Daily Climate Change Debate Thread

Are humans to blame?
How serious is the threat?
What are the likely consequences?
What steps should be taken by governments and the public to stop it?
And why is it that the right-wing is so much in denial about this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance
wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/06/recent-paper-finds-recent-solar-grand-maximum-was-a-rare-or-even-unique-event-in-3000-years/
spaceweather.com/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Pic related, we have absolutely nothing to worry about. If temperatures rise significantly, niggers will all die and Siberia, northern Canada and maybe even Greenland will open up for lebensraum.
Also the timescale for that graph is retarded

can you post the map that shows crop yields when there is no significant beneficial carbon fertilisation process?

Oh shit, didn't realise it was this bad. It's interesting that Siberia declines while Scandinavia increases.

notice that the Indian subcontinent (where over 1 billion people live) is much worse off in both the best and worst case scenarios.
Combine that with the effect of a weakening South Asia summer monsoon and rising sea levels, which can easily flood large parts of Bangladesh and the resulting migration crisis could easily dwarf the one we have right now

No more pooperpower 2020 then. Africa really needs to stop growing now

Climate Change is just an opportunity for virtue signalling on social media. And a cash grab by grant sniffing "scientists". If it was real governments would be actually doing something about it rather than making empty gestures.

that would be the most idiotic conspiracy of all time.
Thousands of scientists from fields as far as geology, volcanology, climatology, atmospheric physics and chemistry, solar astrophysics, glaciology, speleology and remote sensing over two centuries construct an internally consistent story that is 180° opposed to reality -
all in hope for an increase in funding for their research

people who will believe that, will believe in absolutely anything

>conspiracy

Never suspect conspiracy when nature, stupidity, or greed are a sufficient explanation.

It's not a conspiracy because they really do believe their own bullshit. This is what happens when you let environmental activists masquerade as scientists. The general public are so stupid they will believe anything a man in a white coat tells them, you are a perfect example of this.

What's the population of the USA?
What's the population of China, Africa, and India?

Which country is most often the target of the proposed changes for combating climate change: China, Africa, India, or the USA?

Even if it's real, the clearest and simplest way to solve the problem is to actively and cleanly destroy the overpopulated countries contributing the majority to our Earth's pollution.
It is not white male Americans, it's niggers and chinks.

Go breathe the air in any city you monkey. There is good reason your coral reefs are 98% bleached and it isn't NOAA

>There is good reason your coral reefs are 98% bleached and it isn't NOAA

call it a scam, a fraud or whatever. The semantics are quite secondary - it's still an insanely grandiose claim and something common to every pseudoscience.

If you think you know about any major aspects of anthropogenic global warming that is objectively wrong, then please point them out so we can have a meaningful discussion instead of throwing insinuations about "lying scientists" around

...

>omg the earth is cooling
>omg the earth is warming
>lets rename it to 'climate change'

The problem is that these "scientists" are using complicated models, with a high chance of error for their predictions. And they throw out the models that don't help prove their hypothesis. Hence why I cannot take them seriously, as well as the $$$ incentive to push (((their))) agenda

modulations in the Earth's orbit caused a change in the amount of energy received by the Northern Hemisphere, which in turn set of several positive feedbacks (ice-albedo, CO2 and dust) that ended the "Weichselian glaciation"

>posting meme images as arguments

What did you just call my amazing image

Looks like stabilization to me.

Ok here is whats wrong:
>It is based on the premise that the current temperature is the ideal temperature
>It is based on the temperature that any change humans make will be a bad change
>It is based on the premise of positive feedback loops that cannot exist because they would have already been triggers in the past.
>It ignores massive natural changes in the climate
>It is based on computer models not actual data
>Every prediction that has been wrong has been wrong on the hotter side which proves there is an agenda to frighten people.
>Real science doesn't need appeals to emotion and emotion based propaganda
>Cold has been far more destructive to humanity than heat ever has.
>Where is there more abundance of life, the tropics or the poles?
>It is supposed to be happening now but global life expectancy and global food production have never been higher
>It follows in a long tradition of environmental scare campaigns
>Its supposed problems are conveniently vague and difficult to measure and so the scam can go on for decades

etc etc

the Earth isn't cooling

I hate these climate change-global warming word games. Not only is it almost completely irrelevant what you call this phenomenon, the entire argument is also completely false.
Global Warming refers to the rise in globally averaged temperatures in the lower atmosphere.
Climate Change refers to changes in wind patterns, precipitation, ocean circulation, albedo and all the rest of it, that result from this rise in temperatures.

The difference is very clear to anyone bothering to think about it for a few seconds and the terms have both been around for several decades.

sup germcuck

I'm undecided on global warming. Red pill me pls.

>the Earth isn't cooling

No. But that was the big environmental catastrophe that was pushed before Global Warming became vogue.

“Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “At the present rate of nitrogen build-up, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable."

“Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

April 28, 1975 Newsweek “There are ominous signs that Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically….The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….The central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

1976 Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling,”: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”

July 9, 1971, Washington Post: “In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

June, 1975, Nigel Calder in International Wildlife: “The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.”

sun did it

...

>1&2
Those are not premises or supposition, because we can make estimates of the changes by forward modelling based on our understanding of the climate system. If you think this will have positive outcomes, feel free to name them and explain in what way they out-weigh all the negative side effects

>3
they HAVE happened in the past. Positive (and negative) feedback loops are so well understood and the physics are so basic and easy to comprehend. Without feedbacks, paleoclimatologists wouldn't be able to make sense of the past climate.

>4
like what?

>5
the scientific foundation isn't based on computer models. It long pre-dates the existence of computers (climate science has its origins in the 19th century)

>6
also not true. Sea ice extent for example has been UNDERestimated by even the most pessimistic models

>7
Can you show me a climate science paper that uses appeals to emotion as its methodology?

>8
that's just retarded

>9
I haven't got a clue, but that also seems completely irrelevant

>10
These are the result of advance in medicine and industrial agriculture and quite irrelevant to the question what the climate by the end of the century will be

>11
You can criticize environmental movements all you want, but that's completely separate from what is written in the scientific literature. To conflate the two would be a gross error.

>12
What's vague about rising sea levels, falling ocean pH and O2 concentrations, increases in the extremes of the water cycle and falling crap yields due to water stress?

ask a question

1.No
2.Only if new glacial period occurs
3.As they always were
4.Nothing should be done
5.Because we hate going back to low tech nigger society and debt slaves to jewish carbon swindlers.

>wow it's almost like more refugees will be forced to come north
>omg our governments are filled with leftists that can't turn them down
>I swear to Allah it couldn't get hotter
Wew

notice that none of the people you cited are climatologists and none of the source are respected peer-reviewed scientific journals.
At the height of the "global cooling" hypothesis in the 1970s (which was largely due to increases in sulfate aerosol emissions), I think there were around 6 or 7 scientific papers predicting future cooling. Those were already drowned out at the time by 40 or so papers that said the globe would go on to warm on average because of emissions of non-condensing GHGs

That was for years just one theory of climate until in the late 60s decided to make it big policy of taxing and deciding for example how many children parents can have.Since then anybody who does not agree with the warming scam is being destroyed in science.Its not like that the green crazies usefull idiots of rich oligarchs can just make a theory and everybody goes with a smile into eternal green slavery because muh climate change.

That's irradiance which doesn't match so well. Mechanism and better correlation is with magnetic activity/sunspot cycle length.

notice that the graph conveniently stops at 1980, which is precisely the time at which temperature trends start to diverge from TSI.

But that's not the only reason why we know the sun isn't the cause of the warming. Other reasons are:
- If it was the sun, we should we seeing warming throughout the entire vertical extension of the atmosphere (we don't)
- If it was the sun, the warming would be the strongest during the day (it isn't)
-If it was the sun, we would be seeing a huge 11-year signal in the temperature trends (we don't)

good summary...according to the 60s Club of Rome we shouldnt have any oil left by now.Yeah...more oil than ever.

of course the earth is cooling...we are in a glacial period wich is not the norm in earth climate history.We are very low on CO2 and very low mean temperature.Just check climate history.

this is so baffling to me.
Listening to climate skeptics, you would think we live in a totalitarian dictatorship run by evil climate scientists, that imposed a heavy "breathing tax" and a one child policy in the 1960s.

Meanwhile in the real world, governments only ever started to even pay attention to the problem in the 1990s and action still hasn't made it past the mildest verbal commitments.

How you can come up with these delusional fantasies about "green slavery" is beyond me.

wrong, the glacial period ended about 12,000 years ago. We are in an interglacial period called the "holocene"

>TSI
it's not tsi though

still correlates after 1980s
Solar magnetic activity affects cosmic ray incidence which affects cloud cover which affects albedo which affects temperature.
If it was TSI you would see those things but it's not so you wouldn't.

2:35
youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI

>Appeal to anonymous authority, the post
Read the sticky, faggot.

The current climate science is highly suspect, with many reasons given by . You should also realize that acitivities involving huge amounts of state expenditure will attract a certain level of corruption, but not necessarily a conspiracy.

The argument from [us] scientists outside the climate sciences is that they are engaging in forecasting rather than science (forecasting is not a science due to lack of reproducibility), and that they use scenario models, which are typically used in modelling to pit two or more extremes against each other, to see how a system reacts in extreme situations.

disregarding for a moment that the cosmic ray-cloud cover connection is highly disputed and seems to mostly come down to Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, in what sense do you see a correlation (after the 1980s) when your cosmic ray incidence curve looks like this, while temperature trends are clearly upward, with no obvious 11 year signal?

how is it anonymous when you can access all the journals (nature geoscience, nature climate change, Science, Geophysicaly Research Letters,....) and the names of the authors are given right under the title?

On the point about modelling, I can only repeat what I already said earlier: The scientific basis for climate science is not dependent on models and pre-dates the development of computers by a century.

>anonymous
They are unless you name them in your post

>scientific basis for climate science is not dependent on models and pre-dates the development of computers by a century.
Some guy built a greenhouse a century ago, and this proves global warming?

No, climate change, as it is discussed today, refers to specific short-term temperature increases of 50-100 years in duration. They are highly dependent on the present state of the world, and cannot be done without modelling.

The problem is in the uncertainty of these temperature predictions, and the sensitivity of predictions to different modelling assumptions.

1/2
>disputed
Correlation over hundreds of years looks pretty good to me, video there agrees (but confuses TSI and magnetic activity) except for recently.

Are temperature trends clearly upward? There's lots of accusations of """adjusting""" data around. Some say it's not as upward as you think.
>11 year signal?
There are peaks 11 years apart in this graph.

>They are unless you name them in your post
So what, do you want me to name all the worlds climatologists?

>Some guy built a greenhouse a century ago, and this proves global warming?
Also wrong. If you don't know the history of the scientific field under discussion, why do you feel confident enough to dismiss it?
Greenhouses are not capable of measuring the "greenhouse effect", greenhouses for the most part don't even work with the greenhouse effect.
John Tyndall used absorption spectroscopy to measure the radiative properties of several atmospheric gases in 1859.
Svante Arrhenius first calculated the amount of warming that would result in a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations in 1896

>cosmic ray-cloud cover connection is highly disputed
CERN is doing work on this right night with a project called CLOUD.

it's highly disputed for the recent temperature rise (which is the topic under discussion)

it IS clearly upward for both the deep and shallow oceans, the SST, above the continents and the Troposphere. This upward trend is measured by every terrestrial monitoring body, ARGO floats, radiosondes and satellites

TSI includes magnetic activity.

I know that and I also know that CERN itself cautions against drawing any major conclusions from their experiments, because it is unknown what fraction of the nucleated particles can grow to sufficient size to seed water droplets and therefore act as cloud condensation points.

Pretty sure it doesn't, irradiance is W/m^2, just light.
Well what's RSS and why is it flat? Do we just have to ignore data that doesn't show the trend?

Pic related BTFOs anticarbon shills.
But seriously I'm not an outright denier, I'm sure CO2 warms things up a bit because physics, but not as much as the alarmists say, and pretty sure the sun's magnetic magic is to blame for a lot.
Not a climate scientist, got alarmists and oil barons all shilling at me, who do I believe?
Sun is proven over hundreds of years, global cooling mid 20thC proves other stuff is more powerful than carbon so I'm siding with the oil barons.

I'm glad that you accept the possibility that the majority of recent climate studies are dismissable

>Solar irradiance is the power per unit area received from the Sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range of the measuring instrument.
> Irradiance is a function of distance from the Sun, the solar cycle, and cross-cycle changes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance

>Well what's RSS and why is it flat? Do we just have to ignore data that doesn't show the trend?

Let me ask you this: Have you ever tried to figure this out on your own?
RSS stands for Remote Sensing Systems. RSS was the odd-one-out for temperature trends - until 2015 when they corrected an error in their correction for orbital decay of diurnal satellites (they relevant paper is called "Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment").

There is no temperature monitoring body in the world, that doesn't measure a statistically significant warming trend in the Troposphere.

Similarly, have you ever tried to find out what climatologists think about the slight cooling in the middle of the last century? Because they have been discussing this for decades and they come to the conclusion that the reason for it was an increase in anthropogenic sulfate aerosol emission, whose negative forcing (by way of direct scattering and influences on cloud cover and cloud albedo) was able to overcome to positive forcing of CO2.

are you dyslexic?

EMR is irradiance and isn't the same as magnetic flux.
Sun has a weird magnetic field, spews out solar wind, affects earth's magnetic field. Does space weather.
> tried to figure this out on your own
That's how I came to a different conclusion to 97% of scientists user.
>anthropogenic sulfate aerosol emission, whose negative forcing (by way of direct scattering and influences on cloud cover and cloud albedo) was able to overcome to positive forcing of CO2
Yeah I know.
Doesn't that just make it more plausible that a solar/cloud albedo mechanism would dominate over CO2?

And
wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/06/recent-paper-finds-recent-solar-grand-maximum-was-a-rare-or-even-unique-event-in-3000-years/
Sun has been uniquely active over the global warming scare period.
Coincidence?

You seem like a knowledgeable type; how responsible are humans for climate change? Have any meta-studies been conducted on the sort of "big picture" question, there? Because if humans are responsible for 80% of change, that's a different conversation than if humans are responsible for 15-30%.

>Doesn't that just make it more plausible that a solar/cloud albedo mechanism would dominate over CO2?
How so?
If you want to establish the point that there are other factors than CO2 that influence climate, you don't have to make speculations or reference some internet blogs. That has been known and discussed among climatologists for decades.

Same with your last point about a solar maximum. The fact that there was a maximum in solar activity recently doesn't hurt the case for CO2/CH4-induced atmospheric warming because a) as the paper says, the maximum ended in 2009, while temperatures continue to rise and b) we know that the current rise in temperature is due to CO2 (because we can calculate the resulting forcing and the energy imbalance of the planet) and not the sun, reasons for which I already outlined here

>Irradiance is a function of distance from the Sun, the SOLAR CYCLE, and cross-cycle changes

Irradiance measures most of what is needed from what I understand.

I don't think it's possible to attribute a specific percentage value to the human contribution. For example, if human civilization injects a certain amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, as a result of which the atmosphere warms and terrestrial soils and ocean release some additional CO2, amplifying the warming - do you count that additional CO2 as anthropogenic or not?
This would seem kind of arbitrary and pointless

I think you should think more in terms of "prime driver" vs "feedback".
The question to ask is "Are human emissions of non-condensing GHGs the prime driver for Earth's climate right now?", to which the answer is clearly yes.
There is no other natural forcing (solar insolation, explosive volcanism, internal variability,...) that can explain the current temperature trend.
As you can see, it's only after taking the human forcing (red) into account that you can explain the multi-decadal temperature trend (black). Without a human influence, temperature would mostly flat-line (blue), with a few dips for major volcanic eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1990)

>How so?
Sulfate aerosol albedo change during CO2 increase results in temperature decrease implies CO2 effect is weaker than albedo. If sun's effect is through albedo then probably the sun's effect is stronger than CO2.
And also historically eg. little ice age/maunder minimum we're pretty sure sun's effect can be pretty dramatic.

It's like is asking, CO2 and other things influence climate but what's important is whether CO2 does 5% or 95% of it.
Grand max ended in 2009 but sun is still at relatively high activity.
>we know that the current rise in temperature is due to CO2 (because we can calculate
But from my link
>IPCC scientists have conducted relatively few studies of the Sun’s influence on modern warming, assuming that the temperature influence of this rare and unique Grand maximum of solar activity, which has occurred only once in the past 3,000 years, is far inferior to the radiative power provided by the rising CO2 concentration of the Earth’s atmosphere.
and from you >CERN itself cautions against drawing any major conclusions from their experiments, because it is unknown what fraction of the nucleated particles can grow to sufficient size to seed water droplets and therefore act as cloud condensation points
Working out how strong the CO2 effect is is done with models but if the models don't properly account for soar activity they'll say the CO2 effect is stronger than it really is.
And maybe I'm wrong here but aren't the reasons you outlined there from TSI which is definitely not the same as magnetic flux?

That means irradiance changes over the solar cycle, which it does, but irradiance is not magnetic flux. Irradiance is pretty much just brightness and doesn't change much, and not changing much is why everyone says it isn't responsible for climate change.

see
spaceweather.com/
pic related
space weather change of 13% over 2 years is because of all the non-irradiance things the sun does. Obviously the sun's brightness doesn't change nearly that much.

Still, it doesn't seem to be a main cause from recent data.

>implies CO2 effect is weaker than albedo
I think you're misunderstanding this.
There is no hierarchy of strength for the different factors because the strength changes over time (depending on concentration).
In the middle of the 20th century, the negative sulfate forcing was stronger than the positive CO2 forcing - that isn't the case today, because sulfate aerosol concentrations have decreased (due to the use of cleaner fossil fuels and the implementation of environmental standards) while CO2 concentrations continue to increase at geologically unprecedented rates.

Going back further in time, you're absolutely right that the sun was the prime driver of climate in the long-term, with CO2 being "just" an important feedback mechanism - but yet again, this isn't the case today, because solar insolation can't explain the current temperature trend for the reasons I already stated.

Is this finally clear?

>Grand max ended in 2009 but sun is still at relatively high activity.
also not correct, look at the very paper that this blogpost references. The activity is well within the "regular" range.
I think it's also very telling that you have to appeal to a blogpost about a paper instead of the paper itself, because the paper doesn't contain any of this speculation about the sun causing the recent warming.

>Working out how strong the CO2 effect is is done with models
Also wrong and also something I repeatedly explained in this very thread.
Svante Arrhenius first calculated the resulting temperature change in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations in 1896 to surprising accuracy (the paper is called "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground") - needless to say there weren't any computer models around back then

>Svante Arrhenius
In reality various feedbacks mean temperature won't change by the theoretical prediction. Have to use models to work out the actual change.
>within the "regular" range
Here 'regular' really just means not at a 3000 year extreme. Doesn't mean current activity will give stable earth temperatures. Solar activity's been increasing for 500 years so current activity probably wouldn't give stable temperatures. Plus lag, feedback, CO2 effects aside from current activity. Very plausible that sun continues to contribute to warming.
>strength changes over time
>negative sulfate forcing was stronger than the positive CO2 forcing
Right so from my pic CO2 forcing, even with unprecedented modern CO2 levels, isn't going to be much stronger than it was pre industrial age.
Pre industrial age the dominant forcing was the sun. Best correlations over 20thC were sun and sulfate aerosols. Sun's been increasing activity for 500 years. CO2 is only needed to explain the last few years, and then only because models don't model the sun properly.
>solar insolation can't explain the current temperature trend
Solar insolation means irradiance = W/m^2. I agree that definitely doesn't explain it but insolation isn't magnetic activity/space weather/cosmic rays etc which are what the actual proposed mechanism that has to be modelled properly to determine relative strengths of sun and CO2 is.