410ppm Edition
/ccg/ - Climate Change General
Grayson Brooks
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
wired.com
youtube.com
youtu.be
youtu.be
skepticalscience.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtu.be
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Lincoln Lewis
Is it when we reach 600 ppm that shit starts to go down?
Chase Peterson
I don't think there is such a thing as a sharp boundary of dangerous CO2 concentration
the last time CO2 had the present concentration in the atmosphere was in the middle Miocene, some 12 Million years ago. At that time, temperature were between 3° and 6°C warmer and sea level was between 25 and 40 meters higher than today. That doesn't mean we will get the same conditions (because solar insolation definitely also played a factor besides CO2) but climatologists say that we have already locked in a long-term rise of sea level of between 4 and 9 meters, even with a hypothetical stabilization of GHG concentration at the present level.
Ryan Morris
Honestly, we're pretty fucked if that is accurate. A 30ft sea level increase is more than enough to destabilize the entirety of global infrastructure and displace hundreds of millions, not to mention the effect on the ocean as it overtakes all of that waste.
Alexander Jenkins
I should make this clear:
Even though rapid rises of sea level are known in the geologic record (at the end of the Eemian 120,000 years ago, sea level rose 2 to 3 meters "within an ecologic period" and at the termination of the last glaciation, sea level rose at a rate of 5 m/century), climatologists think this process would take place on a century timescale.
In 2014, people at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory used satellited radar altimetry to look at the Amundsen Sea Sector, which is an area in West Antarctica that is drained by 6 giant glaciers (which on their own hold 1.2 meters of SLR). What they found is not only a fast retreat of the glacial grounding line, but also an acceleration of the retreat with time. This is very dangerous because these glaciers lie on a bedrock with a retrograde slope that extend all the way back to the entire West Antarctic ice sheet. The WAIS (which holds a total of 3 to 4 meters SLR) is largely grounded below sea level and is therefore inherently unstable according to the Marine Ice Sheet Instability hypothesis.
Asher Roberts
not man-made
David Brown
...
Owen Bell
>but climatologists say
What a laughable thing to say
Jaxon Carter
disregarding for a moment that this graph doesn't seem to come from an actual scientific article, it's actually very easy to show that the sun isn't responsible for the warming of the last decades.
Not only can we measure TSI rather comfortably with satellites (and it doesn't track temperature over that time), but a solar forcing is also fundamentally inconsistent with the temporal and spatial characteristics of the observed warming:
If solar effects were that large on a decade timescale, we should see a huge 11-year signal in the temperature record (we don't)
If solar effects were responsible, we should see a warming of the entire vertical extension of the atmosphere (we don't; the Stratosphere is cooling)
If solar effects were responsible, we should see a concentration of warming in the tropics and decreasing warming with higher latitudes (we don't; the Arctic is warming 2 to 3 times faster than the rest of the planet)
If solar effects were responsible, the diurnal maximum temperature should warm faster than the diurnal minimum temperature (it doesn't; it's actually the other way around)
Jordan Rogers
>implying humans fully undertand atmospheric fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, as well as heat transfer processes around the globe
>ignoring the fact the Sun is the only significant source of energy that warms the Earth
>ignoring humans make less 20% the atmospheric CO2