CLIMATE CHANGE GENERAL

Utter nonsense. If someone could scientifically debunk any part of AGW it would be published in Science. Don't mistake your inability to do so for persecution.

What should can I do as a layman to help the environment? It's getting hotter every year here in the middle east and I don't think it's because of the sand people

I'm all for climate preservation but I refuse giving my dollars to big governments like the UN to do it. I bet all that money for the paris accord deal went 70% to admin fees and only a tiny amount on actual research or target institutions.

This climate meme should be solved through local solutions by local communities.

Which desert country do you live user?

To start with you should start by SORTING yourself out first, then your family. Use less plastic bags when doing groceries, dont leave the lights on at home when you leave for work, turn off the shower when you're shampooing to save water etc. Teach your kids to do the same. Give them STEM education instead of chem engineering.

SORT YOURSELF OUT SLAY THE DRAGON WITHIN YOU

Because everyone knows local government is highly effective at regulating global industries.

>local government is highly effective at regulating global industries
Yes?

Do big governments? How do you quantify "effectiveness" of regulation? Can you prove to me PCA was/is effective at doing what it sought to do?

The US and several other countries including China and India were starting to phase out coal power plants after the agreement.

youtu.be/0CnR8sJ61iQ

That was more to do with fracking decreasing the cost of natural gas below coal. It did more to reduce co2 emissions than any government green initiative.

We need at regulations and technology reducing the cost of green technology. We don't want governments picking winners for billion of dollars of tax money.

>everyone that disagree with a flawed climate deal is a climate change denier!!1

why do brainlets do this?

How does one stay motivated to care about climate change when one individual can do absolutely nothing to change the outcome. It can not matter one bit if I fly 20 times per year or - on the other end of the extreme - literally kill myself, the CO2 emissions will be QUALITATIVELY the same!

This is starting to look more and more like a "tragedy of the commons" situation --- no one has any incentive to do anything about this shit.

"Climate change" is scam.

We do have the problem of fossil fuels running out.

>What can one do to reduce co2 emissions.
Cut back on your meat consumption. The meat industry is an enormous greenhouse gas producer. You probably can't afford a more efficient car, or a set of solar panels. But you can definitely afford to not eat so many burgers. You'll end up healthier in the long run, too.

>What are common misconceptions about climate change?
The idea that because predictions of the past were wrong, current predictions must be wrong now. It's a pretty common strawman I see. The data and the methods are always improving and refining themselves.

>Are we doomed?
yeah

>Thoughts on the Paris accord?
A nice sentiment, but had no actual teeth. Nothing prevents countries who sign it from just ignoring all the provisions. Which is why leaving it sends such a bad message

>>What can one do to reduce co2 emissions.
>Cut back on your meat consumption. The meat industry is an enormous greenhouse gas producer. You probably can't afford a more efficient car, or a set of solar panels. But you can definitely afford to not eat so many burgers. You'll end up healthier in the long run, too.

not op, but - how the hell does that matter? So what, the temperature will go up 1.999999999C instead of 2.00000000C? That doesn't change ANYTHING. And don't give me that crap "If everyone thought like that.." it doesn't matter what any other hypothetical group does - whether you join them in their efforts to reduce emissions or not, the change will be the same.

To a point you're right, which is why I offered the individual benefits as a bonus. But if you prefer, think of it the other way around instead. Eating less meat will save you money and make you healthier, and as a side effect can also reduce greenhouse emissions

>What can one do to reduce co2 emissions.
Nothing.
>What are common misconceptions about climate change?
That it exists
>Are we doomed?
No
>Thoughts on the Paris accord?
At least Turmp was man enough to say no
>Keep discussion /sci related.
You first

Actually vegetarian diets aren't even that healthy. This is a big recent study: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743516304479

Within 20 years earth is probably a dust bowl

climatechange-foodsecurity.org/uploads/Drought_review_Dai_11.pdf

learn to eat bugs for protein

yeah, I'm not saying you have to go vegetarian. Just that the amount of meat us 1st-worlders eat is way too much.

Actually, it is not. Big brains needs protein.

I'm not joking, eat a lot of bugs, you can fill all your protein needs with insects

entomophagy is the future

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=56&v=mYw3Z73z0xE

Is anyone else content to sit back and watch to see if the climate change disaster happens?

People aren't inclined to take actions unless the effects are plain and visible. Nothing will change with oil consumption unless we truly start running out of oil (or other sources of energy become more attractive), and nothing will change with CO2 emissions until shit gets fucked beyond some ice somewhere melting.

Taking a course in renewable energy engineering, it's really interesting - should be useful when I eventually build/retrofit a house. Pretty excited to see how much PV solar improves in the next decade.

Using pic related as a textbook if anyone's interested. It's pretty good. Doesn't spend a whole lot of time on global warming, but it does address a lot of meme arguments like in , and also some more technical rebuttals, against AGW.

Climate change doesnt exist and its all liberal propaganda.

When will you guys just stop bashing Trump? Its been fucking 6 months, get over it already you guys lost.

You didn't get over it when Obama won, twice.

>eat a lot of bugs
Not gonna happen.

While I agree that the U.S. should dump the Paris Agreement climate change is real. It's observable, quantifiable, and evident. The issues are:
1. How much have humans accelerated the process?
2. How should we adapt to a changing environment?
The climate is changing and will continue to change regardless of human interaction, and history has show that. The real question is should we collectively be putting forth the capital and effort to stop this inevitable change or invest in adaptation strategies instead?

Can we please focus on the bigger issue that we should ban guys of moderately attractive or above looks from getting PHDs in high iq subjects?

My insecurity can't take the fact that they're allowed to be seen as both attractive and highly intelligent.

to be fair, tons of people who were against the accord don't even acknowledge climate change exists. It's why reporters have been trying to get Trump's actual take on it; he previously would dismiss it as a hoax. So, the problem is that there are a lot of idiots running around and we don't know who has a genuine argument to make and who's a retard. I guess some folks on either side just forget the other team isn't all retarded.

Trump can be free of criticism when he stops taking actions worthy of critique.

You shouldn't silently suffer what you disagree with merely because 6 months have passed. Not when you think you can cause positive change by highlighting where you think the other guy is wrong.

> Question: how can we realistically expect climate change to affect the world in the coming years?

youtu.be/M1cMnM-UJ5U

No, it has more to do with the regulatory atmosphere.

>suppresses opinions
You can have the opinion that water boils at room temperature, but you'd be wrong. You'd also be bad at cooking pasta.

>inb4 someone brings up vaporization at room temp and tries to say it's boiling as bait

Whether or not climate change is real, is an actual problem, and is something we can actually do about isn't the important part.

What is important is what action will upset liberals the most. I'll pick that regardless of other considerations.

Weird, i've started filtering every /pol/frog i've seen for the past few days and the amount of climate change denying trolls I see has gone down by about 80%
really makes me think

...

honey im home. what's for dinner tonight?
bugs again? oh well let me go blow my brains out

>What are common misconceptions about climate change?
MUH 98%...
Nobody has been able to show me the study that came from.

Is his vlogs accurate for every person getting a PhD thesis? Looks cozy hanging out for a few more years until you get a job.

you show those dirty commies, son!

I wonder, can solar powered Desalination plants with graphene/perforene membranes solve the water scarcity issue?. Within 20 years, we should have pretty cheap solar tech like Perovskite and Id be surprised if mass manufactured High quality Graphene isn't is still a meme by then.

seems interesting

although there still isn't a good way to manufacture lotsa graphene from what I've heard

>Nobody has been able to show me the study that came from.
Wait, really? It's an incredibly commonly discussed paper:
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

our ice caps are almost gone. in fact this year we may be having a blue ocean event in which the arctic circle will be free of ice for the first time ever. without this old white ice to reflect the sunlight, the ocean will heat up to release a 200 gigaton burst of methane. this summer, maybe the next. we don't have 10 years, we don't even have 5.

Wouldn't nuclear energy solve much of our problems? Is there some diplomatic reason why it's not even being discussed?

>Wouldn't nuclear energy solve much of our problems?
Mostly yes.

>Is there some diplomatic reason why it's not even being discussed?
Because so much of the population has been brainwashed to believe that nuclear waste is the worst thing ever, and nuclear accidents could end all life on earth, and use of nuclear power will definitely lead to nuclear war!

Ironically enough, when the oil prices were high, many oil companies saw the arctic as an opportunity for oil extraction once it becomes ice free. There have been made some interesting designs of oil platforms resistant to ice loads though as far as I know these haven't been built.

>brainwashed
>Chernobyl is still uninhabitable
>Fukushima happened just a couple of years ago
Although I think nuclear energy is a good option the dangers are very severe and very real so I understand people who oppose nuclear energy to some extent.

Especially if you take into account that some brainlet will be in charge of the atom splitting operation, accidents will continue to happen and significant parts of earth will be uninhabitable.

ocean loading, ice acidification, wave ice, ice albedo, black carbon, arctic river, and methane clathrate, jet stream waviness feedback, vertical moulins drilling well like shafts straight into the ice analogous to the clathrate in sea floor algae, turning the ice into swiss cheese. fissures in the antarctic 250 m. the peterson shelf, larsen c, charged potentional difference from a sun burning more helium causing increased uv and oblong earth, creating pockets and sinkholes earthquakes, unzipping entire fault lines like dominos

I literally just left the Arctic.
There was ice everywhere.
You're full of shit. The general ice coverage area has been reduced, on average, but this year is absolutely not going to be an ice free year in the Arctic.
You know there are people (like me) for whom dealing with Arctic ice is an annual challenge and whose livelihood depends on accurate ice forecasts? We didn't run around frantically picking up all our pots before they were driven under because of oil company propaganda. Look up the fucking ice forecasts before you blather horseshit next time, you fucking imbecile.

>charged potentional difference from a sun burning more helium causing increased uv and oblong earth, creating pockets and sinkholes earthquakes, unzipping entire fault lines like dominos
these seem unrelated to the increase in CO2, when did this become a part of the picture?

Imbecile. This single study doesn't descredit the benefits of a plant based diet. Second, it matters much what a vegetarian eats and even what someone who eats meat.

Consider that white meat and fatty fish are much healthier as red meat, and processed meat being unhealthy.

To get back to vegetarians, it matters all the world what they are eating instead of meat. If that includes a lot of other processed food, especially high in sugar, than the benefits won't be that great.

A vegetarian eating some vegetables, but mostly pizzas, white bread, cookies, sweets and soda is not healthy.

Please consider reading more than just one study. Or at least say "might not even be that healthy according to this study".

>entomophagy is the future
If I could choose it would be, but I am doubtful the general population is willing
Dutch supermarkets had some bug-based foods which I don't see anymore in the supermarket I go to, and I personally prefer non-processed bugs

The effects of fossil fuels are much more dangerous than nuclear, even ignoring the global warming it causes.

the arctic will continue warming until september. the arctic has been warming a ratio of 7:1 compared to the rest of the world.

all feedbacks in the arctic are accelerating feedbacks

That doesn't respond to a word he said. You're just as bad as deniers.

global warming is man made and caused by solar outbursts

there won't be any old (5 yr) ice for reflective albedo. the increased uv will melt ice at -15 centigrade. but arctic anomalies get as high as 20 degrees centigrade and caused increased rain. moistening of the upper troposphere takes weeks. the first thing will be floods and earthquakes then the planet will be turned into venus.

>the arctic will continue warming until september
No fucking shit Sherlock. That happens most every year. There's an ancient Inuit term for it. Some Err.
>all feedbacks in the arctic are accelerating feedbacks
The multi-year ice forms in cycles. There's still multi-year ice from the nasty 2010-11 winter floating around. It will slowly decrease until there's another hard ice forming winter, and if there's a few of those in the row the channels are back to staying clogged all summer. The general trend of lowering ice coverage doesn't equate to 'ermg ice free arctic guiz' anytime remotely soon. You don't know shit, and you can't be bothered to look up shit.
The Clathrate gun people belong in the flat earth threads

that's neat
they said the exact same thing 20 years ago

There would be less fish production because of disrupted marine ecosystems, less net crop production, and some flooding in coastal cities.
There is surprisingly many big population in coastal areas, and the flooding won't be very dramatic, but the cost builds up to quite a bit.
youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw

There will be more fish production in certain fisheries. There will be more crop production in many of the most productive areas of the planet. There aren't very many coastal cities whose flooding infrastructure is affected by a six inch sea level rise, if it was, they would have needed to upgrade it a long time ago.

Prove it.

it's 0.8 to 2 meter flooding.
>if it was, they would have needed to upgrade it a long time ago.
Why do you say so? An upgrade is certainly possible but it costs money.
>There will be more fish production in certain fisheries. There will be more crop production in many of the most productive areas of the planet.
The key term is 'net' or 'average'.

No rational person is forecasting a 2 meter rise in sea level, or a .8 meter one for that matter
It doesn't change the 100 year storm average, which is what proper systems are designed for. At those water levels the system is either modern or it has been neglected.
>net
You don't know anything about fisheries

>There will be more fish production in certain fisheries.
Overall the effect will be negative. The calcification of phytoplankton is harmful to everyone. The worst effects of warmer oceans and higher sea levels will affect the communities most vulnerable and reliant on fishing.

>There will be more crop production in many of the most productive areas of the planet.
False. Warming generally decreases crop yield. The largest agricultural producer is the US and will see yields drop. While warming can allow agricultural production in areas where it was previously too cold, this does not make up for by the loss of already existing agricultural infrastructure and the costs associated with setting up infrastructure in a new area.

>There aren't very many coastal cities whose flooding infrastructure is affected by a six inch sea level rise, if it was, they would have needed to upgrade it a long time ago.
This is very naive. Increasing the sea level by any amount means that the floods you got before are going to be that much worse. Saying that a city can withstand a six inch flood is irrelevant. Floods will be six inches higher than what they previously were, not 6 inches.

Do you really think flood level is the same as sea level?

>www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Pfeffer et al., 2008, Science.pdf
>n the basis of calculations presented here,
we suggest that an improved estimate of the range
of SLR to 2100 including increased ice dynamics
lies between 0.8 and 2.0 m.

you're the only ignorant one thick in the skull. listen to your stupid potty mouth. it's obvious you're not a reader. pray you dont live in florida

What fisheries will increase and what fisheries will decrease? What is the economic value of each? The total production? The interrelated industries? Calcification of phytoplankton is proceeding at what rate since it began to be studied a short time ago? I'll wait for you to Google
You don't understand anything about flood protection
>We emphasize that
assumptions made to arrive here contain substantial
uncertainties, and many other scenarios
and combinations of contributions could be considered
>Certain
potentially significant sinks and sources of
SLR, such as terrestrial water storage, are still
absent altogether.

Also,
>5 SEPTEMBER 2008

researchgate.net/profile/Declan_Conway/publication/257257562_Vulnerability_of_National_Economies_to_Potential_Impacts_of_Climate_Change_on_Fisheries/links/0deec52b073496d2ad000000.pdf

>You don't understand anything about flood protection
>>it's 0.8 to 2 meter flooding.
>No rational person is forecasting a 2 meter rise in sea level, or a .8 meter one for that matter
You don't know what you're talking about.

So, where are your sources for 6 inch slr user.
Your claim here
>No rational person is forecasting a 2 meter rise in sea level, or a .8 meter one for that matter
Already makes you a liar. So I'm assuming you're pulling them out of your ass. I'm sure a random internet stranger is so very reliable that he has no uncertainties.

Oh wow, its fucking nothing

why would you post the arctic max

>Most of the ice melting north over China
hmmm really gets the neurons firing

can't wait until the thieving chinks pull out right before they're actually expected to do anything for the paris accord

whoops, meant for

Humans will gladly accept a serious and well-evidenced risk of leaving Earth inhospitable from runaway climate change by disseminating demonstrable nonsense for cash. Other humans will gladly gobble it up without a forethought as though it were a competition to win political points.

This debate has really sapped the last of my faith in humanity. If human civilization does produce runaway climate change, we probably deserve to collectively kick the bucket; I just wish our ecosystems and biodiversity, totally unique anything in the known universe, didn't have to pay the price too.

>can't wait until the thieving chinks pull out right before they're actually expected to do anything for the paris accord
yeah haha we sure showed them by preemptively doing something equally indefensible as this thing that they've shown no indication of doing yet.

>Posts the maximum extent (which is still a historically low extent)
>Fails to mention the drastic loss in arctic ice thickness
>Fails to mention the drastic reduction in multi-year ice
>Fails to mention that less ice in summer means increased water temps (because water absorbs more energy than ice, thus warming the arctic more), meaning more ice melt in summer.

There's always going to be arctic sea ice in winter because it's pretty much going to get cold enough for sea ice to form in the arctic even with a 2°C+ average global temperature increase, thus this really means nothing. What's important is that in summer the amount of sea ice present has rapidly decreased each year and the oldest, multi-year sea-ice has declined drastically.

youtube.com/watch?v=G0rp6-BEur8

"We consider glaciological
conditions required for large sea-level rise to occur by 2100 and conclude that increases in excess
of 2 meters are physically untenable."
I read that, even if all the ice in the world melts, still no more then 2 meters rise.
"We find that a total sea-level rise of about 2 meters by 2100
could occur under physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables are quickly
accelerated to extremely high limits."
It won't happen.
"More plausible but still accelerated conditions lead to total
sea-level rise by 2100 of about 0.8 meter"
"Still accelererated" aka, it won't happen.
"These roughly constrained scenarios provide a “most
likely” starting point for refinements in sea-level forecasts that include ice flow dynamics."
More gibsmedat please.
Worst case scenario, humanity will be just fine.

>Humans will gladly accept a serious and well-evidenced risk of leaving Earth inhospitable
`What are you talking about? Co2 levels have been much higher in the past and no ice at all at the polars and there were animals and plants.
livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html
"Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, "

It is a competition to score political points, and among rational people your side is very slowly losing. Finally.

And how many large mammal species existed? Essentially zero.

>And how many large mammal species existed? Essentially zero.
Evolution is real, what is your point? You think big mammals can't breathe in that atmosphere?

>I read that, even if all the ice in the world melts, still no more then 2 meters rise.
Why would you read that. I've never read anyone saying that melting of all ice is possible in the next one hundred years, so why would you think that's the implicit assumption?, you have references for that?
>It won't happen.
Never heard of positive feedbacks loops I see.
>"Still accelererated" aka, it won't happen.
No, 'acceleration' means a variation in rate of melting. 0.8 is in case the acceleration is the same as today, which again is not likely because of positive feedback loops. So the most plausible scenario is between those two limits, exactly as the article says.

65 meter rise by 2025 is possible

That's true.
This article says 65 meters and that it would take 5000 years.

nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/
"There are more than five million cubic miles of ice on Earth, and some scientists say it would take more than 5,000 years to melt it all"
science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm

" If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing."

I still fail to see the problem.

forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/05/09/heres-what-earth-would-look-like-if-all-the-ice-melted/#2b21f3bac495
"The upper range of the ice sheet's stability is somewhere between 500 ppm to near 800 ppm CO2. At that point the Earth is on a path to being ice free for thousands of years. One upside is that while we may get to the 500 ppm tipping point in the next century, it will take thousands of years for all the ice on the planet to fully melt. Hence giving humans generations to adapt to a wildly different planet."
We need to co2 to give Mars an atmosphere.