Alright I know what you're thinking, but at least give this article a read.
arctic-news.blogspot.de
Now after reading this, you can either decide two things. Either ignore all the evidence all the conservative projections and all the positive feedbacks that come into play, or you accept it and think to yourself; what now?
Well right now I am the latter stage.
Time is all we have.
Plz be nice
Other urls found in this thread:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
fractalplanet.wordpress.com
npr.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
mobile.nytimes.com
realclimate.org
google.com
slideplayer.com
twitter.com
Option 3: global warming is real; I don't give a fuck.
OP don't go down the deep rabbit hole. There is a lot of nonsensical horror show talk to be found on the internet, particularly about methane hydrates and permafrost.
I advice you keep to the actual scientific literature instead of blogs. I can give you some references if you want.
What do you think about Peter Wadams? He is an expert in arctic ice, and he has made many expeditions to the East Siberian artic shelf. If the ice is declining so rapidly, is it so hard to think that it will also release vast quantities of stored methane? I mean look at the craters in Yamal for example.
Arctic sea ice is losing area and volume quite rapidly, which induces some climate feedbacks (mainly albedo) but this doesn't imply that there is going to be an apocalyptic release of methane hydrates. In fact, there are several good reasons to think that it wont happen:
The first one is theoretical:
There are large methane sinks in the ocean sediments and water column. For example, at the sea floor, microorganisms form a "sulfate reduction zone" where methane is anaerobically metabolized (oxidated). This, as well as other physical sinks strongly reduce the fraction of methane that would reach the ocean-atmosphere interface.
see
>onlinelibrary.wiley.com
for a lengthy review
the second reason is the paleoclimate record:
There are intervals during the more recent geologic past that had margnially warmer (Eemian, Holsteinian) and significantly warmer (the interglacials of the MPWP) surface temperature compared to today - and those times aren't characterized by an exponential, apocalyptic runaway methane release.
Hi guys actual climate scientist here, I'm guy
Non linearity in climate system are a serious concern, however thawing permafrosts and catastrophic release of methane hydrates are unlikely. Don't take it from me, take it from the IPCC AR5 report (pic related), which has been demonized by climate deniers as "alarmists." They put clathrate methane release as very unlikely and possible permafrost release as low confidence. This comes from several, independent studies around the Arctic. Even the East Siberian Arctic Shelf guys like Natalia Shakshova, Walter Anthony and JP Kennet have begun to join the consensus. There is a really good open access review article just recently published by my colleague Carolyn Ruppel at USGS onlinelibrary.wiley.com
In short there are couple of gamechangers:
1. Increased analytical capability of measuring ice cores, especially radiomethane and stable isotopes. We now know that there was no abrupt collapse of marine hydrates during glacial-interglacial cycles (Petrenko et al. 2008, Sowers et al. 2006, Schaefer et al. 2008).
2. Scientists were given an otherwise unthinkable case study: the BP oil spill. They drilled into marine hydrate reservoir and the whole thing exploded. However NONE of the methane made it to the atmosphere (Du and Kessler, 2012; Kessler et al., 2011]). Ocean biogeochemist have severely underestimated the oxidative capacity of methanogens in the methane column. It is still a gigantic catastrophe, and the whole basin became anoxic, bunch of fish dies, but from greenhouse gas perspective the Deepwater Horizon was a massive relief for the whole planet
Don't need to read the article, I can already tell you're a moron and wouldn't understand what you are reading regardless of it's accuracy or truth
>read this single link
>this proves that my team is winning and yours is losing
>if you say your team is better you're stupid, so don't even try
>if you were as smart as me you would agree with me
If your goal is to turn people on to your way of thinking you'll have to demonstrate you can think past a 2nd grade level.
>Hi guys actual climate scientist here
I'm not a "guy".
Hi guys, another climate scientist here. Just wanted to say the retroactive pimithius constant also proves that global warming is causing curtigenic freezing (Peters et al. 2004)
We know this means that fintactic waves are causing extreme weather patterns which is linked to increased CO2 (Wellington, 2009).
Maybe you should do some self reflection instead of brushing off people as morons when you don't even have the patience or the curtesy of reading one article. I am not advocating what is said in the article, I am compelled by the points made and the material here remains relatively conservative. I don't like this anymore than you do. I agree that no one should solely rely on one online article on a blog, but this person who is writing this is a climate scientist (or more than 1 perhaps) who works under an alias as to provide information that is up to date relative to say referee journals that have to go through rigorous editing before being made public. I apologise if I came across as arrogant, it's more of a way to see what people think about human induced global warming since it is quite a taboo topic on this board.
Looks like a crank blog, stick to actual published scientists.
I don't think the person worrying this is a published climatologist. And if they are, it doesn't make their ideas any less cranky.
If you enjoy reading blogs, try this one
fractalplanet.wordpress.com
>I'm not a "guy"
LONDON
>referencing climate change on a micro scale
Trying to stop periodic temperature variation is like stopping the tides. Money would be better spent investing in adaptation methods rather than attempting to stop the climate changing 1-1.5°C over a hundred years when multi-millennial temperature variation can be +/- 15°C.
>quick, call him a climate change denier guys!
No one is trying to stop periodic temperature variation, just the unprecedented warming rate caused by human GHG emissions. Nice strawman.
"To address climate change, countries adopted the Paris Agreement at the COP21 in Paris on 12 December 2015. The Agreement entered into force shortly thereafter, on 4 November 2016. In the agreement, all countries agreed to work to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius, and given the grave risks, to strive for 1.5 degrees Celsius."
That sounds a lot like what they're trying to do.
Do you know what periodic means?
Yep. Notice how it says "limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius", rather than "limit temperature variation anomalies to well below 2°C"
The next large periodic temperature change will be a decrease as we head into a glacial period over the next few thousands of years. The next interglacial warming will be tens of thousands of years from now. So your criticism is that this treaty does not take into account the climate tens of thousands of years from now? So what?
I'm saying that it would be ridiculously expensive to stop global temperature rise and that the money would be better spent in adaptation methods like more weather-resilient infrastructure and agricultural development. I'm not against alternative energy or anything but dumping tons of money and raising legislation and taxes on utilities and current energy production methods isn't a good solution.
>I'm saying that it would be ridiculously expensive to stop global temperature rise and that the money would be better spent in adaptation methods like more weather-resilient infrastructure and agricultural development.
Based on what?
The fact that despite carbon taxes, financial penalties, and large monetary contributions by individual countries they still fail to meet their goals. Not only that but the Paris Agreement is non-binding and there are no consequences for exceeding the goals individually set by participating countries. Not only that, but it defines that developed nations must assist undeveloped nations by providing $100 Billion in energy reform sponsorship.
With rising sea surface temperatures comes stronger and more frequent hurricanes and typhoons, so it would be better to invest that $100 billion in more resilient infrastructure and agricultural production methods less suceptible to changing atmospheric conditions.
npr.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
mobile.nytimes.com
>The fact that despite carbon taxes, financial penalties, and large monetary contributions by individual countries they still fail to meet their goals.
That doesn't answer the question. Why do you think adaption is less expensive than mitigation?
I don't think it's less expensive, I think it's a much better investment.
Of course I am talking about maximizing benefit-cost. Why is it a better investment?
Because preventing the environment from changing would cost an incredible amount, IF possible at all. Changing infrastructure to be more resilient to natural disasters and environmental change is an achievable goal and one that we could start working towards presently. Making huge financial investments on climate extrapolations is a bad idea, and to get the necessary data for anthropogenic climate change to make an informed decision would take centuries.
Ok dude whatever you say.
>unironically responding to paid shills
>Because preventing the environment from changing would cost an incredible amount, IF possible at all. Changing infrastructure to be more resilient to natural disasters and environmental change is an achievable goal and one that we could start working towards presently.
I understand that's what you believe, I'm asking you why you believe that. Also, do you contend that any partial mitigation measure would be costlier than adapting to what would be mitigated?
>Making huge financial investments on climate extrapolations is a bad idea, and to get the necessary data for anthropogenic climate change to make an informed decision would take centuries.
I don't understand, what data do we need that we don't already have? It seems like you are just making things up as you go along and denying that we know enough about the climate to see the causes and effects of warming.
In the 1970s, in between the two spikes in global temperature rise, they were predicting the incipient phase of the next ice age (pic related). This is an example of an incorrect climate prediction due to extrapolation of climate observational values. I'm not "making stuff up as I go", I'm saying it isn't wise to predict via extrapolation and cause panic and unnecessary spending.
I don't think climate regulation or investment in cleaner technologies is a wasteful endeavor, but I think it must be examined realistically. For example, seasonal regulation on industrial pollutants in Shanghai due to the intense smog held down by the subtropical high pressure above them would not be a bad idea. But enforcement of unrealistic climate goals is setting an industry up for continuous failure and unnecessary financial loss, that which can be used to invest in modernization of the industry. I'd like to see a shift to nuclear power and other alternative energy production methods but public opinion believes otherwise.
>In the 1970s, in between the two spikes in global temperature rise, they were predicting the incipient phase of the next ice age (pic related). This is an example of an incorrect climate prediction due to extrapolation of climate observational values. I'm not "making stuff up as I go", I'm saying it isn't wise to predict via extrapolation and cause panic and unnecessary spending.
Even that article points out that this was a fringe theory. The correct theory won out, so your argument proves nothing. You can say that the science might be wrong but until you actually have a better answer, these are the facts. It's not simply extrapolation, it's a huge amount of work which has led to a sophisticated understanding of the climate. Yes, denying this does make you a "denier."
>But enforcement of unrealistic climate goals is setting an industry up for continuous failure and unnecessary financial loss, that which can be used to invest in modernization of the industry.
I agree, goals should only be set which have optimal cost benefit, but you do realize that investing in nuclear and renewables is mitigation right?
I'm not claiming it isn't getting warmer, that's an objective fact. I'm saying scaring the general public and going nuts on legislation because Al Gore claims the world will be 6 feet under water isn't a smart idea. Either way you cannot extrapolate the data and claim that 75 years in the future it will follow the same linear or exponential progression.
>investment in nuclear and renewables is mitigation
I'm not saying all mitigation methods are bad. Besides, I'd like to think it's an investment into future energy production methods, not simply a pipe-dream for environmentalists and a excuse for gas and coal companies to claim they're thinking about renewables. The industry won't change overnight, so instead of forcing companies into a renewable market perhaps a competitive-incentive approach would work better.
>Either way you cannot extrapolate the data and claim that 75 years in the future it will follow the same linear or exponential progression.
Of course you can, since you understand what factors drive the climate on that scale. Unless GHG emissions are slowed, warming will continue. The next question then is, can we save money by mitigating that warming? Economists say yes.
>greenhouse gas emissions
There are so many factors to global temperature variation it's incredible. CO2 is not the only factor, positive or negative. The biggest greenhouse contributor in the atmosphere is water vapor, and with more surface area (due to rising sea levels) and higher sea surface temperatures the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere will rise. On that same note, the melting of sea ice isn't the largest factor for rising sea levels. Thermal expansion of water due to the slight increase in temperature is the main cause for the rise in water levels. But factors such as volcanic eruption, which is considered a major factor in glaciation due to reflection of the incoming solar radiation, cannot be predicted. Older models also did not account for sulfur gasses produced by industrial processes, which are highly reflective and also assist in reflecting solar radiation. Additionally, an increase in cloud cover as a result of higher atmospheric moisture assists in reflecting incoming solar radiation, which isn't factored in either. In addition, sunspot cycles and Milankovich cycles adjust the incoming solar radiation, causing temperature fluctuations far greater that that of CO2. Predicting climatological change is an extremely complex task, one I would consider extrapolation by today's means.
Economists are good at predicting societal interaction and industry financial performance but I wouldn't trust them with predicting climate change.
>There are so many factors to global temperature variation it's incredible. CO2 is not the only factor, positive or negative.
There are only a few major factors. Try again.
>The biggest greenhouse contributor in the atmosphere is water vapor, and with more surface area (due to rising sea levels) and higher sea surface temperatures the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere will rise.
Water vapor does not rise by itself, it's not a forcing. Try again.
>On that same note, the melting of sea ice isn't the largest factor for rising sea levels. Thermal expansion of water due to the slight increase in temperature is the main cause for the rise in water levels.
So what?
>But factors such as volcanic eruption, which is considered a major factor in glaciation due to reflection of the incoming solar radiation, cannot be predicted.
Volcanoes are a non-factor on the scale of 75 years. Try again.
>Additionally, an increase in cloud cover as a result of higher atmospheric moisture assists in reflecting incoming solar radiation, which isn't factored in either.
Not factored in by what?
> In addition, sunspot cycles and Milankovich cycles adjust the incoming solar radiation, causing temperature fluctuations far greater that that of CO2.
Milankovich cycles occur over tens of thousands of years, irrelevant to a 75 year timescale. Solar activity has a much smaller effect than current GHG emissions, try again.
>Predicting climatological change is an extremely complex task, one I would consider extrapolation by today's means.
Complex yes, but you are arguing that for some reason this should be considered beyond our capabilities when climatology is very sophisticated and has been accurately projecting temperature for decades:
realclimate.org
>Economists are good at predicting societal interaction and industry financial performance but I wouldn't trust them with predicting climate change.
They aren't predicting climate change, they are determining the economic effects of predicted climate change.
So far nothing you've said is an actual argument against the scientific and economic establishment.
>So far nothing you've said is an actual argument against the scientific and economic establishment.
So you're admitting that you're an establishment shill
>So you're admitting that you're an establishment shill
Is there something wrong with that?
Weak bait but I'm hungry and it's dinner time.
>water vapor does not rise by itself
More surface area covered by water means more absorption of energy, and more evaporation.
>volcanic eruptions not a factor on a scale of 75 years
Pic related. They reduce the incoming solar radiation significanlty. Look at the result of the eruption of Mount Tambora in the early 1800s.
>not factored in by what?
Cloud cover is not factored in to the models as it is too unpredictable on a long-term scale. With rising sea surface temperatures it is absolutely reasonable to assume more tropical and subtropical storm activity and therefore more cloud coverage.
>solar activity has a much smaller effect than GHG emissions
That's just not true. Greenhouse gasses enhance temperature variation due to the interaction of solar radiation. Greenhouse gasses do not change the amount of incoming energy, but solar cycles absolutely do. The sun is the cause, the GHG enhances the effect.
google.com
>Pic related. They reduce the incoming solar radiation significanlty. Look at the result of the eruption of Mount Tambora in the early 1800s.
What is the residence time of average aerosol compound in the atmosphere?
It's about one year. Mt. Tambora caused what? "The year without summer." After a year all the volcanic aerosol got rained out to the ground. Random volcanic eruption can only affect global temperature in a sub decadal timescale.
Or are you saying that current rise in CO2 is due to CO2 being emitted by a volcano? The amount of CO2 emitted by a volcano is a non-impact. The total amount of CO2 by all volcanoes in the world combined is less than 1/100th of US CO2 emission from Transportation sector alone
>Cloud cover is not factored in to the models as it is too unpredictable on a long-term scale
Literally wrong. All ensemble models that made it into CMIP5, which in turn drives IPCC AR5 projection have cloud cover. Just google "CMIP5 cloud cover" on google scholar. Here is a presentation slideshow on one of the review talks about clouds in GCMs. slideplayer.com
Are you being purposely ignorant, legitimately dumb, or dishonest? There can only be one answer, you got caught super busted on this one
>More surface area covered by water means more absorption of energy, and more evaporation.
What causes more area covered by water? This is clearly part of the feedback loop between warming and CO2/water vapor released from oceans, not a forcing. The feedback loop is caused by a forcing, such as increases CO2 emissions from humans. Try responding to what you're quoting.
>Pic related. They reduce the incoming solar radiation significanlty. Look at the result of the eruption of Mount Tambora in the early 1800s.
Yes, I'm looking at the result. These eruptions only have short term effects, they don't change the trend over 75 years. Again, respond to what I'm saying instead of just regurgitating talking points.
>Cloud cover is not factored in to the models as it is too unpredictable on a long-term scale.
But that's just plain wrong. Every modern GCM includes cloud cover.
>That's just not true. Greenhouse gasses enhance temperature variation due to the interaction of solar radiation. Greenhouse gasses do not change the amount of incoming energy, but solar cycles absolutely do. The sun is the cause, the GHG enhances the effect.
The amount of incoming radiation is only one forcing, the greenhouse effect is a separate forcing. You don't what you're talking about. And AGAIN you failed to respond to what you're quoting. Solar forcing has a much smaller effect than GHG forcing.
>google.com
This disproves what you think it supports:
"While the sun is by far the dominant energy source powering our climate system, do not assume that it is causing much of recent climate changes. It's pretty stable," Kopp said. "Think of it as an 800-pound gorilla in climate — it has the weight to cause enormous changes, but luckily for us, it's pretty placidly lazy. While solar changes have historically caused climate changes, the sun is mostly likely responsible for less than 15 percent of the global temperature increases we've seen over the last century, during which human-caused changes such as increased greenhouse gases caused the majority of warming."
Read harder.
Moreso the reflected solar radiation. An interesting point is that the mechanism for glaciation is not fully known, so we aren't really in a position to predict the entry for the next ice age
>global warming is accelerating
derp obviously
>An interesting point is that the mechanism for glaciation is not fully known
Everybody knows that glacial interglacial cycle is driven by changes in CO2. CO2 changes is driven by Milankovitch cycle. This is textbook geology 101.
Just because you're an opionionated moron who doesn't know any better doesn't mean the whole scientific community is as dumb as you
>Moreso the reflected solar radiation
So yeah you had less incoming solar radiation for a year. Big fucking deal. The lifetime of volcanic aerosol, or any other particulate is only one year.
This is why China can shit up and haze their town as much as they can and there is no international outcry about it. Aerosol pollution are localized. Greenhouse gas like CH4 last for 10 years, and CO2 last for >100 years.
>It's another denier BTFO episode
Boring. At least the denier on the other thread was entertaning
>another climate change denier BTFO
I was trying to have a conversation. I even learned something. I'm just arguing that money would be better spent on adaptation of infrastructure than prevention of temperature variation anomalies, or in the case of the Paris Agreement, temperature variation itself.
>I'm just arguing that money would be better spent on adaptation of infrastructure than prevention of temperature variation anomalies, or in the case of the Paris Agreement, temperature variation itself.
Yo dawg we're gonna crash into a wall. Rather than turn the steering wheel let's fasten our seat belt and put on some football helmets for protection
Nice strawman, jackass
Not that guy, but why not do both?
I'm a right wing extremist and love climate change
what the fuck am I reading.
why is that people who are seriously mentally ill always go fuck with mathematics?
nah it's pretty much head-on