Warming

> Yes if we do nothing we're going to be fucked.
That ship has sailed. We're fucked regardless.
youtu.be/XM0uZ9mfOUI

The ocean floor has untold amounts of carbon trapped as frozen methane. Once we tweak the temperature and pH of the ocean enough, that methane will release and we'll see suffering on a Biblical scale unparalleled by anything except an all-out nuclear war.

All we can do is pray that it won't be our generation that starves when the ecosystem shifts. Happy Monday!

and ?

Methane's residence time in the atmosphere is only a few years. The residence time of CO2 is centuries. Even if all the methane from the ocean floor is released tomorrow we'll likely survive

Its global cooling now, get it right.

burning shit may not be necessarily advanced, but its a real fucking good way of getting a lot of energy out of a relatively small amount of material. The two best and most efficient means of producing usable energy we have are burning shit like coal and natural gasses, and nuclear.

imo nuclear is best.

this method of graphing is god damn art.

> Methane's residence time in the atmosphere is only a few years.
Given current conditions. Tweak the conditions and the equilibrium changes.

> we'll likely survive
On a migratory, tribal scale, constantly on the move from out of control forest fires, dust storms and rising ocean levels, in a constant state of war over water and food stocks, in a scenario that would make The Road look like My Little Pony: The Movie, yes, a select few of us may survive.

You want to know how the planet will fare? Do this simple experiment. Out of the light, combine ammonia and sodium hypochlorite, say, from bleach. Now introduce CO2 from a straw. That's what will happen to us.

>what is the heat island effect

>oh look its cyclical

>>
>

>global
>heat island

Do you just pull words you heard out of a hat?

...

And it just so happens to be perfectly synchronized with the amount of co2 we pump into the atmosphere...

Vast majority of scientists believe global warming to be real.

WHY THE FUCK ARE THERE STILL RETARDS LIKE YOU HOLDING HUMANITY BACK REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

That was directed at OP btw

> vast majority of scientists
I'm kind of curious, how is a geneticist qualified to speak on climate change?

>RETARDS LIKE YOU HOLDING HUMANITY BACK

HUH? I thought that proves climate change?
WTF are you talking about?

See comment

>implying that is the only significant change over that period

...

Excellent debunking of the AGW PsyOp, thx for the link.

Here's my problems with climatology:
>It's highly politicized.
This matters greatly because it affects funding greatly. We likely won't see large studies explore other possible contributing factors because they will literally never get funded. Anything that does not reinforce the popular agenda is decried as global warming denial, scrub if you only want to do it to eliminate that factor as a cause...supporting or even just funding such would be political suicide.
> massive, agenda based echo chamber
I'm not discounting that there aren't good scientists working in this field, but I will say that the conversation is dominated by the rabid environmentalists among them and serious questions regarding things like ethics, analytical methodology, and interpretation of results go unanswered (well, with anything other than "you global warming denier") and there are more than a handful of climatologists who approach the subject like a feminazi approaches gender studies
> because of the above, rational discussion and healthy skepticism are aborted like Courtney Love's self respect
If we're being honest, many of the conclusions about the climate are as rigorous as sociology study results, now that doesn't mean that they're wrong, but there's a lot of stuff being passed off as being absolutely certain when in reality it's just people pretending correlation equals causation.

>currently, we're warming up.

gonna need a citation here m8
communist organizations don't count.

...

Methane's oxidizes into co2 brainlet

That's why its residence time is short.

That webpage is pretty shite, though. The whole section on the GOSAT XCO2 measurements and how they think they can relate total columns to fluxes is horrifically simple and wrong. Not even a single word about the seasonality of natural fluxes.. just plain shite.

> burning shit

Yet its literally what powers the Sun.

What aboit a sun made of ice?

Political intervention can corrupt any science because scientists are as corruptible as Jane or Joe Average and monetized CO2 is a highly hypnotic substance. Research grants are handed out by political committees and promising a scary future increases their power and your funding. This is the 'natural selection' of results.

Political climatology is not about the environment, it is about the mental climate, the control of mass perception: Follow your Leaders and pay your Carbon Indulgence, or else..

In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists.
1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."
2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes."

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." (IPCC)

But who reads the 'fine print' when we have hockey sticks..

I read scientific literature about the Earth for class. It's part of being an Earth Science major.

You know what I never see? Anyone defending climate change at all. You know why? It's already assumed. Because the evidence is so strong that there's no argument anymore. You would know this if you read actual scientific journals instead of conspiracy blogs.

The only questions about climate change in the last 40 years taken with any merit by scientists at all were whether aerosols would reflect enough sunlight to offset CO2.

That's it. There's a bit about whether heating would create more cloud cover to block sunlight but that was a Hail Mary by skeptics because we already know that clouds both increase temperature (because they're made of water vapor) and decrease the temperature (because they block sunlight) and the evidence over the last 100 years just doesn't support the idea. (See the effect that grounding every single airplane after September 11th did for the climate).

Those questions have already been resolved as the temperature data has come in.

See
Which I wrote earlier and I notice nobody has responded to.

Science isn't a committee (even though we sometimes form committees to talk science). It's about conclusions based on evidence. If you and I stand at the beach and both of us argue about the tide, whether it's coming out or going in, after awhile the evidence must point one way or the other and one of us will quit arguing because the evidence doesn't support our position. That's how science works.

Among all Earth sciences the evidence is clear. Global warming is real and caused by humans. If you disagree with this go read the literature. Not conspiracy blogs. Scientific papers will ALWAYS tell you how they got their data so you yourself can check it.

I'm home from work, do you guys have any real questions related to the science of global warming? Or are you all here to spout uneducated propaganda?

just don't want them there jews and sammy clam hands grabbing all muh sovereign power n shieet

cut them out of the mix and make as many green machine as possible

It's pretty basic desu:
>Radiation emitted by the sun
>At a wavelength so that the atmosphere is mostly transparent
>Absorbed by the earth
>Remitted by the earth
>Now it's at a frequency that's pretty close to one of modes of CO2, I don't remember which one off hand but I think it's a stretching mode.
>Atmosphere is now partially opaque

From here it's simple algebra, adding some quantity of heat to a body will, eventually, cause that body to heat up.

>I'm home from work, do you guys have any real questions related to the science of global warming? Or are you all here to spout uneducated propaganda?
honestly, there's nothing I want to know from you.

I assume global warming is real, man made, and will fuck up the ecosystem PROPER.
'climate' scientists are literally useless at this point, because, as you pointed out, there is no controversy about what causes global warming and what we should do to stop it from being a complete trainwreck.

but you know very well that theres just too much money left to be made by burning fossil fuels, so trainwreck-future it is..

all data i've seen says global warmth has fluctuated over all measurable periods, between hot eras and ice ages. it also says we're currently in a warm era, getting hotter.

i didn't say burning shit isn't pretty efficient, although i do think that we could do it even more efficiently. i just said that i don't think it's very cool and that i think there are surely more awesome ways to get hold of energy than mining, transporting around and burning shit.

the nuclear-or-not-debate is its own debate and i really don't want to get into it; it's even more diffuse and politicized than the global warming debate.

do your own research, i don't have time to dig out the graphs for you. you do, however, sound a bit like a /pol/elover, maybe you just want to go back to your containment board.

get it through your heads, republicans. it is you who have been fed the koolaid. try to go back to reasonable conservatism so people can actually work with you instead of just pitying you.

well, yeah, but, you know, not quite exactly the same.

Feedback mechanisms like clouds are the main reason this just isn't that big of a deal. We should slowly transition from fossil fuels because of economic reasons, not global temperature concerns.

People just need to relax about this shit.

Do we have any estimates on bow long we have until the climate changes enough for us that human civilization collapses due to lack of resources and rising sea levels, assuming current rate of CO2 output?

not in our lifetime. High five!

Are there any ways to remove CO2 from our atmosphere? If such methods exist, is doing so at all economically feasible?

This is a troll post, right? Please be a troll post.

No, just someone with 0 knowledge of climatology. Since my question was stupid, please let me know why it's stupid.

I don't think I can answer that. And not just because I'm still an Earth science student but because I honestly believe that nobody knows. I personally don't believe a doom and gloom scenario will ever happen where society collapses.

What I DO think will happen. Increased warfare as people fight over decreasing supply of water. Increased reliance on already strained groundwater supplies. Crop failures caused by lack of water resources forcing millions to starve and increasing pressure on militaries to keep the peace which will lead to a loss of human rights in even the freest countries. I see trillions, with a T, spent building seawalls to protect our most vital cities and mass human migration unlike any seen before making the potato famine of Ireland and America's dust bowl look like a joke. Society collapsing I do not see but even in the nicest sweetest faraway corner of Middle America I see huge influxes of foreigners crowding to for safety.

All of that was avoidable. Now expect at least some of that as we can no longer avoid a crisis. But we can still avoid a catastrophe.

Yeah, the search term you're looking for is carbon capturing or carbon sequestration.

Anyone else play "Fate of the World"? It's a game by some Oxford students about stopping global warming.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fixation

Excellent. Thanks, anons.

Still me, it is not stupid at all and it is in fact feasible. The simplest solution to the mass removal of CO2 from the migration is seeding the ocean with iron.

Some explanation of oceanography. There is more life in the driest desert than the middle of the ocean and I hate to say it but right now we don't know why. We simply don't have enough funding. But take a sample of seawater off the side of a ship in the middle of the Atlantic and there's very little living in it. Almost all life in the ocean is kept at the margins where ocean meets the land.

We have some pretty good ideas on why this is. The most likely is that the middle of the ocean simply doesn't have the mineral resources to support large colonies of life. Although the ocean is so saturated with Calcium Carbonate that it's considered super-saturated. So it must be some other minerals that tiny species of phytoplankton need to survive.

The most likely being iron. A paper written twenty years ago and well known among most Earth Scientists (certainly any I've talked to) is to dump iron over the side of a ship and cause an artificial algal bloom. We've even tested it and it works so the idea is sound.

The algae dies and takes CO2 with it to the bottom of the ocean.

The reason we don't do this is we have absolutely no idea what the consequence of seeding millions of tons of iron into the ocean will do to our planet.

Why did I say migration? I don't honestly know what I was thinking. Oh well, I think you still understand.

Nah I got the gist of it. Thanks user.

>Seed the oceans with iron to remove co2
Huh, that explains that little scene from that Deus Ex: Human Revolution game...

If the current trend continues, it will take us about 200 years to arrive at a CO2 content of eight out of ten thousand air molecules rather than the meager four we have now.

Note that "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." (IPCC)

The collapse of civilization will come much, much earlier because of the impending earth changes, after which much of the world will be unrecognizable..

ipcc.ch/

> the end is nigh guise !!
lol

>appeal to majority

A vast majority of people used to believe that the earth was flat too.

>appeal to ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC majority
ftfy, faget

>Comparing the old clergy with the majority of modern scientists

Just how retarded can you get?

You might as well forget about it user.
We're past the point of no return.
Expect between 3 to 6° raise by the end of the century.
Starvation and water wars. That's our future.

>We're past the point of no return.
I've not seen anything that actually points to a "point of no return"; it seems instead that there is a sliding scale of prevention now against consequences later.
We've already left it late enough that things aren't going to be pleasant, but we still have control over how bad it will get.

>Starvation and water wars. That's our future.
Only if we give up now. I'd suggest not doing that.