/ccg/ - Climate Change General

He's not incorrect

>Climate Change
my favorite youtuber debunked this

basically it's a leftist plot

In a survey of Bill Nye's, 97% agreed that global warming identified as a bitchy fat woman.

he is incorrect
northern countries barely allowed a million people

russians won't allow indians to live in siberia or something

what will happen is southern countries will simply geoengineer - sounds like it requires a lot of advanced tech and time, when it can be done today, we just don't know the consequences, but when you face starvation you don't care much about the future

GEOengineering implies it will affect northern countries as well so they have to respond - they have a few possible responses, but that's too far into conjecture territory

yes he is

the root cause of climate change (and environmental degradation in general) is continually increasing consumption of energy.

He wants to increase consumption of energy (as well as population) by building nuclear plants.

Sad how people fail to understand this basic concept, but this is Veeky Forums afterall.

>the root cause of climate change (and environmental degradation in general) is continually increasing consumption of energy.
>energy
no, it's oil

nuclear is a much better alternative, but it's competition to oil so it doesn't get mentioned much

What percentage of climate change is being caused by humans?

What is the ideal temperature for the Earth?

Why is increasing atmospheric CO2 is a bad thing?

>What percentage of climate change is being caused by humans?
we'd be cooling if it wasn't for our involvement
> What is the ideal temperature for the Earth?
lower
> Why is increasing atmospheric CO2 is a bad thing?
gets further from ideal T

>the root cause of climate change (and environmental degradation in general) is continually increasing consumption of energy.
It's capitalism and comsumerism that cause the downfall of humanity.

Oil is getting passed its prime. law of diminishing returns.

bankers like you are betting on a new source of energy - literally grasping at straws - to fuel the population/consumption growth you need to finance your opulent lifestyles

unfortunately for you, it is impossible

>capitalism and comsumerism

exactly the same as energy consumption growth

>we'd be cooling if it wasn't for our involvement
What... I thought the planet was warming before the industrial revolution.

>lower
But more people die from cold weather than hot weather. Also plants thrive with a bit more CO2.

>gets further from ideal T
What's the ideal temperature again? Details and facts pls.

Difficult question largely because we should be cooling now but we're not. So you could say eleventy gajillion percent and not be incorrect.

Cooling tends to lead to mass extinction events while warming doesn't. So I'm fine with that.

/ccg/ tinfoilery belongs to this is a science board

You know that temperature fluctuates up and down. Showing a graph like that is misleading as you're ignoring the overall trend. Totally unscientific, but it's persuasive.

>eleventy gajillion percent
I came here for science, you can fuck off with this shit honestly. Thanks anyways.

>What... I thought the planet was warming before the industrial revolution.
You really do not belong here.

The lack of information in your post is quite telling.

Please elaborate. I don't understand what you are saying. It's a graph comparing solar energy with earth's temperature. If anything it makes it looked like they are linked.

The data only goes back to 1880, meaning that it's not really showing the climate trend.

I could take a snapshot of data during a different time period and show the opposite trend.

Look at this graph. It goes back all the way, and you can see from this that the trend you show is not significant.

It's normal for the climate to fluctuate like this.

Since I posted it I'll respond. When people who are uneducated in Earth sciences answer that climate change is caused by changes in the sun, they often try talking about things such as the Maunder minimum which was a period of cooling in the 17th and 18th centuries. They often then start going on about how correlations in solar output in the preindustrial era are evidence for how humans can't be causing climate change.

However this doesn't explain warming for the last half century when total solar output has been going down (which is easily measured directly rather than using sunspot activity as we do for explaining the Maunder minimum). Despite total solar irradiance going down for the last half century we continue to get warmer so if solar output is primarily responsible for climate change then we ought to be cooling.

So a statement like the earlier 'what percentage of climate change is human caused' is a bit difficult to answer.

I have a degree in Earth science, let me gather my thoughts and I'll add to the post in a moment. Right now I'm trying to eat.

hm, yeah, it goes from the "colder" end of the warmer-colder axis to the "warmer" end of the colder-warmer axis from time to time, huh

back to

>what percentage of climate change is human caused' is a bit difficult to answer
Can't you estimate at least? That seems reasonable considering how sure y'all are that human CO2 is the blame here.

I'm trying to get an understanding of what's occuring here and all I get is fear mongering.

Nothing about a warmer planet sounds bad to me. Even if we are changing the climate, GOOD.

>Nothing about a warmer planet sounds bad to me. Even if we are changing the climate, GOOD.
nice that it doesn't sound bad to you but you're gonna die, how does that sound

Real scary!

(not)

I thought this was a smart people board. You're just a regular asshole.

user you don't understand. My gf's new leather shoes are more important than the continued survival of the only known habitably planet.

this board is for people who wanna be smart, which is why it's full of pseudo-intellectual retards. Smart people have left here long time ago.

it's not just energy growth.

It's how we mindlessly drill away resources and clearing out land for profit. It's how planned obsolesce create a landfilled of disposable goods for the purpose of justifying the continue manufacturing of products. It's the outright scheme of gilded minded to have the stranglehold on the population to enrich themselves to godhood.

And don't get me started on factory farming of cows and pigs.

"Nothing about a warmer planet sounds bad to me" is the statement I would call into question on this front, rather than "People are going to die because of global warming"

I have one too. Atmospheric science. And another degree in physics. From a top university.

Don't bother.

You're wasting your time here. (So am I)

thanks

Ok, so the only real way to answer this properly would be through the Stefan-Boltzmann energy balance equation. I could go way back to blackbody radiation curves, Wein's law, and Planck's constant but just to explain, it's solid physics. Stefan-Boltzmann is used in climatology and planetary sciences to measure the expected radiation curves of planets, including Earth, if no atmosphere were present.

According to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation Earth should be about -15 degrees C but it's clearly not it averages +15 degrees C. The rest is caused by the reabsorption of energy by the atmosphere before it can escape into space. Not all of it is reabsorbed, if it were Earth would bake. The primary gases responsible for absorbing outgoing infrared radiation are Water Vapor, Carbon Dioxide, and Methane.

Water vapor is the undeniable king of greenhouse gases. It accounts for more than 85% of the heat trapped by the atmosphere. But there's a problem with water vapor. Water vapor is a positive feedback. Imagine a scenario:

When the parents are angry the kids get noisier, when the kids are noisier the parents get angrier. That's a positive feedback. It goes to infinity, the louder the kids, the angrier the parents, and so forth forever until the kids become screaming little black holes.

Water vapor accounts for a huge portion of greenhouse gases but it's not a *REGULATOR* of climate. It's more of a consequence. Something else has to trigger it to evaporate into the atmosphere and stay there.

Methane is also a problem. It has a residence time that's too short. Methane only stays in the atmosphere for about 3-5 years. It quickly breaks down into carbon dioxide or is absorbed by the hydro and biospheres.

This is why carbon dioxide has been called Earth's climate *REGULATOR* by scientists. Without CO2 in the atmosphere we get too cold and Earth freezes. Long term geologic climate history is more often then not a consequence of atmospheric CO2

>It's how we mindlessly drill away resources and clearing out land for profit. It's how planned obsolesce create a landfilled of disposable goods for the purpose of justifying the continue manufacturing of products. It's the outright scheme of gilded minded to have the stranglehold on the population to enrich themselves to godhood.
>And don't get me started on factory farming of cows and pigs.

From my perspective (physics guy), that all falls under the category of energy growth use. It takes energy to do all of those things, and all of those things combined with energy growth allow population to keep growing.

>From my perspective (physics guy), that all falls under the category of energy growth use. It takes energy to do all of those things, and all of those things combined with energy growth allow population to keep growing.
Fair enough.

To be honest, I thought you're talking about electricity.

I really want to understand. Not everyone who disagrees about this is a redneck from the westboro baptist church.

I just do a little gardening and understand that plants like the way the climate is changing. Animals like bigger plants to eat. And cold weather is dangerous. Most fish probably like a warmer ocean too... less ice means more open water for life.

This is all perfectly logical and nobody seems able to explain why this is the wrong mentality other that phony ethics.

I'm supposed to discount all these benefits of climate change because of the sea level (which rises several feet every day). It's ridiculous.

There should be ids in sci. No flags, just ids so we can tell who's who.

this

>Water vapor is a positive feedback

This is absurd. It's obviously a negative feed back system.

Are you telling me rain makes the Earth hotter. What the fuck. Proof please.

The other two primary regluators of climate are the Milaknovitch Cycle and total solar irradiance.

Total solar irradiance takes forever to change. It increases little by little steadily over huge geological time periods. It accounts for all the warming of the planet but it barely changes noticeably over millions of years. Those minor fluctuations can cause some short term changes but solar irradiance is a very poor match for overall climate trends.

The Milankovitch cycle is a great one. It is responsible for this chart
And while the Milankovitch cycle is a good match for climate change historically it's too slow to account for modern warming and we've reached it's maximum and should start going down again.

So we're stuck with CO2 again being the culprit. Anything else someone can argue is causing modern warming is a lie, there's no argument anymore that makes sense.

So how much are humans contributing to climate change? Is a sticky question to answer. I could say it's 50% of 10% of 30 degrees C since that's about how much we've increased overall CO2 in the atmosphere and how much of total climate forcing is caused by CO2 compared to water vapor but that's not answering the question either.

I could say all of it since humans are causing significant abnormal warming when we should be going down not up in temperature, that's kind of what I did already but even that isn't answering the question.

It's a loaded question. I think the only thing I can do is what I've done. Try and explain a little bit how climate works.

there should be a term to use in the options field that turns ids or flags on independently for a particular thread on any board

>CO2 again being the culprit
I never denied that CO2 was affecting the temperature.

Why is it a bad thing?

crops wont grow, waterlevel will rise alot, irreparable damage to the only known planet supporting life and all it's ecosystems
the reefs for example are habitat to beautiful and borderline ridiculous biodivesity, and they're bleaching because of climate change

>It's a loaded question
It's not a loaded question. You declare that humans are causing climate change.

So I ask, "how much?" it seems like a perfectly reasonable question and you're totally unable to give an answer. You can't even give an estimate...

"it's compliacted" is not an answer at all. you're saying a bunch of shit but totally ignoring the main point of my questions.

hope you feel smart or whatever, but you didn't educate me at all.

>crops wont grow
Earths geological record shows that we used to have like 20x the current CO2 and plants loved it.

So that's bullshit.

>waterlevel will rise alot
It already rises like 5-7 feet every day because of the tide.

>muh delicate ecosystem

No. Animals are constantly going extinct. You won't guilt trip me.

>It already rises like 5-7 feet every day because of the tide.
please be bait

Equations?!

beyond how their truck needs a radiator, these fucking consumers could give a fuck about physics.

i told you not to bother

>you didn't educate me at all.
I can't help you with that. I suppose the only thing I can do to help at all now is say this

'Humans have contributed about 1.5 degree C of warming since the start of the industrial age'

Does that answer your question? It's not a percent. There's no 'we WOULD HAVE gone up .5 degrees but instead went up 1.5' because that's not what happened. We SHOULD be going down. What's the percentage of a negative number? It's a nonsense question.

Honestly, I don't know how to help you friend.

Why should I be concerned about the gradual rise of sea level when it rises and falls several feet every day?

You think a few inches are going to make a different?

Fear mongering.

>'Humans have contributed about 1.5 degree C of warming since the start of the industrial age'
There's the answer I was looking for. Thank you.

Why did you over complicate it and fluff up your posts like that?

Because 1.5 degrees over 200 years isn't something to worry about. It's perfectly within normal temperature fluctuations. When you give the facts in a straightforward manner there's nothing scary about this

Climate change is good for humanity. If you aren't an idiot you should be buying land in Canada and Siberia.

While you pussies salivate to Al Gore's Inconvenient Baloney, I will be filthy fucking rich.

>It's perfectly within normal temperature fluctuations
No it isn't, not even slightly. Imagine at that rate over the course of 11,000 years, the amount of time it takes the Milankovitch cycle to complete it's course. The Earth would easily top 165 degrees C and all of the oceans rivers and lakes would literally BOIL.

And we're burning fossil fuels even FASTER than ever before. So where do you get 1.5 degrees in 200 years isn't something to worry about, your ass?

How fucking dumb are you? You do realize if you add a few feet to global sea level, that is added to the tides as well, right?

Fuck, add a few INCHES and places like Miami are inundated with water every super tide, which is exactly what's happening right now in Miami beach.

Just because some regions on Earth have high tides doesn't mean that SLR isn't a horrible thing for our coastal cities / towns.

Let's say you have a town that's a few feet above sea level at HIGH TIDE, now imagine that the Earth has sea levels of 1m higher, suddenly the entire city becomes inundated at high tide.

Oooh scary

Guys stop burning fuel or were gonna raise the temperature (which fluctuates wildly every day) by 1 degree in 100 years!!!!!

My area goes from like 50 to 90 every 24 hours.

Why should I be concerned about 1.5 degrees change? It's insignificant. Even in 500 years it's practically nothing.

>the sea level rises 5-7 ft every day
>two inches more and florida is DOoOmED!!!!!

Lol

Besides, the water will go back into the Earth like what happened in Austrailia.

Like the Earth doesn't operate with negative-feedback mechanisms. Lol. This planet is billions years old. Fucking supervolcanoes, asteroids, the Earth has no problem. But humans burning shit, yeah were all gonna die now.

Stop.

you're both right and wrong.

The earth will be fine, and live will endure even if 99.9% of them were killed off; it's the human's who're fucked:
youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

That's just more fear mongering.

Humans lived through ice ages. Like a little heat us going to kill us, its a joke.

Drink a glass of water. WOW IT'S MAGIC.

Earth been around for billions of years, yet humans were around for merely 100,000 years.

Regardless if it were man made (like ACD, pollution, or nuclear war), or natural (Yellowstone eruption, Solar Flare, or Asteroid impact) humanity are venerable to extinction; and you have to be naively optimistic to believe that we'll survive, even unchanged, or another billion years.

I never said we would survive unchanged for billions of years.

I believe we can survive a gradual temperature increase (1.5 degrees every 200 years). There's nothing naive about that. You're just a cucked pessimist, which is no better than blind optimism.

I was refering to Environmentalism in general you idiot.

I was agreeing with George Carlin that liberals and environmentalist only concern about their own habitat and wanted the earth to stay the way it is. But sadly, Earth don't give a fuck about us, and neither does the cosmos.

Also, which do you believe the most likely threat of humanity?

A. Anthropogenic Climate Change.
B. Nuclear War.
C. Solar Flare.
D. Global Plegue.
E. Degeneracy.
F. Asteroids.
G. Alien Invasions.
H. Cosmic Rays.
I. Zombie Apocalypse.
J. Robot Rebellion.
K. Grey Goo.
L. Terrorism.

>I was refering to Environmentalism in general you idiot.
It's still a straw man. As if I was arguing that we only burn gasoline forever. I never said anything like that so shut up with that pretend argument.

>Also, which do you believe the most likely threat of humanity?
>A. Anthropogenic Climate Change.
>B. Nuclear War.
>C. Solar Flare.
>D. Global Plegue.
>E. Degeneracy.
>F. Asteroids.
>G. Alien Invasions.
>H. Cosmic Rays.
>I. Zombie Apocalypse.
>J. Robot Rebellion.
>K. Grey Goo.
>L. Terrorism.

Asteroids, if they were big enough. Why, do you think it's AGW? lol, please don't.

>(You)#
>>Also, which do you believe the most likely threat of humanity?
>Asteroids, if they were big enough.
So you're saying that Trump should shift all Climate Funds to Asteroid Defense.

how are we going to deal with this shit?

shtfplan.com/headline-news/scientists-warn-deadly-ancient-pathogens-melting-out-of-ice-in-the-arctic-could-wipe-out-human-population_05052017

>liberal debate tactics

you got me. yes, whatever. just shut up.

Vaccines

How long until manhattan is underwater, or at least significantly impacted by regular/permanent flooding?

5 MINUTES

>he misunderstands the word likely

You're so stupid that it's making me feel awkward. Sorry for your loss.

Guess who's back to bring /pol/ to sci.

That's a really compelling argument. I guess I shouldn't call out BS debate tactics or some meanie might call me a nazi :(

Better just let the shitposts shitpost in peace

...

/pol/ have arrived.

That doesn't even make sense

We need population control in western countries

Or whites, you know, can grow a pair and tell the shitskins to fuck off and die in their own countries

nahh

1.5 degrees in a century is about a 20 times faster rate of warming than we saw coming out of the last ice age. It's difficult to see how an ecosystem can adapt to such quick changes. If action isn't taken we could effectively increase the temperature of the Earth 4 degrees by the end of this century, in as little as 200 years. That's insane. It took earth 5-10,000 years to exit an ice age and we can adjust the temperature balance in a fraction of that time.

>You are instantly teleported to a room full of oil company executives from every major company in the world.

How do you get them to listen?

What's a way to learn about radiative heat transfer in transparent media?

Any good resources to learn about climate modelling?

They never listened in the first place, they knowingly ignored the evidence and set up efforts to funnel money (and still do) into groups that spread propaganda, misinformation and cast doubt on scientific findings. Most fossil fuel companies today admit that humans are the cause of the current trend, but they only do that for PR.

The men leading these corporations will be dead, their children will be dead before civilization bears the brunt of the ecological and environmental damages to our civilization, why should they give a shit? Even then, they will still have their billions and be able to avoid any of the inconveniences climate change brings the less well off of our population.

Hey guys, I just invented teleportation, here's what's up

>Because 1.5 degrees over 200 years isn't something to worry about. It's perfectly within normal temperature fluctuations. When you give the facts in a straightforward manner there's nothing scary about this

I really hate /pol/

Maybe the user didn't want to use the numbers because without context you literally cannot comprehend what they mean, and hey, you didn't.

kek

>Maybe the user didn't want to use the numbers because without context you literally cannot comprehend what they mean, and hey, you didn't.
Yes I do. 1.5 degrees over a couple hundred years. It's just not scary.

tell that to the Permian-Triassic

>you should be buying land in Canada and Siberia

Singapore daily mean temp is 27°C
if it goes up to 28°C it'll not became uninhabitable

same for Siberia: an average low of -18°C instead of -19°C in winter wont make it a paradise

So you don't care about future generations? At that rate in 10000 years, the oceans start to boil.

>So you don't care about future generations?
"Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill."

CEO Nwabudike Morgan "The Ethics of Greed"

That's toxic capitalist thinking that brought us so much suffering it's unimaginable how people allowed it to happen. There's no reason to repeat the mistakes of the past generations. We are here today and it's up to us to set things right.

>it's unimaginable how people allowed it to happen.
its just lord of the flies, on a much larger scale.

Which is why free marketeers opposed climate action.