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, Veeky Forums. I want to be wrong on this. Are we all just fucked?
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.
Cooper Morris
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).
Andrew Wilson
> literally perpetuating /x/ memes keep /x/ threads at
David Wilson
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.
Christian Hill
>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 , 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?
Jaxson Gonzalez
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.
Owen Fisher
...
Dylan Stewart
>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. Hurr durr, it's natural, I know better than anyone, scientists are all liars, the earth is actually cooling!
But keep using those arguments though. They let me win. It's like clubbing baby seals.
Logan Lewis
>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.
Julian Flores
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.
Luke Rivera
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.
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 ?
Hunter Perry
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?
Luis Jackson
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.
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.
Bentley Powell
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.
Charles Martinez
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.
Jose Lopez
Climate change's solution is simple. Stop burning fossil fuels. Malaria's solution is orders of magnitude more difficult.
Andrew Ross
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
Aiden Butler
thats just the propaganda small changes in CO2 concentration are irrelevant
Caleb Sanchez
Why the fuck does this discussion exist on a science board? Global Warming has not been scientifically proven, so take this somewhere else
Blake Johnson
Dint forget about all this evolution threads. It's just a theory, a gauss.
Logan Peterson
>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.
Henry Wright
>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.
Isaac Robinson
>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..
Gabriel Garcia
Yes, these space cowboys are lunatics. They will try any absurd rationalization to get people to pay for their space adventures.
Nicholas Jenkins
Don't you think the scale of that chart is way too large to show what has happened in the last 50 years?
Julian Hernandez
>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.
Juan Price
>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?
Justin Reed
>scientifically proven Lrn2science fgt pls
Josiah Russell
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?
Anthony Hernandez
Retarded/Bait
Jaxson Gray
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".
Samuel Taylor
>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.
Brandon Bell
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.
Isaac Hill
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...
Caleb Kelly
>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.
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.
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.
Jayden Rivera
>What can we do about climate change?
Spread Ebola
Hunter Williams
Worn sock puppets. You can smell the despair.
Henry Richardson
we're not going to be suffering OP.
It's going to be the third-worlders that die in droves for our convenience
Chase Russell
In fairness, they should have stopped reproducing a long time ago.
Henry Lewis
That graph is pure cherrypicking. Ignores most early studies and fills the present with flawed papers that have been publicly debunked.
Austin Morgan
>the third-worlders Mr. Kyoto spelling out the globalist agenda.
Anthony Clark
"You control climate change." Good luck.
Leo Thompson
The graph is simply lying.
Ryan Nelson
>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.
Ian Davis
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.
Nolan Taylor
>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.
Aiden Gutierrez
>"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?
William Morgan
>>"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.
Michael Ortiz
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!
Kayden Watson
>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.
Jason Smith
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.
Joseph Ortiz
two of these in every single city on the planet
Jackson Robinson
>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?
Jayden Collins
>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.
Connor Turner
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.
Angel Wilson
>terraforming Mars >pretending we will ever reach another planet outside the solar system
Jesus fucks.
Samuel Reyes
>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.
Aaron Kelly
>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.
William Butler
>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.
Adam Howard
>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.
But let me guess. They're lying right? Because that's what scientists do right? Lie about things so they can easily be discredited.
Jose Rodriguez
Yep.
Kevin Smith
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)….”
Colton Martin
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
William Gonzalez
Quote as many 1% fringe nutters as you want. Does nothing to demolish the consensus. And your other arguments are bad.
Justin Cooper
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.
Eli Martinez
Alternatively, you may just be quote-mining. I don't care enough to look.
Michael Bell
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…..
Charles Green
>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.
Daniel Miller
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.
Lincoln Lee
Please. I didn't even half read what you wrote. I stopped reading your shit seriously after this:
>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.
Dylan Nguyen
> I just got BTFO
Benjamin Hernandez
> >Please. I hate being shown to be utterly wrong. FTFY
Colton Rodriguez
Well, considering the Arctic sea ice is already melting away, nothing will not happen.
Ryder Bennett
Do you think deniers will still be around 40 years ago after we all got a nice fucking?
Adam Perez
Flat-earthers still exist.
Joseph Morris
>I can't even half read what you wrote. typical
Jayden Nguyen
>rising greenhouse gas concentrations stop all human activity change nothing GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf
Dominic Watson
That's fucking dumb If earths temperature would rise by 1%, it would be 3°C hotter
Josiah Smith
Earth was like 5c hotter during the Jurassic wasnt it?
Aiden James
GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf
Jeremiah Lopez
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.
Colton Young
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?
Zachary James
>CO2 increase is more beneficial than harmful [citation needed]
Aiden Brooks
Plants love CO2 f a m
Jeremiah Martinez
Uh no, again at no point in time was he BTFO. Mister poopy pants here 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.
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.
Nicholas Moore
>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.
