How do we convince people to care about the impending climate change disaster, and do so before we are at the point of unavoidable catastrophe?
The amount of ignorance I've seen on the topic from talking to average people is simply shocking.
How are we to take measures if nobody listens until its too late?
Other urls found in this thread:
space.com
space.com
climate.nasa.gov
climate.nasa.gov
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
ipcc.ch
researchgate.net
link.springer.com
nature.com
youtube.com
esrl.noaa.gov
oceanservice.noaa.gov
journals.ametsoc.org
twitter.com
I'm in Environmental Science and the amount bleeding-heartedness makes me sick. Death to the Earth! Alalalalalala!!!
If climate change was real, there's be no reason to "convince" anyone of anything
>How are we to take measures if nobody listens until its too late?
Because you keep calling people deniers instead of skeptics.
Strawmen don't look good
Back to your people >>/pol/
It took forever to convince people to believe in germ theory.
At this point, with guns
I think it is insane the attention span people have and are still able to function. The only way to convince people of warming climate is to have warming weather. Most people don't know the data or don't wish to. There is too great of a bias toward there own perceptions. If they have not experienced it the way they think it should be then it must not be true... When you show people patterns over more than 2 years and they are already inclined to not believe it for what ever reason then you might as well convince a brick wall. At this point, I am done trying to convince.
You explain the difference between weather and climate, and also explain how on planets or moons with weak or no atmosphere experience drastic shifts in weather that are not conducive to life. For example, how the surfaces on the Moon and Mars can vary between being hot enough to boil water and cold enough to cause frostbite within a span of several hours. What climate change looks to bring isn't some permanent hell of hot days with high CO2 (which actually wouldn't be a problem at all, because jungle plants would thrive, grow large, and flood all the O2 we needed back so long as we stopped cutting them down for a while), but rather a weakened atmosphere that leads to chaotic weather systems that can kill life left and right as most things aren't suited for their established environment, rather than a constantly changing one.
started with a good strategy there but then you veered off
No way it's a veer off. It's right on point. A weaker atmosphere leads to inconsistent climate, just like we observe on other planets.
>For example, how the surfaces on the Moon and Mars can vary between being hot enough to boil water and cold enough to cause frostbite within a span of several hours. What climate change looks to bring isn't some permanent hell of hot days with high CO2 (which actually wouldn't be a problem at all, because jungle plants would thrive, grow large, and flood all the O2 we needed back so long as we stopped cutting them down for a while), but rather a weakened atmosphere that leads to chaotic weather systems that can kill life left and right as most things aren't suited for their established environment, rather than a constantly changing one.
All of this needs to be fact checked.
Look at their values and appeal to them rather than spouting the same talking points.
People opposed to climate change primarily come from a place of valuing economics and believing that the environment is able to resist change or that we can fix whatever problems occur with technology. So if you lecture someone about the science behind it when all they really care about is the effects of the policy then you're gonna get nowhere in terms of changing minds. Coming at the issue through the same lens by talking about the economic benefits of green policy and growing a new industry with new jobs: renewable energy, then you're meeting them at their level. It also shifts the conversation away from the low bar of "is climate change real".
And people largely didn't believe in that either until things started getting too deadly and we were literally facing what could have turned into an extinction event, lol.
Climate Change will be accepted after the bodies start piling up.
Skeptics use evidence and reasoning, where are the skeptics?
...user, seriously?
space.com
space.com
It's common knowledge that the temperature and weather can vary wildly on planets and moons with low or no atmosphere.
If you attempt to talk about the benefits of mitigating AGW, they will just deny AGW exists in the first place.
the dudebromanguy took the handle off a water pump and people stopped getting cholera
that's pretty convincing
>boiling temperature
>cold enough to cause frostbite
user please, it's more extreme than that
Are we facing a reduction in atmosphere?
That still wasn't enough to convince a lot of people, and people only really accept that story in retrospect presently. At the time it happened, they thought he was a quack and it was all based in bad air.
brainlets, I swear
Then don't make it about climate change, make it about the economic benefit.
Changes to it and reductions to it, yes
climate.nasa.gov
climate.nasa.gov
I'll fuck your earlobes.
Mitigating climate change is the benefit. If you ignore climate change, then the effect of replacing gas with renewables is negative.
A decrease in mslp is probably due to, more or less, more boyant air. Warm, moist air is boyant and rises. Rising air causes sfc pressure falls.
You're not understanding my point. If you want any action done you have to apply the issue to the things that people care about. If someone doesn't believe in something telling them they're wrong won't change their mind. If you tell someone who doesn't believe in climate change or is doubtful about it
>Mitigating climate change is the benefit.
then you're not gonna get anything done because they'll just say you're wrong and move on. If you tell them there's a way to create jobs then you'll get their attention.
gross
>How do we convince people to care about the impending climate change disaster, and do so before we are at the point of unavoidable catastrophe?
Show them the hockey stick graph and a picture of a polar bear on a piece of ice.
kek
If that's the case, why haven't we seen a proper correction over the last century?
You're not understanding my point. If people care about the economy then the only way to get them to care about AGW is to see that AGW will harm the economy. The things that would mitigate AGW do not have magical benefits by themselves. Replacing fossil fuels is inefficient in the eyes of the market, because the market is blind to the harm being done to it by AGW. It's the tragedy of the commons on a global scale. It will not create more jobs than it destroys, unless you take into account that AGW will destroy jobs.
As one of my lecturers said, the solution is simply to utilize religion.
Those who are intelligent enough will base their values on science, and those who aren't on faith.
It's just a matter of molding the latter into something sensible.
Gaia worship might be a good start.
there is a lot of money being spent to distribute propaganda discrediting the idea of global warming (and its working)
not to mention that people will just throw their hands in the air and declare whatever happens is god's will, and if the world ends then Jesus will return to save the true believers.
The mslp measurement is probably a two fold problem. We are also dealing with expanding urban heat islands at a majority of our sensor locations. More asphalt also creates rising air.
This is could be used as the next big scare.
Okay, how do you solve this problem when people who don't believe in climate change have all the guns and people who believe in climate change don't believe in guns?
Few old nutjobs in rural areas are irrelevant.
And don't underestimate the power of government policies and dedication in making them a reality beyond paper.
That's a sweeping generalization. I could arm a small militia desu
>don't believe in guns
The evidence is out there. Guns exist, my friend.
>next
It's what climate change has been talking about this whole time, or at least that was my interpretation. The climate's changing is something of a consistent inconsistence. We see more sporadic and severe weather patterns than we usually would, and experience weather in seasons that we shouldnt as the atmosphere is damaged and weakened and we approach a state as a planet in the long term where our weather can resemble what we see on other planets due to our insulating blanket being stripped away/riddled with holes.
In 20 years time you're going to feel embarrassed for falling for this climate change meme. It's no better than religious zealots screaming apocalypse every second. Only replace scripture with "satellite data".
I'm sorry you are so ignorant. I'll be waiting for you on the right side in 20 years.
>How do we convince people to care about the impending climate change disaster, and do so before we are at the point of unavoidable catastrophe?
We don't. Stop deducing ought from is. That's scientism, and only fedotards do that unironically.
Yeah and you'll be blaming every weather occurrence throughout those years on CO2 emissions in a constant state of paranoia.
Pseudo-science, not even once.
Make provisions for the people you care about and leave everyone else to die. You gave them a fair warning and if things turn out worse it's on them for not listening. It's basically the same thing as telling people to wear a seat belt. Telling them once is enough and from there whatever happens, happens.
(you)
>The things that would mitigate AGW do not have magical benefits by themselves.
>It will not create more jobs than it destroys, unless you take into account that AGW will destroy jobs.
There are definitely things that would mitigate climate change that have benefits on their own. People are more likely to be influenced by the economic gain of the issue because it skirts around whether or not climate change is real. Saying we have to control jobs and stifle industries will face more negativity. If you're trying to avoid risk then the responsibility for it all boils down to if it exists.
None of the great scientists here can explain why we (west world) should care.
I don't believe in climate change,but let's suppose it's real.
As i live in a first world country i will have little to no problems,so why should i take restrictive measures and lower the quality of my life?I get nothing out of it.
>There are definitely things that would mitigate climate change that have benefits on their own.
Yeah, stuff that's already being done. If there was an economic incentive it would already be working. But that's not all that a cost benefit analysis would recommend. Your argument defeats itself.
>Saying we have to control jobs and stifle industries will face more negativity.
Jobs and industry being lost from unmitigated AGW would face even more negativity, if people were actually paying attention.
>If you're trying to avoid risk then the responsibility for it all boils down to if it exists.
So you agree with what I said, that you have to convince people that it exists before you can convince them it is beneficial to mitigate.
This is not the definition of skeptic, fucking illiterate millenial.
>That's not the definition
I didn't say it was, but thank you for admitting you have no evidence or reasoning behind your denial. And if you want to argue based on literal definitions, you would have to accept that you are a denier, since you deny that theory of AGW is true. Faggot.
You god damn christians are going to kill the entire human species.
Going postal on deniers would only martyr them, making them look at statistics wont help. Is that it, are we really just fucked?
1. CO2 and many other gases have "greenhouse" properties in that they allow visible light to pass through (hence invisible), but trap and re-emit infrared radiation. This is literally 19th century science, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, verified and quantified experimentally beyond reasonable doubt by Svante Arrhenius.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising, and this is a result of fossil fuel combustion (pic related). CO2 can be measured experimentally in the lab, and the stable isotopes of CO2 plunges into the negative values. Fossil fuel has distinct negative isotopic signature compared to natural CO2. This is also an undeniable fact from observation.
3. You add 1+2, you would expect the radiative energy budget of the earth to be out of equilibrium. This is exactly what we observe, based on satellites that measures total energy in vs. energy out by CERES satellite at NASA. earthobservatory.nasa.gov
In short, CO2 causes greenhouse effect. Humans put CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning. The earth is now in energy imbalance due to additional CO2, and therefore warming. All basic, high school physics that should be easy to understand
much more problematic than deniers are the hysterics who want to destroy our economy and cause tremendous damage to mankind because of their irrational and unscientific beliefs
>the hysterics who want to destroy our economy and cause tremendous damage to mankind because of their irrational and unscientific beliefs
So deniers.
Someone's afraid they won't be able to afford a third Ferrari if they have to pay carbon tax. Don't worry Mother Gaia will provide you with something better: a healthy and beautiful environment.
wrong. climate change deniers and hysterics are opposite extremes
everything in your post is complete garbage
says the retard
Climate change deniers get hysterical and alarmist about efforts to mitigate global warming, claiming it will destroy economies when in fact doing nothing leads to much more harm to the economy and mankind from unmitigated global warming. In fact, economists have consistently found that simply raising the price of fossil fuels through an optimal carbon tax can maximize the benefit to the economy minus the costs, saving billions of dollars.
...
>doing nothing leads to much more harm to the economy and mankind from unmitigated global warming
post evidence for this
are you worried that an increase in life span will severely outweigh the decrease in accidents?
global warming and increase in co2 can have great benefits for biodiversity and agriculture
increase in temperature even helps corals to grow much faster and can counteract some of the great damage caused by water pollution
society has peaked during warm periods
I don't think climate change will be a cataclysmic event. It'll make life more expensive, possibly standards of living might stagnate or even drop a little. Prove me wrong.
>post evidence for this
Enjoy:
ipcc.ch
>are you worried that an increase in life span will severely outweigh the decrease in accidents?
I don't understand what you're referring to.
This isn't a "warm period" this is unprecdented global warming. That's like saying productivity peaks when you have food, therefore eating 7000 calories a day must be good for you.
All of this are so wrong I'm just speechless at how someone can be so ignorant.
thats total bullshit
its exactly the opposite
warm temperatures literally kill coral reefs.
>Human contribution of CO2 to the entire atmosphere.
This is incredibly misleading since global warming is caused by the change in greenhouse gas forcing, not the absolute amount. Most of the greenhouse effect goes toward keeping the planet from not being an ice ball. Global warming is the deviation from that baseline.
>CO2 lags temperature
This is misleading since CO2 currently does not lag temperature, and it fails to explain why CO2 lagged temperature. The reason CO2 lagged temperature in the past is because warming was started by increased solar radiation due to orbital eccentricity of the Earth. This increase in solar radiation started the feedback loop between warming and CO2/water vapor being released from the oceans. Today however, CO2 started the warming.
>As carbon dioxide increases it has less warming effect
Yes, and this is taken account into all climatologists' analysis. Unfortunately, GHG emissions have been increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution, leading to the linear warming we see. Logarithmic does not mean the effect is small.
>The models are wrong'
These graphs cherrypick by using old satellite data which was admitted even by skeptics to be flawed due to orbital decay. It has since been corrected and is now in line with both instrumental data and models.
>No global warming for 18 years 3 months
This graph also uses flawed satellite data and uses the old trick of cherrypicking the data to start at the 1998 El Nino in order to flatten the trend. Pathetic really.
>Sea levels have been drifting higher for 8000 years
This graph does not have the resolution to show the current period of sea level rise, which is at a much higher rate.
>No increase in the frequency or intensity of storms in the US.
>No increase in the frequency or severity of droughts in the US.
Strawman argument.
>"The entire North 'polarized cap' will disappear in 5 years" -Al Gore
Fake quote.
>Ice core samples indicate warm periods long before the Industrial Revolution
Straw man. No one says there weren't "warm periods" before the Industrial Revolution. Current temperatures are much higher and more importantly, the rate of warming is unprecedented in human history. Also, the chart is not of global temperatures but of Greenland, the time axis incorrectly identifies 2000 as "Present" when it's actually referring to 1950, and the warming trend has nothing to do with the starting point of the data.
>The models are wrong.
The chart is a fraud. Pic related. And it's cherrypicking flawed satellite data AGAIN.
>they thought he was a quack and it was all based in bad air.
Hence the word "malaria".
>ipcc
they are proven to have been wrong in the past and have history of lacking integrity. therefore not a credible source
how do you know. from what I see our current warming isnt anything out of the ordinary even in the past few thousand years, let alone the entire history of the planet
>pic related
arguments in your post: zero
this proves you have no fucking clue what you are talking about
researchgate.net
>the larger the temperature rise, the larger coral growth increase
>most coral reefs have increased coral growth in the past decades
link.springer.com
>a decrease in the natural water temperature of Hawaiian reefs would be more harmful to corals than a temperature increase of the same magnitude
nature.com
>the maintenance of elevated but near-constant Ωcf in mature coral colonies is not directly influenced by ocean acidification
so obviously optimal growth temperature varies from species but generally favors warm water. ocean acidification does not harm corals, as you can see from my previous picture corals grow near the equator and global warming greatly accelerates growth from those further from the equator and increases the habitat of corals
Aren't we already at the point of unavoidable catastrophe? Also I think scientists ought to focus on more obvious evidence, to me it almost seems like they purposely pick the evidence that can be easily manipulated by some retarded infograph to make it seem like some conspiracy. For example, we didn't have permanent snow here in southeastern WI until christmas fucking eve, which seems like a pretty big deal to me. Also i'm surprised people don't point out how blatant human effects on the environment are in cities, what with the smog and general shit feeling they all have.
>durr hurr only the rich are affected by taxes right guiiiiz :DDDDD
>they are proven to have been wrong in the past
Oh god! How shocking! As we know, scientists are not allowed to be wrong about anything. Only perfect beings are allowed to do science. Science is perfect, so if it's not perfect it's not science. I'm glad you caught that.
>have history of lacking integrity
Stop lying.
>how do you know. from what I see our current warming isnt anything out of the ordinary even in the past few thousand years, let alone the entire history of the planet
Your graph doesn't show anything past 1855, so how can it tell you that current warming isn't out of the ordinary? And it shows the temperature in one place in Greenland, not global temperature.
>~0.15% in almost 100 years
>Faggot
Why the homophobia?
>This is incredibly misleading
not an argument
>This is misleading since CO2 currently does not lag temperature
not an argument
>This increase in solar radiation started the feedback loop between warming and CO2/water vapor being released from the oceans
then explain pic related. pre industrial perid co2 kept increasing for thousands of years while average temperature was in decline
>GHG emissions have been increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution
but are they still increasing exponentially to compensate for the less than logarithmic nature?
>It has since been corrected
so the data was modified. how do they know how to "correct" the satelite data? if the data was modified it loses all credibility
>This graph does not have the resolution to show the current period of sea level rise, which is at a much higher rate.
false. even ICPP says ocean level rise is expected to be around 20 cm for the 21th century, which is negligible. also, glacial melting is largely due to pollution which lowers its albedo
>Strawman argument
wrong. it disproves the claims that even miniscule global warming leads to much more extreme weather
>Fake quote
you are right for once
youtube.com
in reality he says "The entire north polar ice cap may well be completely gone in 5 years". that was in 2008
when "no rise in temperature" is basically included in the uncertainty range the entire prediction becomes not falsifiable and therefore is not scientific
heres the graph updated to 2009
look, I post specific data and facts and evidence and arguments and all you do is whine around and post ICPP. post specific sources. thats like me linking to wattsupwiththat.com as support for my argument. be specific so I can address and falsify your claims otherwise you are just shitting out fallacious bullshit
Not that guy but you are severely misrepresenting your sources
>the larger the temperature rise, the larger coral growth increase
This is only true for a short time in certain areas. On average, it's false. Your own source points this out:
"Warming SSTs are resulting in (i) increased calcification rates reported here in the southeast Indian Ocean, where marginal reefs have taken advantage of warmer conditions, and (ii) recent declines reported elsewhere for more typical reef environments where thermal optima for calcification have been exceeded or resulted in setbacks in growth as a result of thermally induced bleaching."
>most coral reefs have increased coral growth in the past decades
Where do any of your sources say this? It's completely, utterly false.
>a decrease in the natural water temperature of Hawaiian reefs would be more harmful to corals than a temperature increase of the same magnitude
>Starving would be worse than getting fat, therefore getting fat is good...
>the maintenance of elevated but near-constant Ωcf in mature coral colonies is not directly influenced by ocean acidification
Odd how you left out the rest of the sentence: "it is however highly susceptible to thermal stress."
Do you really think being dishonest is helping your case?
True
>Aren't we already at the point of unavoidable catastrophe?
We can't avoid all the effects but we can mitigate them.
>Also I think scientists ought to focus on more obvious evidence, to me it almost seems like they purposely pick the evidence that can be easily manipulated by some retarded infograph to make it seem like some conspiracy.
I don't see what evidence is more obvious than the direct proof of it. People will make up conspiracies about anything they want to deny.
>For example, we didn't have permanent snow here in southeastern WI until christmas fucking eve, which seems like a pretty big deal to me.
Local weather is not good evidence.
>Also i'm surprised people don't point out how blatant human effects on the environment are in cities, what with the smog and general shit feeling they all have.
That's separate from global warming.
I don't think being dishonest would help climate scientists.
Where did the +1.44 degrees come from? And again, this is the temperature in one place in Iceland, not global temps.
>look, I post specific data and facts and evidence and arguments and all you do is whine around and post ICPP
All I did was debunk your argument. You certainly posted specific data and facts, but you grossly misrepresented them. Either you have no idea what you're talking about or you did it on purpose? Which is it?
>thats like me linking to wattsupwiththat.com as support for my argument.
You asked for evidence that doing nothing does more harm tothe economy. I linked you a specific report on mitigation. Maybe next time make your question more specific.
>be specific so I can address and falsify your claims otherwise you are just shitting out fallacious bullshit
Massive projection.
esrl.noaa.gov
>Our analysis suggests that annual average coral reef calcification rate will increase with future ocean warming and eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by about 35% by 2100.
look, I am posting evidence and providing sources which you can look at and criticize what I say. studies all show the same: calcification rate has increased with increased ocean temperature
>On average, it's false
go ahead and post evidence then. I wish I could find a list of all reefs and their measured and historical calcification rates but I cant find it anywhere
>it is however highly susceptible to thermal stress.
that does not contradict an increased calcification rate at higher temperatures. thermal stress refers to when the upper limit is exceeded and of course then the corals die as pointed out in the hawaii study
you can see it like human metabolism. higher body temperature means faster metabolism. but of course when an upper limit is exceeded necrosis sets in and we die
evidence and facts and sources in your post: zero
piss off, asshat
oceanservice.noaa.gov
such a retarded lil consumer, rationalizing the shit out of your bloated lifestyle, just like every other psychopath through history.
maybe quit squabbling over literally the most basic shit in science and find something a little more complicated next time if you feel like rationalizing.
>government ressources
>replying to the wrong person
>name calling instead of posting evidence
you are legit sub 100 IQ and should stop posting on Veeky Forums
im replying to the person who replied to my post.
and thanks but I'll trust scientists at noaa instead of you to summarize the research
have a nice day
Simple.
Make people bet.
If you deny it exists, you must absorb the risk and let the people who accept it pool their resources and survev.
>>This is incredibly misleading
>>This is misleading since CO2 currently does not lag temperature
not an argument
You cut out the argument and ignored it. Why do you keep misrepresenting sources and your opponent?
>then explain pic related. pre industrial perid co2 kept increasing for thousands of years while average temperature was in decline
I find this argument very odd since you are using temperatures which were determined from the GHG gas composition in an Arctic ice core and comparing it to the CO2 composition in an Antarctic core, and trying to use the lack of correlation between the two to argue that CO2 does not cause temperature increase. But the Arctic ice core temperatures are completely based on the assumption that CO2 means warmer temperatures. So your argument does not support your conclusion.
And the lack of correlation between the two can be explained by the fact that the Arctic is not the same as the Antarctic.
>but are they still increasing exponentially to compensate for the less than logarithmic nature?
The change in GHG forcing has remained linear, so it must be compensating.
>so the data was modified. how do they know how to "correct" the satelite data?
Because they know the source of error is a specific orbital decay.
journals.ametsoc.org
>if the data was modified it loses all credibility
If the data is not modified it loses all credibility, since there is a known error. Are you trying to make logical arguments, or will you just spout anything nonsensical in order to support your belief?
>false. even ICPP says ocean level rise is expected to be around 20 cm for the 21th century, which is negligible.
This doesn't respond to what I said. The graph's timescale does not have the resolution to show current sea level rise. It's another cut off graph.
ooops. nevermind....
mean to reply to this
oceanservice.noaa.gov
whatever... youre still an asshat rationalizing your bloated consumerism
I suck at this... replying to the wrong posts....
fuck all of you
>wrong. it disproves the claims that even miniscule global warming leads to much more extreme weather
So it disproves a strawman. That's exactly what I said. And the US is not the world.
>when "no rise in temperature" is basically included in the uncertainty range the entire prediction becomes not falsifiable and therefore is not scientific
But it's not. Why do you keep misrepresenting sources?
>you are legit sub 100 IQ and should stop posting on Veeky Forums
you are literally legit unironically legit literally retarded
I am so incredibly awesomely cool and awesome at using massive numbers of unnecessary words
Nobody would keep their bet