/ccg/ - Climate Change General

It should be noted first of all that you didn't respond to any of the points I raised.

but let's take that claim that humans don't understand the thermodynamic processes on Earth.
Okay, that's a point of view, but if that's the case, how does that square with your earlier declaration that it's "not man-made" You seem to think that ANYTHING will do, regardless if your arguments are internally inconsistent and mutually exclusive. Just throw everything at the wall, in the hope that some of it may stick with some people.

Call that what you will, but it isn't a real scientific hypothesis and I think it isn't a serious way of arguing either.

Global warming is nothing but spectrum-tier nonsense.

The biggest figure in this scam is Al Gore, who said in 2008 that there would be no ice in the north pole in 2013.

youtube.com/watch?v=lDNkAkl89wA

It was taught as a theory long before Gore and his movie made for money and shock value.

The 'sky is falling' idiocy only made them look like fools and they ended up hurting their own cause in the end.

The proportion of greenhouse gases that humans are responsible for is not constant; it's increasing.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last century is less than the amount humans have added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Nature is a net absorber of CO2. The fact that nature emits AND REABSORBS more CO2 than humans do is of little relevance - what counts is the net increase.

Although water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, it quickly condenses into clouds which have a cooling effect. So the significance of H2O in the atmosphere isn't closely correlated to the amount that goes in; rather it's an amplifying mechanism. More heat retained (which is the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases) means more of the H2O is in the vapour phase (which causes warming) rather than the liquid phase (which mainly causes cooling).

And nobody's ignoring the fact the sun is the only significant source of energy that warms the earth. But denialists tend to wrongly assume that they know something the climate scientists don't.

there is only one thing that truly creeps me out about climate change and that is the poleward shift of the storm tracks

it's creepy for several reasons: it was predicted by modeling efforts several years before it was actually observed. Also the mechanism behind this shift is completely unknown and this may turn out to be a very important cloud-albedo feedback. Lastly this poleward shift is only ever replicated in models that have a climate sensitivity of more than 3°C and that can't be a good sign

Degree is inadequate in the same way as in Raschke, but in other areas there are, although you can understand in it, the unified textbooks from the same office that you need to zadrachivat before blinding, because 99% of all questions of most subjects have in mind precisely direct questions From the textbook. For example, if it is written in the saber book that Aligula Mollamagometov was the greatest bearer of the 17th century, then so, the whore, will be the question - "who was the greatest beast of the 17th century?". And all the options are entirely writers and all of the 17th century. So sit and wonder who in the author's book was honored to be called the greatest. Did not zadrachival this moment, focusing on important historical events and dates? - We fuck, it was necessary. And in general, half of all the delirium of these textbooks are cleanly rolled out of the hottest textbooks of the 90's, apparently because no one in the subject matter understands them. For example, now what the Russian program in Russian calls an "indicative offer" is called "subjective" in Azerbaijan. And fuck that it's already mauva. Also there is an opinion that this is done specifically so that the school buys only textbooks of this same office . And one more haemorrhoids - tests and textbooks are made by different people, and apparently by the end of autism, since they do not enter into contact with each other and understand each other in the matter of each other exactly by fucking. Hence all the problems - the textbooks are written through the ass, if only the tests were coy-like compatible, and the tests themselves are written through another ass, so long as the textbooks were compatible.

>What a laughable thing to say
what a stupid post to make

>Al Gore
>politician
gtfo fgt pls

Will carbon scrubbers ever become feasible?

climate change =/= global warming

once we have fusion, Yes
it's all a matter of energy, could do it with nuclear, but hippies are too scared of it because they're uneducated shit eaters

Why are we still using fossil fuels if hippies are in charge?

Fusion will never be commercially viable.

>your metabolism is what keeps you warm in winter
>after all, it's the only significant source of energy that warms your viscera!
>wearing a coat has nothing to do with it!

the sad thing is that there are tens of millions of people in the US who are actually this ignorant.

the sad thing is that NIMBYs have enough pull to stymie new projects but not enough to enact their own agenda.
so instead of building newer safer more effective nuclear plants, or denuclearizing entirely, we're left with the objectively shitty middle ground of maintaining reactors that were built in the 70s and never intended to be running today.

Is anyone else here having literal nightmares about climate change?

I am so fucking scared guys. For the last few weeks I keep having a nightmare where I am at a fancy dress party, dressed as the Arctic Sea Ice. Everyone at the party is ignoring me and they seem to be drinking oil. I am fine, at first but then start to feel hot. I look at my sides and I seem to be melting. I feel hot as fuck, and look in the mirror and see my face melting.

Then I try to get help. I grab at people and they ignore me until I pin down a girl and projectile vomit in her face until she dies.

I am so scared.
We are going to be 4 degrees warmer by 2060. Sea levels will rise 3 meters this century. Food production will plummet by 50%. Disease will spread. Storms and flooding will cause nuclear accidents.

We are fucking done. less than 500 million of us will be left by 2200, and we will NEVER reach this level of civilization again.

I have been trying to cope by stealing Scientific Journals from the University and burying them in metal capsules in the woods, hopefully future humans wil dig them up and use them to re-learn lost knowledge

>find a rural place with low population density
>plant fruit and nut trees and many many perennial edibles and other useful plants
>grow a good variety of veggies
>keep animals
>get lots of tools, solar, radio tech, weapons etc.
>make friends with your neighbours
>sit back and watch the world burn (or drown)
>hope there is no nuclear war

Humans in favourable conditions will survive
They will rebuild
The knowledge will not be lost
Our species has survived worse things

>Is It So Bad If the World Gets A Little Hotter?
Yes, it will be.
wired.com/story/is-it-so-bad-if-the-world-gets-a-little-hotter-uh-yeah/

Buy some stilts hippie, lol.

manlets, when will they learn

*increases your temperature gradient*

jeez dude calm down, were not heading for 4 degrees and instead are trending towards just under 2 degrees. While this is still horrible it is no where 4 degrees will take us.

>climate change

No such thing. Liberals cling to this and seem to love it these days. Face it, not only you lost the election, climate change is also not real.

>Face it, not only you lost the election, climate change is also not real.
Congratulations - You just basically summed up everything wrong with climate change denialism in a singe sentence.
You don't actually care about the climate, you're just here to cheer for your particular political team to "win", even if it involves shitting on actual research.

that's not actually true, if we want to keep temperature under 2°C compared to pre-industrial, emissions would have to peak in 2020 and then decline rapidly. Since that is highly unlikely, we will probably overshoot 2°C

Climate change apocalypse is malthusian meme for self hating autists and opportunists using them. The zealous anti-nuclear crusade by the same circles is related.

Gym I go to often has over 550 ppm, am I going to die?

Do you guys remember that Japanese or Asian scientist skeptic that made that really odd prediction in the form of a graph that merely extrapolates the historical pre-industrial trend? Does anyone remember his name?

Whatever happened to Lord Monckton blowing up last year about finding mathematical proof of the exaggeration of feedback mechanisms? That they were actually a rectangular hyperbolic, did he publish yet?

>trusting that Monckton will back his claims up
user, I...

He backed the claim in the three part: Feet of Clay , I just have no idea wtf he's on about. Curious after almost 12 months what's come of it.

550 ppm for an indoor gym is extremely well, must have some banging ventilation system.

disregarding everything else, an equilibrium climate sensitivity of "substantially less than 1.6°C" crashes hard against several lines of evidence, ostensibly the paleoclimate record of the entire Cenozoic

At this moment, the earth is in the middle of an ice age which began around 2.58 million years ago. We are in an interglacial period which started between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago and may last for a further 50,000 years before global glaciation begins again.

I only know that Monckton published a paper in some strange Chinese journal about climate sensitivity, which then went on to get ripped to shreds by actual scientists like Richardson & Hausfather

"In summary, [Monckton 2015] fail to demonstrate that IPCC estimates
of climate sensitivity are overstated. Their alternative
parameterization of a commonly used simple climate
model performs poorly, with a bias 350 % larger and
RMSE 150 % larger than CMIP5 median during
2000–2010. Their low estimates of future warming are due
to assumptions developed using a logically flawed justifi-
cation narrative rather than physical analysis. The key
conclusions are directly contradicted by observations and
cannot be considered credible."

>Chinese Hoax General

New video from Yale Climate Connections

youtube.com/watch?v=7d8PwPHMKEw

That sums up the "headcount" studies pretty well.

>MONCKTON

Quick rule of thumb to determine if somebody is serious about combating Global Warming -- if they are also anti-nuclear energy, they are posers, or adherents of a cult, or are cynically using fears of warming to promote an unrelated political agenda.

IF you accept AGW as a real thing (I do, but I tend to doubt its severity is at Al Gorean levels) and IF you seriously want to do something about it, you need an alternative energy source to burning fossil fuels that is ready to go today.

That's nukes.

I've been looking for evidence for a while but I've never seen any kind of empirical evidence that proves anything about a "climate change debate".

I can acknowledge that the climate is changing, you'd have to be literally retarded to not think there's any climate change. We can see it every day. What I cannot understand or acknowledge is that humans are somehow causing these massive changes in climate. I know that the climate is changing, but is there truly any evidence that HUMANS are the cause?

I've seen numbers as low as 6% up to 40% of total carbon emissions coming from humans, but never have I seen any kind of graph or data showing any kind of correlation to an increase in CO2 from humans leading to an increase in the global "climate".

I'm sure this kind of post gets posted here all the time, but is there any evidence that WE are making any kind of large difference in the climate itself? I'm not asking if the world is heating up, I'm asking how much of that heat is US.

When people complain about climate change, are they mostly just complaining about polution?

youtu.be/7IbyiOoVgnQ
Currently watching this. How can you guys believe in this climate science lie?

What?

Human persons are driven by fear.

You know the funny thing about a 30ft sea level rise?
It would render all costal cities uninhabitable.
Just because we'd have to rebuild the entire sewer system.

>Anyone who disagrees with my solution isn't taking the problem seriously.
The fuck? That's politician logic.

>I can acknowledge that the climate is changing, you'd have to be literally retarded to not think there's any climate change. We can see it every day. What I cannot understand or acknowledge is that humans are somehow causing these massive changes in climate. I know that the climate is changing, but is there truly any evidence that HUMANS are the cause?
Yes. Go read the IPCC summery for policy makers.

The short version is this:
We know the planet is warming because we can measure it.
We know that the greenhouse effect is responsible, because we can observe stratospheric cooling and a reduction of outgoing IR.
We know that human emissions are responsible, because carbon fossil fuels have a different isotope distribution then carbon that was in the carbon cycle.

besides what is already written here I already detailed a few reasons why climatologists think the sun (which is essentially the main alternative hypothesis) isn't the driver of temperature for the last decades.

There is just no other plausible forcing besides increased WMGHGs that could explain the temperature evolution.

>pic
Oh my squiggles on a page! Its happening guys!

>we know that human emissions are responsible, because carbon fossil fuels have a different isotope distribution than carbon that was in the carbon cycle

Neat. Any good studies on this?

What' the threshold at wich point the warming is supposed to kick in ?

you might have noticed that we're already warming

>Oh my squiggles on a page! Its happening guys!
...what?
Why even bother HAVING an opinion if you're that uninterested in the topic?

I don't have an opinion. I'm here for the boffins to give me one

Oh no, shit hits the wall at 450, at current rate that will happen around 2030.
Nothing will happen immediately, it's just the tipping point - the moment you realize that the river is flowing faster than you can paddle, and there is nothing you can do to avoid falling down the waterfall.

youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

>Quick rule of thumb to determine if somebody is serious about computing -- if they are also anti-mainframe,
>that is, no PCs, put all the money into mainframes.

this is how stupid you sound

Racist!

>every winter facebook is full of "snow in my backyard where did the climate change go??!! checkmate scientists!"
>eveyry summer they go quiet
Another reason to like summer

skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Knock yourself out

>We know that human emissions are responsible, because carbon fossil fuels have a different isotope distribution then carbon that was in the carbon cycle.

How does the fact that the isotope distribution of our fossil fuels being different from the "natural" carbon in the atmosphere mean that that is for sure the cause? Is there any evidence to back up that claim?

It makes sense that it would be different, but I can't see how you can just claim that without any evidence.

I was wondering the same until I read about the greenhouse effect and how CO2 traps heat.

>How does the fact that the isotope distribution of our fossil fuels being different from the "natural" carbon in the atmosphere mean that that is for sure the cause?
That's why I brought up stratospheric cooling and outgoing IR. We can directly measure that the increased heating is due to the CO2-driven greenhouse effect.

Thoughts on this brainlet?
youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

One more, for flavor
youtube.com/watch?v=hs_HZSrkvFY

it really shows that he has no actual expertise in this field
take one of the first claims for example, namely that he doesn't believe one can measure the globally averaged temperature with a precision of a tenth of a degree. That's nothing but an argument from personal incredulity, he could easily just ask one of the big terrestrial temperature monitoring bodies like the Hadley Center or Berkeley Earth how they do it.

If people are so desperate to get the view of highly respected scientists, why not take a look at what the people who actually study this professionally say?

I can't understand the childish mentality of anyone that cares about climate change. Who cares? As a creature you'll be dead in a few more geologic nanoseconds so calm the fuck down. As a species it's the same thing. Life adapts to the earth. That's the natural order. Even if we cause the climate to change it's sheer fantasy at this point in time to think we're advanced enough to fix it. It's up to us to adapt. It's glaringly obvious that everything being sold under climate change is political ideology and isn't being done for science or whatever contrived magnanimous motive it's assigned.

Someone tell Trump to work harder at climate change. This tropical storm sucks its not nearly strong enough for me to get comfy under it.

Weak appeal to authority by the deniers to find literally anyone who they see as "credible" that agrees with their views despite those individuals not being trained scientifically in the earth / climate sciences. But oh no, these guys who never published a single paper on climatology surely know more than the academics who have published hundreds of papers on the subject, look see he has a nobel prize therefore he's super smart and always right! Not like nobel prize winners don't ever have stupid / moronic opinions about scientific subjects outside their fields of expertise!

See also guys like Fred Singer who get paraded around over and over again by climate change deniers.

Anyone like this Brian Cox guy's method of discourse? Really respectful science communicator, let's his opponents speak without interruption and makes a lot of really solid appeals to authority.
youtube.com/watch?v=WI7_UAU4T9Q

Syria snapped because drought-driven breaking of food security was the last straw that broke the camels back. Because of the drought, Turkey built 12 dams to keep its irrigation systems going - this of course fucked up Syria and Irak.
Lots of dead french and british from the monsters that brew in that hellhole.
And it's barely begun, by 2030 were going to see a lot more of this in the evening news.

TL:DR;
The politics/terrorism will get you a lot sooner than nature will. The next time you get groped by TSA, think if it might have something to do with this.

So, you counter the appeal to authority with another, not with the independent research that should exist by now backing up climate change?

>not with the independent research that should exist by now backing up climate change?

See, it's shit like this that shows how little you actually know about the science, you are blatantly ignorant, and make the same vague, non-specific statements claiming that there's no independent research available to study. I question if you have ever viewed a single academic paper on the Earth sciences in your life, I'd wager not. Just more of the same shit, talking out your ass, pretending like you know better, but you don't.

You're on the Internet. Thousands upon thousands of academic papers are at your fingertips through search engines like google scholar, but you choose to ignore them and claim they don't exist.

If you want to be spoonfed, go elsewhere, if you're incapable of performing your own research to find the answers yourself, you're clearly a brainlet that's not worth continuing this conversation.

Sorry, I don't think you understood what the words 'independent research' mean, definitely not equivalent with 'academic paper', maybe you were thinking of it's opposite? I understand the confusion, but do try to find some actual independent research rather than getting all flustered over the trust of 'academic authorities' being questioned.

>literally everything bad happening is because you sinned against Gaya
New age cult shit should be persecuted. The Inquisition might have had the right idea all along.

He may have something of a point. The portugal fire may or may not have something to do with the warming.

The north pole is disappearing so fast, ice free north pole in the summer probably within our lifetimes, we've undone cooling that occured the last 10k years in 100 years..
And the warming won't magically stop in 2100.

Aren't you a little worried we might have fucked up here. I'm 22. A large part of the incoming climate trouble is only ahead of us and we'll see it in our lifetimes. And if we don't know, then at least we have some sense that bad things will happen.

youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=37m

>youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

>I spent half a day on Google and I was horrified by what I learned
Oh dear.

>It's a religion.
No.

>You're not allowed to discuss it.
You're doing that right now you stupid fuck.

>The climate has always changed.
>Warming is good for us.
>Cherrypicking extreme years
The whole video is just the same old, dead, denier garbage being trotted out again.

>youtube.com/watch?v=hs_HZSrkvFY
Go fuck yourself.

>I don't think you understood what the words 'independent research' mean, definitely not equivalent with 'academic paper', maybe you were thinking of it's opposite?
The fuck?

I didn't actually watch /watch?v=hs_HZSrkvFY when I linked it.
You know, someone can be misled (religious) and yet still be correct about other things?
>al gore is 33rd degree sekrit club member

This is a better video
youtube.com/watch?v=OmpbeNwMwSE

Nice get, vid's top comment:
>Notice that the major statements supporting global warming are NOT coming from scientists, rather, the media, the politically motivated and funded IPCC, Cook and his website, Skeptical Science and other such websites, Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, neither of who are scientists, Obama, also not a scientist, and the list goes on. Look on Amazon for books on climate change / global warming. Most of the books by scientists are about exposing the bullshit and lies that the IPCC, Gore, Obama, Cook, etc. have been peddling.

>I didn't actually watch /watch?v=hs_HZSrkvFY when I linked it.
Then why in that actual fuck did you expect me to watch it?

>This is a better video
Then why didn't you post it first?
I can search youtube for "AGW is a hoax!!1!!one!" just fine by myself.

>youtube.com/watch?v=OmpbeNwMwSE
It's 12 minutes of a moron repeating the word "dogma" over and over. Good job finding that, I could never have found that by myself.

>Climategate
There wasn't a conspiracy, and multiple independent investigations cleared everyone involved.
Get over it.

>Rockefellers!
Oh boy.

How about you actually post an argument, and and quit wasting everyone’s time with garbage youtube spam?

>Most of the books by scientists are about exposing the bullshit and lies that the IPCC, Gore, Obama, Cook, etc. have been peddling.
What?
Since when was published books a reasonable measure of scientific consensus?
And what makes you think that claim isn't bullshit anyway?

>I don't know jack shit, therefore it must all be nonsense!
listen here, you two-bit easy bake oven:
there are two stable isotopes of carbon: 12 and 13. most carbon is 12, but there's a little 13 out there. they tend to behave identically except when it comes to biochemistry; living organisms that fix carbon from their surroundings tend to prefer 12C over 13C, so organic carbon is isotopically lighter than inorganic carbon.
what the squiggles on a graph show, to anyone who can find their ass with both hands, is that there's been a steady decline in the proportion of 13C in atmospheric CO2; this means that something is adding in a lot of isotopically light (i.e. organic) carbon to the atmosphere. where could all this organic carbon come from? fossil fuels.
this crucial line of evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the recent increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from the use of fossil fuels. if you're too ignorant to understand how any of this works, that's your problem, you overdraft fee.

>independent research
oh, I see. when we scientists talk about "independent research" we mean "research conducted by a completely different team to either corroborate or refute some other team's results".
and when you say the same phrase, what you mean is "a document formatted to look like a journal paper that doesn't contain original research and wasn't written by anyone educated on the topic, but which supports muh uhpinions".

Nice get
>It's 12 minutes of a moron repeating the word "dogma" over and over
Nice evidence of your advanced comprehension skill and ability to consider other points of view, indicative of extensive indoctrication

>Since when was published books a reasonable measure of scientific consensus? And what makes you think that claim isn't bullshit anyway?
Since the failure to discern that the other side claiming "97% of scientists agree...", actually has monetary interest in pushing these falsehoods.

>there is no monetary incentive whatsoever in defending the meat and fossil fuel industries
These poor innocent multinational corporations, whatever shall we do to defend them? :'^(

...

Must be grasping for straws if you consider >but why would big oil be playing both sides?!?
to be a strong argument
Try researching hegelian dielectic for starters

A shill would pretend it's irrelevant

>Nice evidence of your advanced comprehension skill and ability to consider other points of view, indicative of extensive indoctrication
>if you don't like what this guy says than you must be a sheeple or something
you're so wrapped up in your worldview that you refuse to accept that your preferred sources contain no actual evidence and are just a bunch of rhetoric.
do you understand why cranks so ubiquitously prefer the format of a YouTube video to that of a written document? a video cannot be easily skimmed, and its sourcing cannot be easily checked; the video producer controls the pacing, allowing them to gloss over or obfuscate gaps in their argument. it's a more tightly controlled narrative that's harder to check for consistency, and it's deliberately inefficient in actually conveying information.

>Must be grasping for straws if you consider >but why would big oil be playing both sides?!?
>to be a strong argument
must be clinically retarded if you think that's what the infographic was actually alleging.
nice strawman :^)

The synthesis is that money is muddying the truth whatever side you take. Capitalism must be abolished if we wish to discover what's really going on.

Climate change is a hoax.

Great projection, btw
>a video cannot be easily skimmed
Pressed for time? Relax, listen to as many unique perspectives you can find
>the video producer controls the pacing
>it's a more tightly controlled narrative that's harder to check for consistency, and it's deliberately inefficient in actually conveying information.
Sorry, thought you wanted to actually discuss the topic, not complain about the downsides of video format

Never said it was alleged, maybe you've heard of implication? Point for effort

Good point, take some time and watch this playlist.
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

>Relax, listen to as many unique perspectives you can find
Are you trolling?
There's several lifetimes worth of near-idntical denier videos out there, especially if you include shit like youtube.com/watch?v=OmpbeNwMwSE that fails to even construct a coherent argument. If you can't be bothered even summarising the point of the video you posted, you have no grounds to expect the people you're arguing with to watch it carefully.