn't worth anything in this kind of measurement either.
>>8090544
wat
>>8090527
> has home gym
> convinced he will survive the apocalypse
>>8090548
Every form of energy is heavily subsidized, including fossil fuel. Did you simply ignore that or are you just hilariously uninformed in what you're trying to argue about?
www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
>The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money.
>Dr. Soon also received at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (Mr. Koch’s fortune derives partly from oil refining.) However, other companies and industry groups that once supported Dr. Soon, including Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, appear to have eliminated their grants to him in recent years.
>allegedly accepted $1.2 million over the past 14 years from energy companies
Who's more full of shit? Climate change deniers or climate change alarmists?
I keep hearing climate change alarmists are lying because there's money in alternative energies. But which side is really more corrupted by money?
>>8090553
educate yourself retard
they are called ice cores
I'd say this debate over global warming is heating up.
>>8090562
I hadn't heard of this but it seems odd to me that a trait reflecting temperature could possibly be preserved in ice of all things. Why does it not work past 150 years? There are glaciers older than that right?
>>8090577
They measure the carbon dioxide and methane content among other things in the trapped air bubbles and construct a model
They dont actually measure the temperature of the ice you fucking tool
>>8090577
these are the same kinds of people that say global warming is a hoax because it still snows outside
>>8090560
>But which side is really more corrupted by money?
Probably the side that has more money and is in danger of losing it.
>>8090577
I know right?! If there was no ice 150 years ago then clearly the temperature was warmer in the past. If anything the earth is getting colder as there's more ice core samples being drilled out today than 150 years ago.
It's ok to be against global warming, but still be pro oil and coal...
Of course we will use those less and less as fuel, but what about synthetic work for medicines that require hydrocarbons present in oil? ...or synthesis of carbon nanotubes with pure carbon? ...or solvents needed for QA/QC that are distilled from oil?
I think the coal and oil industry need to evolve with respect to who they are supplying, not what they are providing.
>>8090474
I honestly want to kill myself
Neither trump, nor Clinton are doing anything to help fix the environment so we dont die.
Fuck why cant we all just fund musk's, mars program so we can have a way out.
>>8090876
the US probably isn't even in the top ten contributors to pollution you moron
>>8090906
>probably
try google you child, we discuss actual data that exists in science
>>8090910
good point
http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Plastic-Debris-Entering-World-Oceans-Million-Metric-Tons-Per-Year_chartbuilder.png
>>8090404
If you had any sense of foresight. It's showing no signs of stopping and has tremendous momentum, it's going to keep going long after we decide it's a problem.
>>8090485
That was actually a reasonable statement. The effects of the green revolution wouldn't be seen until a few decades later.
>>8090876
idiot, mars is worse than a million more years of global warming x10 the current levels on earth
>>8090553
You can date and generate paleo-environmental reconstructions from rocks and ice samples. It's relatively easy to understand but harder in practice..... Result repetitions create a set model however, so you might do a dozen samples of each piece but it's very accurate.
>>8090958
It isn't a problem and it won't become a problem.
If you want to feel guilty about something then try particulate air pollution instead. But I guess it's hard to care about an issue with solutions instead of whining like a bitch about the boogeyman and asking your politicians to be your parents and fix the problem through some magic nonexistent blue sky solution.
>>8090527
Is this a pasta?
>>8090462
>>8091314
>The heat already kills oldmen.
>Some first world countries recomend drinking water often now; it's easy to get dehydrated.
>It's obvious that the global temperature has increased.
>It's not a problem.
If merica doesn't suffer the same consequences due to the Niño fenomena, mericans will always say the same: what global warming?
>>8090964
Actually Mars pretty cold
>>8091409
>heatstroke and dehydration didn't exist before the industrial era, we didn't even need to drink water before global warming happened!
It's obviously not a real problem when your arguments for it are so obviously fallacious.
so how bad is global warming going to be? Should we worry?
>>8090527
>yfw the greatet asset of humans is banding together
>yfw Chads with great social skill will still survive you not because they are smarter than you but because they can gather people that make them survive
It is because governments aren't really doing anything to stop it
http://youtu.be/eNx9tvCrvv8
>>8091468
Your counterargument contains the fallacy, friend.
>>8091510
no
It's because oil/coal/natural gas companies are spending billions on misinformation, propaganda, and lobbying to keep them in power. Their efforts will have diminishing returns however. Eventually they'll have to jump ship and join the alternative energy business. At which point they will have already cornered the market on alternative energy. Unless they're to be held accountable for the damages they've caused that is.
>>8091637
thats completely fucking bullshit
The only thing oil/natural gas(coal is fucking ded btw) are lobbying against is nuclear
The thing holding "alternative" energy back is the fact its a gigantic scam
>>8091671
>muh oil
>>8091671
What the fuck is the scam behind generating power from the sun?
Explain to me how relying on natural processes that take less than a few million years is a fucking scam.
>>8091671
>its a gigantic scam
thx for your detailed input on the flaws of solar, wind, nuclear, and other alternatives.
>>8091778
>technology doesn't improve
>>8091758
the scam is people who are making money from government incentives towards unprofitable "renewable" energy sources
>>8091778
but oil doesn't generate any power at all. It merely releases stored energy.
>>8091778
nuclear does generate quite a bit less than good heaven-infused oil, i guess you've got me there
>>8090404
test
>>8090404
Global warming is real and negligible. I do think that the solution is to increase cleanliness, formality, Christianity, Mathematics, and science. The problem is not difficult.
[email protected]
>>8091846
Explain to me why you have quotes around renewable.
>>8091879
because theres nothing renewable about it
Uses lots of rare materials that have finite supply limits
>>8091884
Do you know where silicon comes from?
And are you implying that coal, natural gas, or oil don't use lots of rare materials with finite supply limits?
>>8091875
get a load of this loser
>>8090568
underrated
>>8091778
The sun provides way more energy that we would ever need
The problem has always been one of conversion efficiency. As technology improves it will become viable. It's a simple concept.
>>8092017
>scientist's try to solve energy problems with fusion reactor
>world's largest fusion reactor literally hanging in plain sight freely available to everyone
>no way to tap into it efficiently
If you were to build a fusion reactor to generate electricity, what would be the best way to tap into it? Why not then just employ that method to harnessing solar energy?
>>8092201
Believe it or not, distance from the power source is very important. We would not be getting energy from light from a fusion generator, but infrared heat. Now try powering your car with just the heat from the sun.
>>8092201
Solar energy is spread out too far to be easily collected.
Look up at the sun and hold your hand out.
Now light a match and hold it under your hand. Which is going to burn you quicker?
If you have a fusion reactor you can run a hell of a heat pump with it and turn a super good turbine with it. If you want to collect solar energy with turbine you need a thousand turbines just to equal that one, and they all cost just about the same. And we don't even have the materials we need to make them with a good EROEI. Come back to solar panels and wind mills in twenty more years of composite and semi conductor research.
I'd still rather have fusion, that's a lot of rare materials for a LOT of spread out collectors. I'd rather have one super good collector than a hundred thousand crappy ones.
>>8090485
It's what happens when politicians, looking for an excuse to expand their power, sunk their teeth into climate science. They fund the scientists screaming "DOOM!" less the government gets more power. And it doesn't help that some of the scientists have their ideological agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg
>>8092215
I don't think it's distance from the sun isn't the problem. The moon 253° F and it's roughly the same distance.
>>8092224
If you wanted to make a fusion powered heatpump put one on the moon and beam the energy back via microwave laser like those crazy Japs planned to do with sattelites with solar panels. Hot side of the moon is 253° F cold side is -243° F. Build 2 plants, one on each pole and not only do you have infinite power but you have a stepping stone to Mars for when Earth becomes too fucked up.
>>8092240
Put your tinfoil fedora back on.
>>8092201
Charge separation through photon capture (what solar panels do) IS the most efficient way. It is not practical to do that to man-made fusion reactors because of the mechanical challenges associated with constructing them in the first place.
>>8092272
Fuck you and your tinfoil hat reference.
Wealth redistribution has nothing to do with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste."-Rahm Emanuel
They want socialism and climate change is their excuse to implement it. If there is global warming, leaving these fuckers in charge would make the problem worse because they have incentive not to solve the problem. If the problem is solved, then who would let them redistribute the wealth.
There are real solutions to the problem of excess CO2 in the atmosphere that doesn't involve invoking the spirit of Karl Marx. Why else do you think leftists hates nuclear power and condemn the environmentalists who support it and lumping their with climate change "deniers"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/16/new-form-climate-denialism-dont-celebrate-yet-cop-21
You'd figure that out if you weren't so hellbent on being a good little libtard and following regressive left dogma.
>>8092272
> believes in global warming
> doesn't believe in politics
you're the one who has a tinfoil hat lmao.
>>8092395
Forgot religion, which is what AGW is, a new age variety, bigger and better than sky fairies of old. Scientist priests churning out irrefutable "data", carbon tithe which cuts right to chase, the element of life and of course the new heretic, a denier. God, this world is horrible and we are all filthy ignorant monkeys. Everyone wants to be a God.
I live in a cold country, some global warming would be nice. I'll let you know when to stop.
>>8092393
Not him. I've always supported nuclear energy, but it isn't the only solution to the problem. Carbon taxes also work well and you can do it without an increase in total taxes. Just increase carbon taxes while decreasing income taxes and it still works at decreasing emissions.
>>8092395
>believes in a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of government agencies around the world.
>doesn't believe that he wears a tinfoil hat
Even oil companies like Exxon and Shell believe in human induced climate change. They have their own climate scientists and do they're own research. But they seem to be more focused on natural gas as being the solution as opposed to nuclear and other alternative energy.
>>8092395
>doesn't believe in politics
top kek
>>8092393
In order to counterargue, you had to assume that I
- support socialism
- said anything about wealth redistribution
- don't support nuclear
Thorium is good, and I fully support it, but you're fucking stupid if you think that solar and wind power are worthless just because nuclear is also good.
>>8092744
>they seem to be more focused on natural gas as being the solution as opposed to nuclear and other alternative energy.
I wouldn't necessarily say that they think that natural gas is the solution, but more that it's a temporary way to make more money before alternatives take off and people don't need to make monthly payments to large companies for electricity.
>>8090544
Like this.
>>8090404
So is this like that scene in Prometheus when the AI dude holds up the hologram earth?
>>8091637
Oh yeah, look at those billions being spend by Oil companies on disinformation. Compared to organizations that will be $Billions in climate taxes
>>8093044
This "its a scheme to get money" idea makes no sense. If global warming weren't a thing, we would still spend shit tons on climate science because it is useful to have an extremely good understanding of the climate for economic and national security purposes. Furthermore, that budget is small compared to the funding of just Fermilab over the same time span. Research is expensive; that is why it is generally governments that do it.
For fucks sake, you SHOULD be worried about climate change. Very worried. It's people's arrogance seen in this thread that drives climate change: 'It's real but negligible' or 'it will sort itself out', or even, goddamn, 'someone else (governments) will'.
How blind can you be? This is the greatest threat humanity has even witnessed. Ironically born because of us.
John Kerry presented a fantastic synopsis on energy trends in the BNEF Global Summit, highlighting the transition from fossil-fuels to renewables. As great a change it is, it's not enough. Go watch it and see for yourself.
CLIMATE CHANGE WILL SKULL-FUCK US. THE FUTURE WILL BE GOD AWFUL. Don't fall prey to the easy, cheap allure fossil-fuel ideology. FUCK FUCK FUCK
>>8093086
Why would they spend it all on propaganda?
BTW, oil companies are mostly pro carbon taxes.
Why? Because it will bankrupt their competition, the coal companies.
>>8093065
You haven't heard about the U.N. demand for $100,000,000,000?
Every year.
Pay up to save the planet.
>>8090480
This is very much how we should all approach the situation
I don't think our technology is advanced enough to require nuclear power though
>>8090404
Global warming/climate change is the most serious existential threat and I honestly believe people do NOT take it seriously enough. Massive ecological events are happening in the ocean, the great barrier reef is pretty much dead, literally millions of starfish are dying next to california, and so on.
Scientism and futurology is part of the problem too. Everyone thinks science is going to come up with some magical cure. Science is NOT that capable. We need to change our mode of production and consumption, and fast if we want to pump the brakes on what's coming.
>>8093104
Sounds like carbon taxes are working as intended. I don't see anything wrong with this.
>>8090404
absolutely. We need to burn as much hydrocarbons as we can so we can test the hypothesis that we can turn Earth into Venus. It will be a horrible day for mankind(the free market will fix it), but a great day for astroclimatology.
>>8093129
>star fish boo hoo
Earth had more CO2 in the past and when it did everything was peachy. Go suck a bag of dicks. Plant life loves warming, animal life loves plant life.
You know what the single biggest ecological threat to the world is? Habitat loss and ocean pollution (non CO2 pollutants) go fix those things you asshat.
>>8093192
>the great dying was peachy
>>8093192
Yeah and there have been a bunch of huge extinctions. We won't wipe out life itself, we'll just wipe out ourselves you idiot.
Just gonna put this here.
>>8093129
>the great barrier reef is pretty much dead
Even David Attenborough said the recent reef death claims are overblown.
>>8093234
Who?
>>8093129
>literally millions of starfish are dying next to california
>google ''starfish California''
>headlines claiming their population is recovering
>>8093248
>being a weeb
if people reacted to the ozone tearing the same way as you are about the climate changing, then we'd be worse off than we are now
but as always, we need disasters to happen before change takes place
>>8093112
>it's all a conspiracy
Have you ever considered that maybe they're just concerned about climate change and wanted to fund ways to mitigate it, and that they believed that there was a net benefit to funding such efforts?
>>8093307
>arguing with deniers
>>8090520
Q: How much of the global warming is man-made?
A: 97%
Q: And the real part?
A: 4% (mostly CFCs)
>>8090520
>glacial rebound
oh look, it's THIS retard again.
GLACIAL REBOUND IS NOT A CLIMATOLOGICAL CHANGE, YOU DIMWIT
IT IS A REGIONAL RISE OF LANDMASSES DUE TO HYDROSTATIC EQUALIZATION RESULTING FROM THE UNLOADING OF ICE SHEETS FROM LANDMASSES.
If you're the same retard as last time, your response to this will be to make a bunch more posts insisting that glacial rebound is about to happen and that we'll all be sorry when the glaciers return, because you are apparently incapable of knowing what "glacial rebound" means even when it is explained to you.
8/10 I raeged
>>8093091
This.
I never expected much from this site, but if you're reading this and have the ability to do something, do it. You can still be a prick about it. Just do it. #fuckyouNike
>>8090876
we won't die, pham. If you're concerned about global warming go vegan but you definitely shouldn't kill yourself
>>8093565
That's post-glacial rebound. Glacial rebound is the upward adjustment of land masses outside the increasingly glaciated region. Soon in a theater near you. Have fun (and watch your blood pressure).
>>8093684
>Soon in a theater near you.
For geological values of "soon".
Today I learned that the bulk of /sci/ is retarded. Have any of you seriously even investigated both sides of the argument? Holy shit, at least check the ratio of climate change denial, that alone should be enough to make you actually neutral on the subject.
Percentage of people who deny man-made climate change:
Climate scientists not employed by their govs/un> climate scientists employed by gov> all scientists holding phds>the public
If you truley believe in man made climate change and cannot even admit that there may be larger factors at play please hang yourself.
>>8093797
>Climate scientists not employed by their govs/un> climate scientists employed by gov> all scientists holding phds>the public
Numbers & where. Also source on pic.
>>8093797
>Temperatures in some regions matched or exceeded recent temperatures in these regions, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures.
>Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
So not only is it hotter, today's warming cannot be explained by changes in solar and volcanic activity. During the latter half of the century, solar activity has not changed, but temperatures have risen.
>If you truley believe in man made climate change and cannot even admit that there may be larger factors at play please hang yourself.
You haven't proved that being hired by the government has affected their research. If you want to assume the government has influenced them, you also have a to remember that there are also people in the government that deny climate change so the influence could go either way. Also, you have to consider how much influence the coal, oil companies have on the government compared to other companies that promote clean energy.
>>8093890
Just ignore it, the graph doesn't even have temperatures plotted for the y-axis. He probably got it from some crappy blog on the internet.
>>8090462
I do not understand this post. what are you talking about?
>>8090469
whats the deniosphere?
>>8090474
wouldnt removing a certain amount of co2 from the atmosphere be a good thing that is within our control?
I've heard that during the Jurassic period atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are today. Is this true? And if so why do all the depictions I've seen of said period feature lush jungles instead of arid deserts? Would the temperature not have been excessively high?
>>8093797
It's just a crypto oil war in light of peak oil, AGW propaganda started about the same time peak oil theory was discovered. That was not a coincidence. With AGW theory the politics behind peak oil can be manipulated to meet more ends. Anyway you slice it energy demand will outstrip supply through the 21st century and there will be much carnage.
>>8094034
>I've heard that during the Jurassic period atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are today.
Atmospheric CO2 have only been at a comparable level to today for ~50 million years. For several hundreds of millions of years before that the levels were much higher.
Pre-industrial CO2 levels were actually alarmingly low, a few million years more of sequestration and plantlife would start to struggle and the biosphere could collapse.
>>8094067
Mean surface temp was 7C hotter than now? Wow. Guess we don't have to worry about 1-5C increases after all.
>>8093937
Cool, but how are the Roman and Minoan warming periods explained?
>>8094082
The Cambrian was dominated by aquatic life. There was no one to give a shit about deserts, floods, or, you know, a bloated culture dependent on large-scale agriculture and industry.
>>8094067
The climate in the cambrian period was so hostile, that no overland life could exist. Even plants would not survive, they could only "set foot" overland 10 million years after the cambrian, until then only aquatic life could exist. Furthermore, even you have linked that during cambrian period sea level has been rising from 30 to 90m. Only a 10m rise would put all of our biggest cities underwater (New York, San Francisco, Shanghai, Tokyo etc.), while 60m would put entire countries and states underwater (Denmark, Netherlands, Florida, half of Germany and UK etc).
But all these would be the least of our problems, because the droughts would be so strong, the hurricanes so frequent and severe, that no agriculture, or even normal, not-bunker-like buldings would be possible. All this caused by a 16-times pre-industrial CO2-level. Which is only 11-times current-level! Yes, the difference dropped from 16 to 11 in just 100 years! If you have at least one bit of foresight, you can see what's coming.
>>8094201
>>8094116
Feel free to pick another period then. Plenty of CO2 hothouses out there.
Interesting that the 7 times higher CO2 content of the jurassic still had the temperature at a lower point than the 2 times higher CO2 content of the paleogene. Maybe reality is like GISS and can change the physics model on a dime to whatever suits the needs and politics of the moment.
>>8094098
No idea. Probably due to changes in solar and volcanic activity like the medieval warming period.
All these warming periods you listed can be explained naturally, but not for today's warming.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php
>>8094230
>All these warming periods you listed can be explained naturally, but not for today's warming.
Why not? If the climate can fluctuate rapidly in the past why can't it do the same today?
It's like watching half a dozen 5 years old holding an argument in a sandbox about how the heart works. They'll probably reach a consensus that the heart is like the pendulum in their grandfathers clock right before they start to throw sand in eachothers eyes.
>>8090544
Which is garbage science because chemical breakdown is volatile and unpredictable at best.
>>8094241
>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php
>These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades. We know this because scientists closely monitor the natural and human activities that influence climate with a fleet of satellites and surface instruments.
Solar, volcanic activity and other natural forcings have pretty much stayed the same, while temperature has risen. The only thing left is the increase in co2 which directly coincides with the rising temperatures.
None of this is absolute though. There could be an unknown natural cycle that is causing this, but it's unlikely. I've heard of other theories explaining the warming, but it seems those have failed. As of now, Co2 emissions are looked as the most likely cause of current warming.
>>8090505
>thinking people will stay in their countries as it dies
3rd world nations will just become refugees in 1st world nations.
enjoy your refugees, illegal immigrants, etc
>>8094294
>Solar, volcanic activity and other natural forcings have pretty much stayed the same
So what forcings caused the previous warm periods?
>None of this is absolute though.
It's wild speculation, everything is badly understood and have 20 different explanations. We know jack shit about the extinction events, we know jack shit about glaciation triggers, we know jack shit what the weather will be next summer.
Yet somehow we've ruled out that the medieval warm period, that we don't know what caused, could not be recurring in some form right now?
People are speculating about the contents of a gigantic black box and bolting on ad hoc corrections to their rickety old theories and call it state of the art high resolution representations.
The Heart for the 5 year old goes lub dub, the clock at grannies place goes tick tock, therefor the heart is a pendulum, QED, consensus achieved.
>>8094337
>So what forcings caused the previous warm periods?
Definitely not anthroprogenic forcings.
Here some evidence that points towards human co2 emissions being the main cause of current warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html
>So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".
>If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
>Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what's happening (Jones 2003).
>With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).
>>8091637
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2816%2930319-0
>As coral reefs wither and fisheries collapse, octopuses are multiplying like mad.
What if the Earth is being terraformed. What if a group of hyper intelligent cephalopods are trying to drive humans to extinction before we start colonizing the ocean floors.
>>8093950
How can you talk about Climate Change if you don't know about temperature changes during inter-glacial warm periods, e.g. Warm Medieval Period / Little Ice - temperature in Roman times being similar to ours today.
The Earth could potentially resemble the surface of Mars. Nope, nothing to worry about.
>>8090462
God created your mother's pussy and I destroyed that already
>>8093112
$100B of global funding is still not that big. There are single experiments that run into the billions of dollars a year to support.
>>8094452
Because we're talking about warming that is happening now. Current warming isn't anything like the previous warming periods that are induced by changes in natural forcings.
That said, the medieval warming period was cooler compared to current times and the causes were different.
>Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
I think what you're trying to imply here is that the causes of those past warming periods are the same for current warming. If you're confident in this theory, why not do some research on it? You know, try to prove your findings and get it published.
>>8094537
>Current warming isn't anything like the previous warming periods that are induced by changes in natural forcings.
Except we don't know enough about the past warming or the current warming to say that.
Just because I can write a statement like
>"The current US government is controlled by aliens, this is scientific consensus and 100% true!"
Doesn't actually make the content of said statement anything but words. And that's really how climate science operates, it's politics and debates, not science.
>>8094795
>Except we don't know enough about the past warming or the current warming to say that.
Nasa disagrees with you, along with many other government and private scientific organizations. They've all said it's mostly due to human activities.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
>Doesn't actually make the content of said statement anything but words. And that's really how climate science operates, it's politics and debates, not science.
Anti-gmo and anti-vaccine advocates say the same thing. What you're probably going to say is that it's a conspiracy so that the government could get more money or power.
In the end, it's not just a consensus by random people. It's a consensus by experts who've done far more research than any of us have.
The fact that so many scientific organizations out there agree with the consensus, proves that this is something much more than politics. You don't get this sort of agreement unless the evidence is overwhelming. Only the debates happen in the government and in the public.
>>8093937
Ah yes, that paragon of neutrality, Wikipedia. Sorry buddy, the Medieval Warm Period was global. Dozens of papers on medieval temperatures from around the globe confirm this.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.htmx
>>8094034
Utterly false. The air bubbles in ice core data have a time range starting at about 70+ years and growing to 1000s of years for very old air bubbles. A 70+ year running average smoother will smooth out significant peaks (and valleys). Look at these data from actual atmospheric measurements. They show that 19th century CO2 was, at times, just as high and even higher than now.
Source: Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282., Fig. 12.
>>8094294
Nonsense. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers that show high solar variability in the recent past. Pic related (magnify to get references). NASA chooses to only look at papers the show low variability.
>>8094386
>>Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what's happening (Jones 2003).
FALSE. Stratosphere hasn't cooled for 20 years.
>>8094386
>>With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).
BOGUS. Troposphere did not warm for 18 years despite a massive increase in CO2.
>nb4 2016 El Nino. That's WEATHER. It is about to be following by a unusually strong (and cold) La Nina.
>>8094386
>>So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".
RUBBISH. Lindzen Choi 2009, 2011, measured the feedback profile of wavelengths in vs. wavelengths out. As more energy want it, MORE went out, demonstrating a negative feedback effect.
Lindzen, Richard S., and Yong‐Sang Choi. "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data." Geophysical Research Letters 36.16 (2009).
Lindzen, Richard S., and Yong-Sang Choi. "On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications." Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 47.4 (2011): 377-390.
>>8094386
>>If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth's surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. Almost no one says that CO2 has no greenhouse effect. But the effect is very weak, logarithmic over CO2 concentration. The real argument is over feedback: is it positive, negative or none? Its been demonstrated to be negative. See, e.g., Lindzen and Choi 2009, 2011.
>>8094961
>It's a consensus by experts who've done far more research than any of us have.
Its a consensus of people who will lose their funding, reputation and probably jobs, if they disagree. (Unless they're tenured.) And what consensus? Only 71 papers out of 10s of thousands!
A french meteorologist gets put on leave (and was fired later):
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/21766-top-meteorologist-persecuted-for-debunking-climate-hysteria
Australian Atmospheric Scientist fired: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjul_nXzvHMAhXF4CYKHU7tCdEQFghOMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2F2013%2F07%2Fthe-climate-mafia-strikes-again-the-curious-case-of-murry-salby.php&usg=AFQjCNHSV8mE7JZOBUEqZ5BN3YRAjw1mMA&sig2=q4KhIWdyD3hccP2PiSR0Cg
>>8095200
Some areas were warmer, some areas were cooler. Overall, it was not as warm as today.
>>8095225
I'm pretty sure NASA knows what they're talking about more than you do. Even with the high variability, it looks like solar activity has pretty much stayed the same since the 1950s.
>>8095233
The overall trend shows cooling in the stratosphere.
>>8095240
Since this graph comes from the NOAA, I guess you're gonna have to believe this as well.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html
>>8095250
>>8095256
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm
This website has a rebuttal for everything.
>Lindzen's analysis has several flaws, such as only looking at data in the tropics. A number of independent studies using near-global satellite data find positive feedback and high climate sensitivity.
>>8095275
>Only 71 papers out of 10s of thousands!
Just some crappy methodology from a blog.
Heres something a little better.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Consensus-Project-self-rating-data-now-available.html
>rather than cherry pick a handful of scientists known to hold contrarian views, we blanket emailed over 8,500 scientists. This resulted in 1,200 scientists rating the level of endorsement of their own climate papers, with 2,142 papers receiving a self-rating.
>the method of self-rating complete papers independently found 97.2% consensus among papers self-rated as stating a position on AGW.
>>8090464
That's imposible because all the CO2 whe have in Earth comes from petroll & carbon that comes from the threes in ancient forests and the threes got their mass from the atmosphere so all the CO2 we are produccing once was in Earth's atmosphere. Another prube of that is that in Permian period and Jurasic that IMO are the most prolific period in our planet's history the CO2 levels were a lot higher. THe real problem is that we are making a very big chang in a short period of time.
>>8096545
And the Kyoto protocol is only to promote nuclear energy.
You may be interested on that:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html
>>8094116
That couldn't be more fake, Carboniferous had the most prolific forest in the history of our planet and in the Permian perod there was also a very complex animal life, for example gorgonopsids and other mammal-like reptiles.
>>8096699
Sorry, i thougt you were talking about Paleogene.
Looks like /pol/ is leaking again.
>>8095211
A rebuttal to the paper you posted
http://www.biomind.de/treibhaus/180CO2/author_reply9-2.pdf
>“In summary, the paper lacks the very basic knowledge necessary to treat
atmospheric CO2 concentration measurements properly. The author even
accuses the pioneers Callendar and Keeling of selective data use, errors or even something close to data manipulation, but contrary to the author, Callendar and Keeling took the above into account.”
>This paper, with it principal shortcomings that any knowledgeable reviewer would have noticed, has apparently passed the journal’s peer review process, which must worry the journal.”
The editor of the journal this paper was posted in has also admitted bias.
>When asked about the publication in the Spring of 2003 of a revised version of the paper at the center of the Soon and Baliunas controversy, Boehmer-Christiansen said, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"
>>8096719
/pol/ is not the only board that doesn't believe in garbage without evidence.
>>8096755
Oh? Are you going to cite the expertise of /s4s/ as well?
>>8096763
No I just said people who don't buy desperate autistic crap like this with zero evidence are everywhere and you should get used to it.
>>8096770
>Everything I don't like is autistic crap
>The evidince doesn't exist because I won't look at it
>Other people agree with me so I'm right
Why do AGW denialists sound exactly like creationists?
>>8096755
/pol/ gives more credence to it by disbelieving it.
>>8095275
>Salby doesn't teach his courses
>improperly spends university money going on vacation to yurop
>got in trouble for overcharging his grants at his previous job
>gets fired
>court rules that they were perfectly right to fire him
but yeah, that's TOTALLY because of his views on climatology. not because he's a thieving sleaze who doesn't follow the law.
>>8090404
>So global warming is real and all that but is it really worth freaking out about? It seems to get way too much attention.
If you live in Miami at least.
>>8090404
>global warming is real and all that
is this the "Depression" or the
"Bargaining" stage of grief?
