Can you guys tell me if man made climate change is a real thing? and if so, is it a big deal...

The overwhelming consensus among climate researchers it that AGW is both real and a significant threat. This is independent of any particular country or organisation.

>Climate change has occurred continuously over the course of the Earth's history; it is not a new phenomenon. The earth has gone through at least five ice ages, and before that had very little solid ice even closer to the poles. People always try and push the idea that climate change is bad and we should do everything in our power to keep it the same, when in reality it is an ever-changing environment and will not always be as it is now.
Where do you folks get this retarded shit from?

Firstly, modern human civilization wasn't around the last time it got this warm, so as far as we care this is a new thing. Secondly, the rate of change is highly unusual; we actually have no records of the Earth's climate EVER changing this quickly.
So no, this is absolutely not normal variation.

>The real issue that these activists are pushing is how much regulation should be enforced and how much money should be funneled into trying to arrest this climate change.
No shit. The data and models we have aren't perfect, but they're still good enough to tell us that unless we put the brakes on now, this will NOT be a fun ride. Of course people are going to want to prevent bad things from happening.

>In my humble opinion that is like asking the sun not to rise.
How is reducing human emissions of a pollutant in any way comparable to "asking the sun not to rise"? Environmental regulation is not a new idea.

>where do you folks get this retarded shit from

So the earth has been exactly as it is now since the very beginning? Of course humans are going to change the climate one way or another. I would argue that climate change is inevitable no matter the regulation you push. Regulation in the United States or Great Britain is one thing, but try enforcing the same regulation in China or India. Now, I'm not saying all efforts are useless, to point out the regulation on CFC's with the ozone layer as one. But to try and stop the climate from changing due to human interaction is an unrealistic goal. When we examine historical evidence of climate variations there weren't seven billion humans around to skew the data. We are heading into uncharted territory from a climate standpoint, but extrapolating data and yelling 'apocalypse' isn't going to solve anything.

You can tell, just by glancing at the sentence structure (not even reading anything) that one post was made by normal person, and one by a complete bumbling retard.

>So the earth has been exactly as it is now since the very beginning?
That's not even close to what I wrote.

>I would argue that climate change is inevitable no matter the regulation you push.
It's the scale and rate of the change that matters, and regulation would definitely affect that. Calling the fire department isn't going to save your dinner, but it might save your house.

>Regulation in the United States or Great Britain is one thing, but try enforcing the same regulation in China or India.
Fixing our own shit would give us a lot better shot at pressuring them to change what they're doing. No-one is going to listen to a hypocrite.

>But to try and stop the climate from changing due to human interaction is an unrealistic goal.
Stopping it may be, but reducing it isn't.
Also, what are you basing that on? We created this problem, so it's clearly within our power to make changes of the scale needed to fix it.

>We are heading into uncharted territory from a climate standpoint, but extrapolating data and yelling 'apocalypse' isn't going to solve anything.
That's why climatologists actually study the machinery of them climate, rather than just extrapolating trend lines forward. Based on that understanding, they've concluded that this is a serious problem, and urgent steps are needed to avoid catastrophe. That's not the same as running around shouting the sky is falling.

Yes, it's real. Yes, we're fucked. Probably not apocalyptically fucked, but at least Great Depression tier fucked.

>fact: large particles in the atmosphere assist in trapping energy from the sun within the atmosphere
>fact: humans add significant amounts of large particles to the atmosphere
it isn't hard to figure out from there

>and if so, is it a big deal?
no. I wish the greenland/antartica gold rush was in my lifetime. also when our backs are against a wall we'll do something about it. obviously.

Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Global Warming Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Shore Like Nigga Stop Breathing Haha

We don't know, the papers are all biased.
If it was true the warming quantity they are trying to measure (of the order of 1/10th of degree) is far smaller than the statistic variation of temperature, this should lead to research teams finding no global warming or even global cooling but in lower numbers than teams finding global warming.
The fact that 100% of papers are showing warming, prove that research teams are either not publishing results that show no warming or show cooling, or modifying their data before publishing it (by increasing the average temperature).
So could be true, could not be true, the field has been way too politicized to be reliable.

Now the fact that an increase in half a degree will lead to appocalypse is bullshit, every creature on earth can survive a few degree more or less than they are used to.

ecological illiteracy is worse than climate change
S m h kill myself

this
human civilization developed in the unusually stable climate of the Holocene and the few examples of sudden changes we DO habe (like the 4.2 kiloyear event) are usually associated with the disappearance of many high-cultured civilizations like the Mesopotamian Empire of Akkad

taking a gamble of that scale is both unjust and immoral

I think the theory that we are in a post-ice age world, and therefore our contributions with carbon are slightly irrelivant in the grand scheme of things has some validity.

The more I study evolutionary science the more I recognise that, despite it obviously being a big deal, its actually not that much of a concern long term.

say there is no statistically signifanct warming of the lower atmosphere
Why is basically the entire cryosphere in retreat?
Why are flowers getting pollinated earlier?
Why is the sea level rising?
The warming signal can even be seen in the times at which certain species of grape vine reaches their peak ripeness and get harvested.
Are vintners in on the conspiracy too?

It is for the human species which is the best hope of ecological systems achieving sentience, that's a huge deal

That's why 40% of the oceans coral is bleaching as sea temperatures continue to rise, and 90% of the worlds coral reefs probably won't exist in 2050
Just killyourself or I'll blow my fucking head off

The great barrier reef as we know it didn't exist 20,000 years ago.

Also, reefs do regrow. I think coral polyps will adapt like other life usually does.

Argument from authority is not really a fallacy if the person is actually an authority on the subject
If they said "donald trump says climate change is a hoax, he's the president" that would be fallacious, but not if the person is an expert in the natural sciences

>Why is basically the entire cryosphere in retreat?
False, north pole ice cap is indeed decreasing recently, but south pole ice cap is increasing.
>Why are flowers getting pollinated earlier?
Source? And if it's true I can think of a few explanations that doesn't include climate change, like a new evolutionary strategy arising.
>Why is the sea level rising?
This one is bullshit, I've been living 50m from a beach for 25 years, the water level is still exactly where it used to be.
>The warming signal can even be seen in the times at which certain species of grape vine reaches their peak ripeness and get harvested.
I velieve this is linked to question 2.

Why do people never represent it as an equilibrium problem?

In the past, climate change hasn't been as much of a devastating problem for species, because it occurs over such a long period of time that everything can equilibrate. Ecosystems slowly change without large shifts in the food chain, and then of course one can consider the literal equilibrium of carbonic acid in the ocean with CO2 and water.

But when it occurs over a very short period of time, then it's thrust into a state of massive change in order to reach equilibrium, with an established gradient.

It is but it really doesn't matter much to humans. Unless you give a shit about faggy animals or third worlders then who cares.

>and if so, is it a big deal?
Wouldn't be if nuclear power didn't get such a bad reputation

The natural cycles of climate cannot explain the current warming trend without carbon dioxide.

Solar irradiance is going down. It is incapable of causing modern warming.

The Milankovitch cycle, which traditionally causes climate change is not this fast. We have gained about 1.5 degrees of warming over the last century. The Milankovitch cycle takes 11,000 years to reach it's maximum. At a rate of 1.5 degrees per 100 years the rivers, oceans, and lakes of the world would LITERALLY BOIL as the Earth tops 212 Fahrenheit.

Saying 'It's natural' is uneducated and stupid

>False, north pole ice cap is indeed decreasing recently, but south pole ice cap is increasing.
The net trend is a significant loss of ice mass, with very few places experiencing ice mass growth. Antarctica's Eastern sheet is growing, but whether that's enough to offset Antarctica's losses everywhere else still seems to be debatable. There's absolutely no debate about the rapid loss of ice in the Arctic.

>Source?
There's shitloads of papers about it.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24358716
cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(14)01342-6
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088605/

>This one is bullshit, I've been living 50m from a beach for 25 years, the water level is still exactly where it used to be.
Jesus Christ No.

>it really doesn't matter much to humans
It really does. Refugees and food shortages aren't going to be be fun for anyone.
Shit, even direct CO2 toxicity is a mild concern.

...

>We will do something about it
How do you know that?

Yes it's a real thing. Yes it's a big deal. The only "scientists" who say otherwise are just oil company shills.

>or third worlders
If India and Pakistan blow up 50% of their nuclear bombs we're all fucked by nuclear winter.

youtu.be/VUBY6bMZn8w?t=3m15s

youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=39m15s

Brainlets need to stop acting like they know about evolution.
The Great Barrier Reef took a lot longer than 20,000 years to form, considering complex life doesn't just poof into existence from nowhere.
The biodiversty loss of the anthropocene is on level with the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event. Complex living systems don't start to come back till about 10-25 million years after things like this.
Regardless we won't adapt and will surely go extinct, because we don't exist by ourselves.

i love you man
effort appreciated

Reefs do not have the kind of adaptive capacity to regrow in the timescale of the couple hundred or so years it will take for human extinction, especially during mass extinction and earth system destabilization, wtf are you thinking lmao

>The climate models suggest that the ignition of 100 firestorms, comparable in intensity to that observed in Hiroshima in 1945, would produce a "small" nuclear winter.[11][12] The burning of these firestorms would result in the injection of soot (specifically black carbon) into the Earth's stratosphere, producing an anti-greenhouse effect that lowers the Earth's surface temperature. The severity of this cooling, in Alan Robock's model suggests that the cumulative products of 100 of these firestorms would unmistakably cool the global climate by approximately 1 °C (1.8 °F), largely eliminating the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming for two to three years. Robock has not modeled, but speculated, that this would have global agricultural losses as a consequence.[13]

Is this a good idea

no because I like to eat food

SRM is just a band-aid, it can when succesful buy us a few extra years but we still have to reduce co2 and ch4 emissions.

youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=47m35s

>Is this a good idea
about as good an idea as doing a bungee jump with untested equipment

epa.gov/climate-change-science/causes-climate-change

its real. The human contribution is real. shills will deny this.

...

Ecological illiteracy is a greater threat than climate change
>like a new evolutionary strategy arising
We lad, just listen to your intellectual superiors.
>plant-pollinator phenology is going to significantly change in many different ecological interactions between many species because of a "new evolutionary strategy arising"
>it doesn't matter what scientific research determines if it can be hypothetically falsified
Just fuck my shit up.

Hey you are right in what you are tying to say but equilibrium is not the appropriate symbol.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergetics_(Haken)

>This one is bullshit, I've been living 50m from a beach for 25 years, the water level is still exactly where it used to be.

These threads always make me laugh. The dumbest of the dumb come out and show their ignorance and stupidity time and time again.

i will watch this finally
i didn't think it was a very good idea either

>le funny reddit pic
you have to go back

Everything we would say that support man made climate change would be anecdotal evidence for you.
That's how biased you are.

>refuting climate change, even as a shitty troll

nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html

nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6879/abs/416389a.html

get the fuck off this board mongrel

>anecdotal evidence

Nice!

Sea level is the same for everyone, if it hasnt changed for me , it hasnt changed for anybody.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

How much of what this guy says is the truth about the models and the military?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)

According to the guy in video
a country with a few billions to spare and basic infrastructure (even some countries in Africa could do it, Nigeria for example) can, in theory, reduce the global temperature by a few degrees.
Not to mention Pakistan and India who have nukes as mentioned hereCan they really do it? They can certainly attempt to do it if things get bad for them - if successful(likely the idea will work as far as temperature is concerned) what would that mean?

How much can they reduce the temperature and for how long really? Any scientific data on that?

Are literal climate conflicts possible?

I know there's at least a couple posters actually informed about this sort of thing and I need answers.

Here we go again another climate change thread

Just let it go /pol/ kin, how many times have you guys been BTFO.

I don't know where you've been, but /pol/ is like 300-0 on these threads, they always win.

>implying you would even notice the rate of change in your life time of casual local observation

>geoengineering is plan b
More of a Hetrarchy than a heirarchy
1. Ecological; earth system engineering and preservation, habitat restoration and radical sociological change
2. Reducing/sequestering emmmisions
3. Geoengineering
I don't even want to get started on actually discussing this

So from this thread I've learned climate change is happening, it's always been happening. What I haven't learned is why it's bad, if it's natural or man made, or if it's speeding up and there is no time for living things to adjust.
What the fuck.
Am I a brainlet?

Didn't know this was the term! Thank you, user.

It's not necessarily bad or good.

Humans have become and overwhelmingly entropic force in nature.

Like fire.

They convert matter from a high energy state to a low energy state. (Mining, farming, landfills). Massive quantities of useful materials are being removed from the land and dissolved in the oceans where they are no longer useful. Climate change will reduce biodiversity complexity.

Good and bad is a concept created by humans, completely irrelevant to physics.

Personally I don't really give a fuck. I think humans deserve exactly the world their ancestors create for them.

Just a small point, but pointing the finger at China is a Donald Trump meme. China is making huge progress in reducing their emissions and is still committed to switching to renewable energy and everything, unlike the U.S. It's not a great comparison because of the demographic differences but the per capita co2 emissions are like over twice as high for the US as China.

Honestly tho, the Chinese government is doing more then the US government but the american private sector is still doing a lot of work

Climate change is a natural thing our Earth, and other planets go through. Nothing is static in this universe. Our Earth is always going through changes, albeit on a long term geological prespective.

The current issue isn't about man "made" climate change, but wether or not man is significantly pushing climate change in a certain direction, and wether or not our actions are accelerating inevitable natural events.

We know we are putting more Carbon into the environment than is meant to be "recycled" by natural carbon sinks/uptakes. This is obvious enough when you consider we are digging up and burning Carbon that had sequestered over 100s of millions of years. That Carbon has no place in our "short" term natural Carbon cycles, and will most definitely change things. On what scale though?

In the short term, ya, we might be seeing a gradual warming as more CO2 is released, and the sinks continue to be over burden.

In the long term, things aren't so easy to determine. The release of fresh water into the northern oceans could very well create a reverse in certain cycles. The short term warming could lead to a longer cold period, a glacial period. But that is most likely out of range of our human prespective, our ability to worry about things happening outside of our lifetime.

>we actually have no records of the Earth's climate EVER changing this quickly.

No shit. The geological record isn't precise enough to measure on this scale. We really have no idea how long the shifts between warm and cold periods takes, and wether or not it is gradual, or if it the rate of change rises as changes occur, resulting in a very abrupt "flip" of cycles.

a lot of shit tends to be overblown because it's an easy way to make money

the only thing that will really 100% happen from man-made climate change is that shit will get hotter. the earth used to be much hotter than it is now, so that alone won't destroy us all. at the very least this will fuck up most of the biomes on earth into different ones, which shouldn't kill humans because we live literally everywhere.

worst case scenario we trigger a chain reaction where bacteria consume all of the oxygen in the atmosphere and kill literally 99.9% of all animals on earth.

I don't think anyone is arguing that humans will be wiped out. The issue is that there will be significant loss of life because we have pushed most productive land to it's max, and if climatic events fuck with that production, we won't have enough to feed everyone. Coastal areas flooding, oceans becoming less productive as marine life struggles, is also an issue.

humans deserve a mass extinction, there is literally no reason for there to be 8 billion of us.

True.

As time goes on, expect more local unrest in the human population. As people lose purpose in life, they will look for reasons to fight and be angry as a way to gain purpose. More terrorist like attacks and more pointless angry mobs. Reproduction will continue though, and the population will grow. Our ability to feed and provide basic necessities won't be able to meet demand. Wars will break out. Diseases will spread. The current regime of power will fall, and humans will suffer the greatest loss of life our species has ever suffered. I just hope we don't fuck up the Earth too much before that happens (nuclear war).

PSY OPS

GET THE FUCK OFF MY BOARD

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeee

more or less this

underrated

>I've been living 50m from a beach for 25 years, the water level is still exactly where it used to be.
lol what is eustasy

apex zozzle niBBa

most of the record isn't fine enough in resolution to get down to century-scale changes, but a large excursion (like we're seeing today) would cause a massive and reasonably persistent isotopic signal due to ecological disruption. when you fuck with large scale ecology, even if the event is too short to be recorded directly, it's possible to see the aftermath in micropaleontological markers and stable isotope geochemistry.

But most of the human species don't do anything good with their sentience and the ones that do are just lying down ready to die and be run over by the former groups. Sentience is a meme

>Muh big bad Oil boogeyman!
If Climate change will be as catastrophic as you say then those oil guys would do well to fight it, as all their money doesn't mean shit if they're dead

If they pull that off, they could also die

Would it be a better idea to invest in reversing the damage to the climate or in new technology and strategies for future adaptation?

They are only looking for short term profit.

It is.
There are tons of different evidence proving it.
For example
>CO2 increase is from the same isotope concentration as the CO2 found in factories
>Humans have mapped the amount of CO2 brought into the atmosphere yearly and evidence points to humans increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 4% yearly
>Oceans are becoming more acid because of the rise in CO2

Sentience is one thing but ecosystems achieving consciousness?
Well that's the first step towards a planetary civilization and is only possible through organismal sentience and significant understanding of nature.
Mayb we r special afterall

If China and India regulated it's industries millions of their citizens would die outright from starvation.

>Would it be a better idea to invest in reversing the damage to the climate or in new technology and strategies for future adaptation?
No.
Global Warming isn't a Civ5 disaster, with a fixed size and a set of conditions that a nessisary to trigger it. It's a spectrum of consequences, where greenhouse gas emissions push us further along the spectrum. Attempting only to mitigate or control the damage isn't going to be effective, because while we're still making the problem worse, the amount of shit we're going to need to mitigate will keep increasing.

>If China and India regulated it's industries millions of their citizens would die outright from starvation.
Post evidence.