I'm a newfag to this board; what are your views on climate change?
To me, it's a natural occurrence and I do not believe humans have caused a significant impact to the environment to rival what astroids have done in the past.
Sure, air pollution and concrete jungles have increased local temperatures, but they are not creating deserts and we're definitely not creating another ice age... yet.
Other urls found in this thread:
ipcc.ch
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Can you be more specific? Can you cite some papers or scientific articles that compelled you to distrust the scientific consensus?
The worst part of the post is the phrase "to me", which connotes the creation of one's own truth. The point of science is that it demonstrates certain categories of observable and (nominally) objective Truth which exist independently of subjective experience, and which consequently and happily do not brook contest once perceived aright, viz:
"To me, 2+2 = 5."
>to me
Nice opinion, please show me your academic credentials as a scientist, unless you want me to print your post and wipe my ass with it.
Short answer:
If someone tells you Climate Change doesn't exist, they're ignorant.
If someone tells you that it's not man-made then there is a 99.99% chance they're politically-motivated, directly or indirectly.
If someone tells you that they understand Climate Change and can predict its effects, they're 100% wrong.
>To me, it's a natural occurrence
Why do you believe this? Do you believe humans are not rapidly increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Do you believe the greenhouse effect does not exist or is not as strong as scientists have determined it to be? What do you believe is causing the warming?
>and I do not believe humans have caused a significant impact to the environment to rival what astroids have done in the past.
Why would it have to rival the effect of a massive asteroid to be significant?
>Sure, air pollution and concrete jungles have increased local temperatures, but they are not creating deserts
But they are ipcc.ch
>we're definitely not creating another ice age... yet.
We're in an ice age already.
Why are you determined to talk about subjects they you have apparently done not even the slightest bit of research in?
I'm just seeing where everybody's at on this subject; my opinion is based on what I've read about the weather as I was still going to school, 10-20 years ago, and noticing any difference in the weather in my area (southeast U.S.).
I don't have anything to support my opinion; the weather has been relatively similar in the 28 years I've been alive, with significant events happening (blizzard in the early 90s, severe drought and then flooding in the mid to late 00s; a warm winter in late 2015 to early 2016).
The only problem I have with what the scientists have said about climate change isn't that I think they're wrong - they're not; I've always admired science. I just try to distract myself from the truth a little bit by forming my own opinion about climate change.
>but they are not creating deserts and we're definitely not creating another ice age...
As claimed by nobody
Global temperatures are projected to rise by a couple degrees, disrupting global climate patterns. Warmer oceans will also lend more energy to hurricanes, increasing their intensity. A couple degrees can also melt miles of ice sheets (over entire Arctic coastlines), disrupting oceanic currents and sea levels.
And yes, it's manmade. We can see the temp increase, as predicted by the increase in CO2 created by burning fossil fuels (which we can measure).
Shit's real. Not catastrophic, but very detrimental. It's worth it to mitigate as much as we can.
Then why do almost all Republicans believe it isn't an issue?
>manmade
This is perhaps my biggest issue about climate change, which brings me to ask, are you saying that all climate change is manmade? Because I believed it was happening way before we started making an impact.
$
It was, and it is now largely due to carbon emissions. There's overwhelming evidence that manmade carbon emissions are taking it to dangerous levels.
It wasn't a problem before, but now we know it will be if we don't try to stop it.
Ah, okay. Everything makes sense now.
Well, to be completely fair to Republicans, just because it is true doesn't necessarily mean it's an issue. And the voting populous has repeatedly demonstrated that it really isn't an issue. In politics it's more of a flag-waving contest. One flag just happens to be waving on the side of truth, but they really don't get any credit for it considering that the consequences align to normal party lines (in particular matters of government regulations/oversight).
en.wikipedia.org
>Climate model projections summarized in the report indicated that during the 21st century, the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) in the lowest emissions scenario, and 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in the highest emissions scenario.[8] These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations[9][a] and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[11][12]
This is a Featured (highest degree of quality) article on Wikipedia.
>the weather
Do you know the difference between weather and climate?
If climate change is real, the debate shifts to its mitigation. Republicans purport themselves to be anti-interventionist, which means they are leaning against the government intervening to mitigate climate change. They are simply denying climate change as a stalling tactic because being against the government acting on climate change is a hardly tenable position. As for why we live in a society where the latter is harder to defend than the former, I have no clue.
>mfw no warming for last 15 years despite huge carbon emissions
dont trust the morons in this thread. They clearly dont know anything about climate science, or really anything about epistemology, public policy, etc. They are parroting the party line.
Michael Mann's was shown tto be a liar. His libel suit against Dr. Tim Ball PhD was just thrown out for lack of evidence.
Only retards who dont actually read science still believe in the 97% bullshit. Grow up all of you omg.
Yes and no.
I know that weather is caused by the climate or vice versa; climate is based on location, geographically.
ask yourself, how does one prove that climate change is man made. How can you prove this?
It's not like fucking calculating the orbit of the earth. It't not even clear what an "average" global temperature is, let alone how it could be measured, accurately and into the past.
Anyone who claims they know with any certainty how the climate will change besides the least squares regression of the avg temp readings is blowing smoke. We dont know shit about it and it's all alarmist bullshit.
Do you ever wonder why is always "What can we do to stop climate change" and its never a conversation about 1) do we even cause it? 2) if we cause it, can we even reverse it? 3) if we can even reverse it, is it worth the cost to society? The fact that these 3 points are already conceded by policy folk shows there is no true debate here, it is politicians and bureacrats calling the shots, funding the studies, drawing the alarming conclusions.
Not really. Climate is the aggregate of weather over space and time. So knowing about the weather in one area or at one time doesn't tell us about the global climate. It's just anecdotal.
Ah.
Of course it's a conspiracy. Cuz that's always the answer.
You're on the internet. You can answer all of your questions easily. I was going to do it for you, but I realized half-way through I would be robbing you of the opportunity to practice.
>ask yourself, how does one prove that climate change is man made. How can you prove this?
1. Find the causes of changes in climate
2. Are they manmade?
We know that the primary forcing in current global warming is radiative forcing from changes in CO2. And we know that humans are the cause of the rapid change in CO2.
>It't not even clear what an "average" global temperature is, let alone how it could be measured, accurately and into the past.
It is exceedingly clear what average temperature is. It's the temperature of each point on the surface of Earth averaged across the surface. There are several ways to determine this empirically, and they all agree very well. It's not clear you have any idea what you're talking about.
>Anyone who claims they know with any certainty how the climate will change besides the least squares regression of the avg temp readings is blowing smoke.
Climatologists know with significant certainty how the climate will change based on a handful of relevant factors, and they've been accurately projecting it for several decades.
>Do you ever wonder why is always "What can we do to stop climate change" and its never a conversation about 1) do we even cause it? if we cause it, can we even reverse it? 3) if we can even reverse it, is it worth the cost to society?
You mean the conversation we have almost every day here? The one where you get BTFO and then wait for the next thread to post the same debunked memes? You are dishonest scum.
Yep. We never saw it coming. Never had a clue. Took right by surprise it did. Who'da thunk it?
Best post on Veeky Forums
That's weird because I also live in the south and I distinctly remember a time when you had to use a jacket for more than one week out of the year.
nice this thread again, i wonder if sci will ever be free of bait threads