/csg/ - Climate science general

climate change is fake news, too many variables for any proof to exist. Just paid opinions

...

smoking cancer is fake news, too many variables for any proof to exist. Just paid opinions

>pic related: major oil companies with incomprehensible fortunes at stake are paying off scientists to sway policy and public opinion
>don't pay attention to climate change guys just look at this paper sponsored by Muhammad alOilfieldi that says it's okay

>smoking cancer is fake news, too many variables for any proof to exist. Just paid opinions

One logical fallacy can't be used to refute another.

>Is it possible to take massive amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere?

Technically, yes. In fact, that's how coal got into the ground in the first place. A shitlord of plants from the Carboniferous Era sequestered most of the CO2.

rogerhelmermep.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/unnamed3.jpg

In the last 500 million years, the majority of the time was spend with CO2 levels at 1000 ppm of CO2 or more. CO2 levels have only been this low since the time before the Permian extinction even with extra CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere.

But to answer your question, it's possible but being practical is a different matter. One thing that can be done is more nuclear power as a source of carbon neutral energy that is not intermittent. At least it can't contribute to the problem the way burning coal or other fossil fuels can.

those two are connected a lot more than you think
youtu.be/hqiCLuOtXts?t=8m15s

This has been said before, but there are much greater dangers of pollution, than CO2. Like the fact that you can't eat fish everyday without getting high levels of mercury. What are we going to do when we can't eat from the ocean in 100 years? Climate science has taken too much attention from what really matters right now. Plus the effects of CO2 are definitely reversible. Mercury isn't. We need a large public shift in opinion.

almost every point wrong, you even manage to underestimate your own fear

thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf

Red pill

youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=29
Good thing that climate models aren't the only evidence presented.

Ocean acidification causes coral reef systems to collapse
Increased warming forces migration of species which reduces biodiversity as many species will not be able to find a thermal tolerance zone
Sea level rise causes 'light extinction' which kills and reduces productivity of seagrasses and kelp forest
Warmer oceans have impacts on plankton for example, some plankton produce dimethylsulfide, and will produce less in more acidic oceans, which reduces global dimming and makes warming worse
Emergence of a more permanent El Nino collapses South American fisheries
Warmer oceans suit 'weedier' species, like seagrass that soaks in less CO2 and Jellyfish, meaning ecosystem services are disrupted

etc etc

warming the oceans with CO2 is very dangerous

Yes. It's within the realm of political and economic plausibility. It will be expensive as hell. The best approach seems to be the quicklime basalt method.
theenergycollective.com/roger-arnold/2381301/the-carbonate-solution-part-1-brute-force

Water vapor is the most important thing greenhouse gas on earth. Without water, heat radiation gets less conducted.

Yes there are more dangerous chemicals and elements than CO2.
>Heavy metals and toxic elements (Pb, Hg, Cd, Al(see studies conducted by prof. C. Exley) etc)
>Endocrine disruptors (atrazine, bisphenyls, DDT, glyphosate (yes, bc stereoisomere is similar to that of glysine, which is a substrate of a certain enzyme) etc)
>Building materials (also can contain pollutants)
>Leftovers from chemical weapons attacks
>Radioactive elements and isotopes (Cs-137, Cs-134, I-131, U-238)

Furthermore there always is more. Don't be scared, just protect yourself from those pollutants.

youtube.com/watch?v=qZN2jt2cCU4
Answer all statements if you think it leads to questions

Climate change is just a bogeyman of the government.
Brute force will not work, just see CO2 as a resource instead.
More production of that resource? More consumption of it too!
Supply and demand

>Climate change is just a bogeyman of the government.
Could you please be not a troll or an anti-science tribalistic luddite? It would really be more convenient for me and the rest of humanity.

>Brute force will not work, just see CO2 as a resource instead.
Also, why won't it work?

>More production of that resource? More consumption of it too!
PS: Some humans start experiencing headaches around 1000 ppm CO2. At a bare minimum, let's not go that high. Imagine having a headache for the entirety of your life. (We'd be screwed way before then because of climate reasons, but this is also another reason.)

>Are all the signs that the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for changes in climate
Myth

No there is actual proof of smoking causing cancer.

...

I feel bad for environmental science people. It sucks working hard at mastering a field only to have some moron who never once tried to learn the subject pretend they know better than you while being completely wrong. I know that feel all too well

Every field is full of these types of people, it's all down to Dunning Kruger. There just happen to be a lot more morons with opinions about climate science because it's a politicized issue.

why has no one yet made a comprehensive infographic on climate change yet to btfo /pol/ whenever they start to deny human involvement or the effects of change in the long run?

>why has no one yet made a comprehensive infographic on climate change yet to btfo /pol/
Because /pol/ can make shit up faster than I can track down papers.
Also, no infographic will help if 50% if the argument you're up against is "all scientists are liars".

I have this pasta

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 in 1896.
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/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.phpOn average, only 71% of energy entering the Earth is leaving. 2nd law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy states that when a system had energy imbalance, T must go up.
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

>Carbon cycle feedback
if the temperature goes up there's going to be a lot of nice farmland in siberia

>The Truth About Climate Change
>vixra.org/abs/1309.0069

>there's going to be a lot of nice farmland in siberia
What's the soil quality like? Just because an area is warming up doesn't mean it will become useful farmland any time soon. Meanwhile, currently productive farmland is disappearing.

>vixra.org/abs/1309.0069
Dear god, what a trainweck of a paper.
I would post quotes of the insane parts, but I'd end up pasting the whole thing. That paper is definitely not anything resembling an objective review of Cook's work, and the tangents it runs off on (like curve fitting through UAH data) are just as bizarre.