How do we reverse the effects of global warming?

Go back in time and warn the past. Except they still wouldn't do shit because they were already warned.

The North American Drought Atlas is a database of drought reconstructions based on tree rings from species including California bristlecone pines and giant sequoias.

In 1580 rivers flowed at just a quarter of their usual volume, and giant sequoias grew no new wood. California's climate history is marked by much longer droughts, including megadroughts lasting 100 years, and several decades-long droughts, which makes the current drought just one of many minor dry spells.

8 Mar 2016
Lake Oroville rises 20 feet in 3 days.
25 Mar 2016
Lake Oroville, California's second-largest reservoir, is now 84 percent full.
Oroville Dam releasing water over spillway for the first time in five years.

>reverse

Anyway: kill consumerism. If people don't buy stupid shit that means there is less need for deliveries, shopping trips, stores, workplaces, commuting, storing, shipping, manufacturing, energy generation... Alternatively you have to kill six billion people or at least outlaw births and wait 60-70 years. But none of this will happen.

I think most climate scientists agree that climate change is largely irreversible

the mass pollution of the air with oxygen from cyanobacteria did however come under control pretty well, thanks to life starting to react up the oxygen. thankfully weve already got life that reacts up co2, we just need a lot more of it or more efficient lifeforms.

And a lot less humans. But no one wants to discuss this...

>Limit everyone to 1 child
Everyone would want a male kid though, this is a horrible decision.

I think the best plan is reducing the emissions as much as we can and doing everything we can to help nature rebuild itself. Planting trees in abandoned land that used to be farmed, trying to, concentrate people to let nature have a single big space instead of small pieces, but at the same time trying to lower the number of people in the biggest cities and so on.

tl;dr we should shift from reducing co2 to reducing human impact as a whole

>How do we reverse the effects of global warming?
With enormous amounts of difficulty.

>Apparently cutting CO2 emissions is not enough.
It's not, but it would still be massively better than the fuck-all that we're doing right now.

with this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)

That's not a picture of the effects of global warming, that's a picture of water diversion. Use this for your next global warming thread instead.

>a lot less humans
Let the legacy of this man be your Guidestone: Strike at the root.

>global warming

I'll take "Natural Disasters That Went Beyond the Tipping Point a Decade Ago" for $200 please!

What's going on with this graph?

Who knows but I think it implies an incoming ice age. In any case, panic is called for?
Personally I fully support all warming and if man can make it all the better, winters are brutal where I live. I also fully support increasing CO2 levels up to 800ppm if possible. I support a controlled depopulation of California as well.

>reduce demand for ruminant livestock production
The WHO went into panic mode last year about meat and cancer, did that affect anything?
And what could possibly be worse than that?

From one side we have less cows since 1974 because we optimized production.
beefmagazine.com/cow-calf/relationship-between-cow-size-production
from another side, you either kill all the cows, convince people (well mostly americans probably) to eat less red meat or

>invest billions into making artificial meat
>make sure that the process to produce it does not have the same impact or worse than with normal meat
>somehow convince enough people to buy it to offset the R&D costs
>wait years until you finally recoup all the costs
>overcome meat market

>global warming
hmm. no. just water cycle

>0.29 to 3.2 nanometers
A sliver of the x-ray spectrum. What's your point, shill?

he got the wrong numbers, co2 absorbs infrared light at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. point still stands though

Same page here, pro warming and pro CO2, because 'global greening'. Unfortunately CO2 has almost nothing to do with global temperature (CFCs have some influence). As to the warming, the modern warm period is essentially over and during solar cycle 25 we (in the North) may learn again why a year without winter is a blessing compared to a year without summer.

An early indicator for developing cooling conditions would be a marked increase in precipitation around the 60N belt, moving northward. Eurasia first, then North America. A parameter to monitor is the accumulated surface mass balance of Greenland (southern tip is at 60N). The short melting season starts in June and ends in August. Apart from this I'd suggest to watch solar activity (SN and TSI) and (for entertainment) RSS, UAH and ESLR :)

When the time comes I'll be in Malta.

How do we reverse the effects of global warming?

> get a really long metal rod.
> stick it 'down there'
> metal rod sticking outside space, sub zero freez
> metal rod cold now
> acts as heatsink
Voila problem solved.

global warming is a good thing

Not if you're human
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

His point is this, you scientifically illiterate fuck

The spectrum of light coming in is different to the spectrum going out. CO2 is transparent at more of the incoming spectrum than the outgoing spectrum, ergo it retains energy in the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape to space. You can't argue with simple thermodynamics. Well, YOU can, but that's because you don't know any better.

Graph source: wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/

Just make CO2 into things. Polymers, fuels, you name it.

Hey thats Shasta great lake. And i dont think we can fully reverse climate change the reefs are liteally dying as we speak and wont come back for a very long time.

I think I have detected the problem with California.

Changes too rapid to adapt to (more than 2 degrees C above the pre-industrial average by 2100) can be staved off if carbon neutrality can be achieved by the mid 2030s, with carbon capture and storage increasing beyond that point to become carbon negative being assumed. If carbon negativity is achieved as early 2025, then the warming can be limited to 1.5 degrees C by 2100 - for reference, the 1 degree mark was passed recently.

As for reversing it, you can't unless you manage to shove almost all the carbon we've released in the industrial period back into the ground. As it is, the warming will continue indefinitely until a new equilibrium is reached (as the Earth gets hotter, it will radiate more until the outgoing radiation is equal to the incoming radiation again) or some other climatic shift happens, like our orbit shifting, but it may be tens or hundreds of thousands of years before that happens. That's the thing people don't mention - it's not just a couple of degrees warming or a few meters of sea level rise we're talking about here, those things are what will happen by the end of the century. The warming will go on for millennia - when the present becomes as distant to us as we are to the construction of the pyramids, the seas will still be rising. Unless we pull all that CO2 back in, that is.

how many meters has the sea level risen since the XIX-century?

This year, China:
>banned the construction of new coal mines
>installed 20GW of solar panels in the first six months, triple the amount as the same period of 2015
>approved $1 billion in renewables investments as part of the BRICS New Development Bank
>ratified the Paris Agreement
>remained the world leader in renewable power production (equal to total power output of France and Germany combined)
>produced more wind turbines than anyone else
>produced more solar panels than anyone else
>all while being the world's factory (i.e. the place everyone else exported all their emissions to)

If global warming really is a Chinese hoax, the Chinese sure as fuck seem to have fooled themselves

About 0.2 m on global average - some places will have risen more, some less. This mainly reflects thermal expansion of the ocean water as it absorbs heat, which is currently proceeding at 1.2-1.6 mm per year. Large increases in sea level will begin once the melting of the land-based ice sheets starts to accelerate - so far, mainly sea ice has been melting which obviously does not raise the sea level (due to the mechanics of buoyancy). As such, the contribution of glacial melting is around 20 mm so far and from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet unknown, but current estimates are around 0.2 mm per year. This will increase in future, of course. Additionally, in the far future, once these ice caps have significantly melted, the decrease in mass pushing down on the Earth's crust will cause it to rebound (as it is currently doing in the northern hemisphere, in response to the melting of the ice from the last ice age) which will cause the Earth to become more spherical, redistributing water from the poles to the equator. Needless to say that won't be good for anyone living there, but by that point they'll have had thousands of years to get used to high seas anyway.

Graph source: academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf

CO2 does not reflect sunlight moron. If it did you would be able to see it.

I've read somewhere that the Hudson bay area was so caved in by the massive glaciers of the ice age that the gravity there is actually slightly weaker, since you're closer to the earth's center. Not talking about anything noticeable to a human, but satellites with precise equipment can detect it. Interesting stuff. I wonder how lower the gravity is down in the Marianna trench.

Delusional nonsense

plant great spots of trees from coast to coast.

they will pump the humidity inland

>I wonder how lower the gravity is down in the Marianna trench.
Certainly not a fraction enough to counteract the immense pressure. (But maybe that's silly to take time to point out)

How does carbon sequestration figure into all of this?

What specifically do you want to know. Carbon sequestration on the global scale is a key factor in the global carbon cycle, and thus also the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

unburn coal

>all while being the world's factory
Jevon's Paradox. The EROEI among so called 'renewables' like solar and wind which actually require an oil based infrastructure to manufacture and are very application specific are the worst. In some cases they will use more energy over their lifetime than they give back. Without the massive subsidies coming from the west it is doubtful that much energy would have gone into those particular renewables to begin with that China is happy to peddle. Don't mean to piss in your cornflakes but pushing wind and solar would not make any difference in CO2 emissions and perhaps increase them through the manufacturing process, increase the release of toxic compounds into the environment and in no way shape or form a replacement for fossil fuels. They can supplement some fossil fuel driven grids at most and only in ideal locations. Just an artifact of living in the oil age really.

>believing what a communist government publishes they're doing

refund toll

>The EROEI among so called 'renewables' like solar and wind which actually require an oil based infrastructure to manufacture and are very application specific are the worst.
They're not as high has things like coal plants, but they're still workable.

>In some cases they will use more energy over their lifetime than they give back.
Not in any modern cases I'm aware of.

>pushing wind and solar would not make any difference in CO2 emissions
Basically everything I've read says they will.

>and perhaps increase them through the manufacturing process, increase the release of toxic compounds into the environment and in no way shape or form a replacement for fossil fuels
Utter nonsense.
The pollution from things like photovoltaic panel production are insignificant compared to coal mines and oil wells.

Where are you getting this crap from?

you dont

you embrace them

That was a glorious summer.

>Where are you getting this crap from?
China apparently, the country is an environmental nightmare.
The panels and mills are made mostly from composite materials that require modern manufacturing to construct and mass produce. These facilities suck enormous energy and consume massive quantities of fresh water not to mention the manufacture of the power electronics required to control them, attach them to grids. Factor in the battery banks to make them feasible and they have a huge environmental footprint. I doubt all factors are being taken into consideration when calculating EROEI for panels and mills. Mills are especially prone to mechanical and electrical breakdown, panels of course subject to breakdown by the elements and the sunshine itself. Time will tell, and as the price of oil climbs, as it surely will, so will the cost of manufacturing these things as they compete for a limited resource - Jevon's Paradox.

Solar and wind have their niche applications, can supplement a grid. They sure don't address liquid fuel use as in transportation.

The source for your numbers and graph really isn't all that impressive, and basically everything else I've read list EROEIs many times higher for wind and photovoltaic power. In particular, you're relying on information about solar panel manufacturing that's now more than a decade out of date.

Like I said, utter nonsense.

A simple switch to cultured meat or veggie pesudo-meats(infused with hemo for flavour) would do the trick. It's very feasible but large Corporations such as "Cargil" make huge profits off the animal industry.

Different source, similar result. Added bonus for those addicted to a daily dose of doom porn: There's still enough land-based ice left (Antarctica and Greenland) for another 60 m rise in sea level.. [source=nsidc.org]

>gravity there is actually slightly weaker
no, it is stronger because density distribution

>Limit Africansto 1 child and stop urbanization/deforestation.
>Or nuke Africa and replace it with a forest lol.

Fixed. It is racist to admit the problem is purely Africa. Everyone else is plateauing, only African population is drastically increasing.

Africa isn't that relevant in terms of coal/oil/whatever consumption or emissions. If you genocided the entire continent we'd still use up fossil fuels and cause major warming quite rapidly.

Moar trees?

Can't find Africa.

This is correct.

How do I block you?
Is there a filter here on mobile?

Is that the I-5 in north California??
Getting Bad.

>Apparently cutting CO2 emissions is not enough.

LOL ........
CO2 IS NOT the problem! ...CO2 is NOT the problem!

Nitrates, CO, ... Methane! , but NOT CO2!

BTW the Earth, the mantle/ core itself is heating up !

Ice in Greenland and Antarctica is melting from BELOW.

Don't believe me --- look it up yourself Greenland ice melting from below.

No matter what the Truth is, the GOVT is lying!

Well, there's Egypt, but they're the least african of african states.

You're right; I also missed South Africa :/

Delusional nonsense.

good news for you:
paramount-to-release-a-sequel-to-al-gore-an-inconvenient-truth
global laughing 2.0

Large scale GeoEngineering.

As in to artificially cool the planet itself in order to stabilize and reverse the Anthropocentric Climate Distruption caused by large scale capitalism.

The problem is the cost and technology of achieving said task.

icecubes

you have to be a special kind of retard to defend china environmentally.

Switch to 100% thorium power and electric cars. Then use some of that power to run massive CO2 scrubbers.

Geo engineering and mov8ng population into space

We can outsource everything to China, including the 'CO2 problem'.
China is now building a global electrical grid! It will be powered primarily by windmills and solar panels. Your bill will be printed in Engrish.

Genetically engineer superior photosynthetic organisms.

good post user

people need to be honest about china

youtube.com/watch?v=sT4133vfTmk

We kill all the polar bears

>Eurasia first, then North America.

...

...

>man carbon
>having any true influence

Here are the real climate changers

By ignoring everyone whining about it.

An Inconvenient Truth inconveniently (for Al Gore and all the greenies) predicted a bunch of shit that never came true, just like every other """documentary""" or study on global cooling/global warming/climate change ever. The system is too complex for us to model.

youtu.be/-W6Lftgq8mg

No it isn't.
fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/lectures_2010_F/lectures_3-4_radiation_2010_F_update.pdf

And I don't give a shit what predictions Al Gore made, he is not a scientist. Predictions actual scientists made are coming true right now.
youtube.com/watch?v=X1hJYLw7OlM

Really gets the gears grinding.

If you throw 1000 darts at a dartboard...the real value of the meme is the fear mongering not 1 correct weather prediction.

Start at 12:00

Then why is it I'm constantly hearing about how they've gone back and totally redone the models because they forgot to take into account volcanic eruptions or how something was more/less effective than previously thought?

Have there been any models that have accurately predicted the current climate without the model being fucked with after the face to just spit out the current conditions? If not, you'll have to excuse me when I don't believe people saying "In 50 years X will happen to the climate."

The way climate change is treated almost as a type of religion by so many people, and that green energy subsidies have turned out to be the epitome of pork barrel spending and crony capitalism only makes me more suspicious.

You don't believe asteroidal impacts have and will again change climate dramatically? The last ice ace was ended by an asteroid impact. Smacked right into the North American ice sheets. We never would have warmed at all if not for that.

The earth leans cold, the my point for dropping in.

>Everyone would want a male kid though, this is a horrible decision.

maybe current year minus 50, but not in current year, dont you dare think this

>Why are scientists constantly changing the model because of new data and better theories?
>What the fuck, I hate science now!

You are a moronic living meme.

Sorry, but if you can only tell me the score after the game is over, I have no reason to trust your predictions on the next game.

block out the sun

Like a large parasol for the Earth.

Temperature projections have been accurate for several decades though. Of course you will ignore any evidence that disagrees with your denier religion, so all this is pointless.

skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/#bib_1

nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1788.html

I never said temperatures weren't changing. It's the reasons for the change I'm skeptical of, and whether stealing money from people at gunpoint (aka taxation) to pay for so called "green" tech that causes a whole bunch of other problems is worth it or is just a scam by crony capitalists to make themselves rich.

>Of course you will ignore any evidence that disagrees with your denier religion, so all this is pointless.

Congrats, you're being the exact type of cunt that makes me care less and less about this every time I look into it.

>I never said temperatures weren't changing.
I never said you never said this. I said that the claim that climatologists aren't "predicting" accurately is false. I also explained that complaining about climatologists making changing their model is idiotic, as the scientific method demands it.

>It's the reasons for the change I'm skeptical of
If you were actually skeptical, you would look at the evidence and either accept it or explain how the evidence is faulty. You have done neither, nor could you as the greenhouse effect and its related feedbacks are the strongest part of climate science and are based on fundamental physics and chemistry. You are simply espousing a claim convenient to your political ideology. This is the opposite of skepticism.

The fact that you completely ignored the arguments I presented and started politicizing the issue is proof that you aren't a skeptic.

>Congrats, you're being the exact type of cunt that makes me care less and less about this every time I look into it.
Which is hilarious, since you just wrote this:

>The way climate change is treated almost as a type of religion by so many people