Tell me about climate change Veeky Forums

>it's a "global warming has stopped" episode
no it hasn't you git
Maybe people would take denialists seriously if they weren't lying through their teeth.

Please explain? Honestly it never even occurred to me to entertain climate change denial until today, so I'm not even familiar with the arguments they use. How does that normally go?

1998 was an anomalous extremely hot year, so they take the 1998 data point and say "oh look it hasn't warmed since 1998", while in reality the trend is still clearly upwards.

A good place is drroyspencer.com

WFT now has another QC1 data series, UAH6.

>pointing people to a genuine intelligent design supporter
aylmao

...

There actually is a lot of evidence and we can actually determine the source of CO2 in the atmosphere by the carbon isotope and calculate exactly how much was put there by human activity. It is pretty well established that human-induced CO2 increases have caused global warming (and ultimately climate change).

It's scientific fact OP. Just stay aware and do your part. There is no such thing as "too late" because the severity of climate change is still up to us, even if it is inevitable.

>Just stay aware and do your part
That sounds like war propaganda.
Even if earth was warming this is not atypical considering we are coming out of an ice age. Computer simulations of every carbon molecule on earth and their interaction with the climate is anything but scientific fact however since many new age climate priests get paid healthy salaries to produce these tending towards an end of days scenario there is no shortage of them, it is after all, their 'job'.

>charts show an overall 1.2 temp increase in the last century
>this is somehow significant and classifies as global warming

It's fucking nothing

>It's fucking nothing

Dude, what?
1.2 degrees in a century is an enormously accelerated change.

You do realise what that 1.2 degrees represents in terms of habitat destruction, right? Or even the fact that this trend is going to continue, even worsen.

>go outside
>fluctuations of 5-10 degrees every day
>but somehow a 1.2 increase will cause everything to go to shit and will melt ALL ICE CAPS

Good goys.

If you were honest about your low intelligence then you wouldn't be made fun off

...

Nobody is preaching end of days though... And way to ignore my entire post you fucklord.

The Modern Warm Period will soon be over.

The real reason climate change is blamed on human activity is so one doesn't have to face the horror that there is nothing we can do about it.

>5% global CO2 is man-made
>CO2 in the atmosphere causes oceans to release even more CO2

This is all you need to know as a STEM major to see that we are in deep shit if we don't change something.

A good thing to look at would be dendrochronology and glacial cores, they have a good record of atmospheric gas concentrations over the last few thousand years. The current levels of CO2 haven't been observed to have occurred in such magnitude in the past as far as i know.

That's so deep dude. It's so fucking deep.

>extrapolating
dropped.

Do we know this for a fact? I mean, local climates would surely change, but does that really mean mass destruction of ecosystems? Species have adapted to the presence of humans and man-made (and non-man-made) changes to the environment in the past, why do we expect that to be different this time?

There's the IPCC. But nobody is going to bother with the actual research.
Just say they do it to make sure they keep getting money and you can dismiss anything it says without even having to have had a look at it. It's also much easier to pick out one specific part of it, finding (or believing to have found) an inconsistency and you're just proven climate change wrong.

Global fascism, I am actually surprised more energy reserves haven't been outright nationalized. Energy is life so everyone wants a slice of the pie from multinational energy corps to prototypical world governments like the UN. I guess the first question to ask is a global "authority" on anything a wide idea considering history? Absolute power corrupts absolutely and the UN is already a shining example wherever it sticks its enormous penor.

>fucklord
Wew, I am honored! Thank you sir!

...then your professors and school are getting paid by Shell and Exxon Mobil lobbyists

>Computer simulations of every carbon molecule on earth
Oh look, it's YOU again. Do you know that it's possible to understand a system without simulating each individual particle separately?

There's an actual censorship put in place by media owner paid corrupted by corporation with interest in lessening charge and environmental regulation.

Like place were you are forbidden to write "global warming", but for the most part they have lost that "propaganda war" already because data don't lie. So the new field of battle is saying the warming is natural and not human made.

The per-reviewed data are available everywhere so there's no need to expand on that

>experience climate change myself?
If you're younger than 20 you never had the opportunity, but be patient. Solar cycle 25 may offer another one. Be aware that 'climate change' includes global cooling and that cold kills..

>30 years of data

fucking lelllllll

>30 years of data

into the garbage

>20 years of data

into the garbage

>19 years of data

you know where it belongs

Sigh

Are you retarded? I was responding to the usual claim that "warming has stopped since the 2000, which considers even less data.

How could you analyze a trend has stopped by only looking at the time period which somebody claims it has stopped during?

Don't you think you need to establish a trend first?

Global warming is pretty obvious in countries where there is a huge difference between summer and winter. I for example live in Finland and I remember when I was a kid that we used to be knee-deep in snow every November. Nowadays, there is no snow in November and very rarely any in December either. If I look at the last five years, we've had our first snow in like late January, and even then just very little. The change is just staggering. Also, the town where I live has a big river which used to freeze every winter back when I was a kid so people could go skating and walking on the ice. Nowadays we can't do that because the river never freezes properly.

What's even your point? The long term trend is even clearer.

>the long term trend is even clearer

???

See Please before you consider 150 years "long term" lmao

Whoa! Nice anecdote !

Yeah, I guess it's just a coincidence, right?

I just don't see how that supports the theory that the industrialization of humans is the cause for the change you are seeing

If you want to feel come to Austria. It's nearly October and the weather is hotter than the hole August.

Obligatory post
xkcd.com/1732/
>[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before

The problem isn't so much the idea that Earth was "never this hot" it's that it rose drastically at a rate it never did before and just as human started worldwide industrialization.

CO2 is an "just hypothesis" yes, so is gravity, so is General Relativity.
We've yet to see detractor show hypothesis that are more logical (and not bogus).

Nice graphic, too complex for most people to find the flaws, but easy enough to misinterpret into whatever anti-manmade-climate-change argument a troll want.
Several of those study actually demonstrate there's a direct correlation, let's take the last one on global temperature. Did you notice the varying logarithmic scale ?

"Hey look, it rose much more 20 000 years before"
(according to the graph it took 10 000 years for it to rise that much)

"Look at how low the temperature are today ! It's just another spike"
(this time, in less than a century the temperature is skyrocketing and human activity are the only variable that changed)

xkcd.com/1732/

Interesting you point out correlation, and not causation. General relativity and gravity both have predicted results that can be replicated (example light bending around massive bodies etc)
However there is not a sensible prediction that has come
True from global warming alarmists , i.e. "Florida will be underwater by 2020!!"

But model predictions have been reliable.

A fucking retard can draw a cone facing in the general direction of a local (key word) trend. Climate science is extremely politicized, and that is why 1000's of acredited scientists have openly dismissed anthropogenic global warming as non-rigorous

The current status of climate change is we can't stop it. Therefore the best preventative practice would be to amass as much money as possible to build infrastructure and economies that can withstand climate change ruining our countries.

Russian methane being blown out of Siberia is a good example. If that permafrost melts even if we became a 100% emission free world it would still fuck us royally. It's on target to melt eventually so dicking around with carbon credits or other band aids is a waste of time.

tl;dr Aquire currency, build fortifications, keep trust fund for your people in some kind of tangible resource that will be valuable when everything is flooded or food destroyed by climate change.

Fortunately for you, some of their most common arguments have been brought up for you in this very thread. For example,
>many new age climate priests get paid healthy salaries to produce these tending towards an end of days scenario
In other words, a worldwide, decentralized, coordinated conspiracy against honest coal miners and their families.
Or
>climate change alarmism only acts to stifle the west
In the words of the af[math] flu [/math]ent Republican nominee: Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to undermine American manufacturing. Apparently they've paid off all our climate scientists as well.
And another:
>the science isnt in yet

They all generally follow this pattern.

...

Don't you realize weather and climate are different?

Notice how he moved the goalposts from "there are no true predictions!" to "that true prediction is easy!"

Notice how he calls a global trend "local"

Notice how he uses circular reasoning to claim that climatology is wrong because it is "politicized" when it is only "politicized" because people like him deny the science for political reasons.

Notice how he talks about "thousands" of scientists without regard to whether they have relevant expertise to judge climatologists, while ignoring that the vast vast majority of climatologists support AGW (and if you press him to show who these "scientists" are, he will give you a composed mostly of non-scientist STEM majors).

These are the scumbag tactics of a delusional science denier.

It doesn't. That is a separate point which is proven by the fact that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, acts this started a positive feedback loop between warming and CO2/vapor release from the oceans.

cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

>.03 cents have been deposited into your account

you want a clickbait website better instead? since you probably get your "science" from the huffington post

businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1/#ar-giaever-5

>prinecton professors in physics
>nobel prize winners

"but but they're all rednecks! no respectable person could not believe the media~~~`111!!!1!"

>"but guys, there is a 97% consensus about anthropogenic global warming!"

forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#3bf36cd171b7

Where are the climatologists? Not one is mentioned in the first 20 pages. Thank you for proving my point. Scumbag.

>only climatologists understand the scientific method

and there are plenty of climatologists in that survey

logged off? somebody who doesn't think the same exact way as you is a scumbag?

lololol. i suggest reddit, they ban people who even question global warming. i think you will fit in there better

lol
that fucking idiot didn't understand the paper he read
Lefsrud and Meyer were exposing how experts in the oil and natural gas industry are negotiating their position by adopting defensive postures.

If anything, this paper showed that the "skeptic" experts are overwhelmingly on big oil payroll.

>>>/reddit/
They will ban people who cry about other's posts.

Keep deluding yourself.

A major counterargument I've heard is that in order to make a difference and stop global warming, we would have to reduce carbon emissions by obscene and impossibly high proportions (because of high consumption in developed nations, developing nations sooner-or-late becoming more like us and polluting tremendously too), and that basically the only thing that can save us at this point is technological innovation (renewables, geoengineering, trapping the CO2 back into rocks somehow).

So, instead of slowing our economies down and decreasing GDP growth predictions just to marginally decrease pollution, why not invest all that extra money into innovation? Make it an Energy Transition tax, spent it all on scientists and research.

Is there anything wrong with the above?

>in order to make a difference and stop global warming
We don't have to stop it to make a difference. We have already shat the place, but how deep we go is up to us.
As for technology, of course efficiency gains are a thing, but what you're asking is far beyond the (already amazing) previous gains, in terms of efficiency/year.

One reason everything will go to shit because of a slight temperature change has to do with water stratification

>45% of Earth's photosynthetic carbon fixation takes place within the first 15-20m of ocean surface water
>phytoplankton on the open ocean, seagrasses, kelp beds, and coral reefs (coral are animals that house photosynthetic symbionts) on continental shelves
>their abundance is heavily resource limited, or we'd have way more photosynthesis taking place
>Most light can't penetrate much deeper than 15-20m in the ocean
>the warmest water stays near the surface
>water column is stratified (warm water stays up top and won't mix with deeer, colder water)
>nutrients are abundant in deeper water, because they're taken up rapidly by phytoplankton near the surface and sink down as they die
>nutrients won't cycle back up without upwelling
>if you increase the temperature of surface waters, you're going to increase stratification, so mixing becomes less likely
>fewer nutrients on the surface means that fewer phytoplankton can reproduce
>fewer phytoplankton means less photosynthesis
>less photosynthesis means less oxygen and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
>more carbon dioxide means Earth will get hotter
>positive feedback loop
>earth becomes hotter at a growing rate over time
>area of polar ice caps continues to shrink year afer year

el oh el

Feel free to look into Hadley cells on your own time too. I don't feel like explaining here, but basically they're going to migrate toward the poles as the planet becomes warmer on average, meaning that the best weather for growing crops is going to move away from where the best soils are, and then lots of people might starve

Whether this is driven by human fossil-fuel burning is the question in the thread, and obviously I didn't answer it, because that wasn't what your comment as about. Just food for thought

The thing that upsets me the most about climate change is that, considering the common fault is seen as the spread of human made CO2, being against it implies being okay with pollution.

To me that's like sitting in a room that is getting warmer, but is okay, you are fine with it but then plastic starts getting burned and there's a awful smell, and you are coffing, and you grandfather just died along with millions other
bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249

and you still say that this totally fine and when posed further questions you throw a tantrum and call it a conspiracy.

Exactly which would be awesome and benefit everybody, but it would also mean raising taxes so the right instead pretends it doesn't exist.

This. But we also have good evidence that the CO2 increase that sparked the feedback loop was man-made.

Dudes can't even consider the long-term economic impacts of climate change. Selfish pricks.

2nd part was meant for you:

>So, instead of slowing our economies down and decreasing GDP growth predictions just to marginally decrease pollution, why not invest all that extra money into innovation? Make it an Energy Transition tax, spent it all on scientists and research.

I don't know for your country but that's what all those tax (and tax reduction) are for in the European Union.
We tax polluting industry in the hope they stop being moneybag cheater like Volkswagen, stop burning the world for short-term profit and develop technology less polluting.
Even CHINA care more about polluting less than the US, they know they need to do better than coal power plant and they have a dictatorship to do it.

in order:
>Freeman Dyson, a physicist who agrees AGW is real and a major problem but thinks that incomplete models are being given too much credence
>Bjorn Lomborg, an ECONOMIST who agrees that AGW is real, but thinks that the risks are exaggerated and that there are better ways to combat it than Kyoto etc.
>Myron Ebell, an ECONOMIST who works for a denier think tank and has no published articles to his name
>Kiminori Itoh, an INDUSTRIAL CHEMIST with no background in climatology or atmospheric scientist, who works for the Heartland Institute
>Ivar Giaever, a MECHANICAL ENGINEER and SOLID STATE PHYSICIST (the only Nobel laureate in this list)
>William Happer, an ATOMIC PHYSICIST
>Ian Plimer, a MINING GEOLOGIST
>Michael Crichton, a fucking NOVELIST
>Alan Carlin, an ECONOMIST
>Patrick Michaels, a CLIMATOLOGIST. Note that he's the only climatologist on this list...and also that he admits that 40% (!!!) of his funding comes from the oil industry.

So to sum up:
two physicists with no background in climate
a chemist, again with no background in climate
two economists
a mining engineer
a novelist
a climatologist who's directly dependent on oil money by his own admission
and two guys who actually agree that AGW is indeed happening.

nice list.

holy shit, you and the guy who wrote that are retarded.
>oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
basically what said

>John Cook of SimpletonScience

But remember, a cartoonist turned psychologist is a paragon of climate science truth.

>Appeal to authority, muh Climate 'Scientists'
>(fake) Appeal to popularity, muh 97%
>Ad hominem, muh Evil Oil Companies
That's all warmists have.

If the climate were changing at the rate it naturally does, it wouldn't be a problem at all because you'd be talking about hundreds or thousands of years per degree increased, life and even our civilisation can easily adapt to that rate of change. But over 1 degree in a single century is unprecedented, there has NEVER been a period of such rapid heating, and there is no chance it won't lead to a catastrophic extinction event because animals and plants just can't adapt that quickly, and we won;t be able to help them because we'll be too busy trying to save our coastal cities and trying to re-home the ~1 billion people who will be displaced.

Heating is actually good, the earth IS currently in a mild ice age and a return to the temperatures of (say) the Cretaceous period would open up vast new lands in Siberia and Canada and Antarctica for life. The problem is, none of that will benefit us if the rate of change is so great that it wipes out 90% of existing life and with it our civilisations.

>That's all warmists have.
Besides tons of data.

Heavily tampered data - comparitor gif related.

>IT'S A CONSPIRACY

>a guy who's not a serious researcher thinks climate change is real
>therefore it's all a hoax
>it's not like there are literally thousands of people who ARE serious researchers all independently concluding that the earth is warming as the result primarily of human activity
kys

>another "climate change hoax" thread

>serious researchers all independently
> independently
(almost) All Paid For By Government/U.N.

>scientists have never been wrong before
Fixed continents
Phlogiston theory of combustion
Fixed Space and Time
Atoms are the smallest piece of matter

As always, the resort to ad hominem
>anyone who doesn't believe in an unfalsifiable pseudo-sciencie is a conspiracy nut.
> And Oil Companies are conspiring to trick them!
Projection Much?

> I saw actual data proving the the temperature records have changed.
> Must deny my lying eyes
> I know, I'll call you a conspiracy wack job.
> Whew, pushed down that painful cognitive dissonance.

Do you enjoy shilling?
Get paid well for it?

go back to /pol/

Erm.
Data records are changed all the fucking time. Especially operational one's who go from NRT to REAN every couple of months. What exactly is the novelty here?

The last 5 satellite data records that I released changed every time, obviously, or else there wouldn't be a need to re-process the records..

>Data records are changed all the fucking time. Especially operational one's who go from NRT to REAN every couple of months. What exactly is the novelty here?

Idiot. Records from the same period of time shouldn't be changing.

But what's this?
Once upon a time, NASA said that Antarctica was cooling.
web.archive.org/web/20041014223623/http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2004/ShindellSchmidt1.html

Off to /x/ for you

Yup, they even gave a temperature map of the Cooling Antarctic
svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003100/a003188/

>Records from the same period of time shouldn't be changing.

Of course they might. What else would be the point of reprocessing an entire multi-decade time series?

But oh noes, that doesn't fit the Narrative.
So now they rewrote the temperatures to show a cooling Antarctica.
nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_antarctica.html

Go ahead and deny your lying eyes. Yeah, the cognitive dissonance must be painful.

> ...to show a warming Antarctic.

Oh noes. Two snapshots 4 years apart show a different spatial distribution? What madness is this?

Because continental temperature trends always invert in 4 years. Yup just look at the satellite record. Pic related.

Whoops, negative trend.
Sorry buddy, stop defending the indefensible. Take your faith to a more noble cause.

Are you seriously referring to TLT? Have you looked at the bloody averaging kernels for the soundings? They are taken in limb mode ffs.

I never understood why anyone would bother with microwave sounders. Most of the UTLS temps have massive posteriori uncertainties.

>TLT make the mistake of not getting the dictated 'result.'

Buddy, same thing for UAH. No warming. Deal with it. And get an honest job.
>nb4 evil denier, didn't cave into pressure like RSS did.
Someone's got to be honest.