Climate Change

[Anacybele]

Have you ever heard of geological time? those old changes happened through the course of million years. What is happening now is happening in decades.

Of course I have. I admit, I hadn't considered the rate at which it was happening. That is concerning. But it still doesn't mean that nature hasn't had some hand it in too. I still doubt that human activity ALONE could cause it. It's probably a combination of both now that you bring the speed of the changes up.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Who ever said there was a chance the MIddle East could be uninhabitable? There's been no mention of such a thing until you brought it up.

Also, why do I need to source you all the living things that pollinate flowers? I figured this would be, you know, common knowledge...

No, it is relevant, because it proves that it can happen due to natural causes, not only by people's actions.

Tryhard literally mentioned it on the last page.

I found this one the most interesting.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-could-make-parts-of-the-middle-east-and-north-africa-uninhabitable-a7010811.html

If people think the refugee crisis right now is bad what are they going to say when parts of the Middle East and Africa become uninhabitable?

Edited November 9, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[Anacybele]

Tryhard literally mentioned it on the last page.

Oh, I must not have seen it. Now that I have, I see where you guys are coming from here.

[Lord Raven]

Who ever said there was a chance the MIddle East could be uninhabitable? There's been no mention of such a thing until you brought it up.

I found this one the most interesting.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-could-make-parts-of-the-middle-east-and-north-africa-uninhabitable-a7010811.html

If people think the refugee crisis right now is bad what are they going to say when parts of the Middle East and Africa become uninhabitable?

Also, why do I need to source you all the living things that pollinate flowers? I figured this would be, you know, common knowledge...

The source is in how it doesn't affect much.

No, it is relevant, because it proves that it can happen due to natural causes, not only by people's actions.

Yes, but it doesn't disprove that issues like this can be man-made. It also doesn't disprove, at all, how the current system is a result of people. That's why it's irrelevant. There is a load of scientific literature out there that shows a clear link between carbon emissions and the rise in global temperature, and there's enough basic science out there to expand on why this is a huge deal. You've experienced it yourself; we had an extremely cold winter and an extremely hot summer in the east coast, which is a direct result of the rise in global temperature. Edited November 9, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Anacybele]

The source is in how it doesn't affect much.

Yes, but it doesn't disprove that issues like this can be man-made. It also doesn't disprove, at all, how the current system is a result of people. That's why it's irrelevant. There is a load of scientific literature out there that shows a clear link between carbon emissions and the rise in global temperature, and there's enough basic science out there to expand on why this is a huge deal. You've experienced it yourself; we had an extremely cold winter and an extremely hot summer in the east coast, which is a direct result of the rise in global temperature.

Well, I still am not understanding how a rise in temperature causes a very cold winter. Because, you know, opposites...

[Time the Crestfallen]

Well, I still am not understanding how a rise in temperature causes a very cold winter. Because, you know, opposites...

Global warming is a rise in average temperatures. You can still have cold days and winters. But even still, that was the exception rather than the rule, especially considering the recent winter.

http://time.com/4252339/this-was-the-warmest-winter-on-record/

[Lord Raven]

Rise is in global temperature, and yes average temperature as well.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31082015/yes-warming-arctic-means-cold-winters-elsewhere-Boston-US-Asia

But the paper finds that a hotter, less icy Arctic—a region that has warmed twice as fast as the rest of the world over the last two decades—creates a bulge of warm air in the lower atmosphere that forces the jet stream to become wavier, dipping farther south in some places and peaking farther north in others as it moves eastward around the globe. As it dips south into latitudes lower than it used to, it carries with it cold Arctic air.

There's an explanation for why a cold winter makes sense. The entire idea in general is that weather patterns become inherently messed up, for lack of a better word.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Lord Raven

[eclipse]

I'm gonna move this over here.

Then it's still more likely to be natural causes in my eyes. Besides, I'm all for the planet warming up a little. I hate the cold. I'd love to live in a warm-year-round world like the dinosaurs did. Of course, so long as it isn't TOO hot.

Ever see a fish die because it boiled in its own aquarium? That's what happens when global temperatures rise. Never mind the fact that it throws Hawaii into all sorts of disarray, because you'd think that we'd have AC in all of our classrooms. . .

[Anacybele]

Rise is in global temperature, and yes average temperature as well.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31082015/yes-warming-arctic-means-cold-winters-elsewhere-Boston-US-Asia

There's an explanation for why a cold winter makes sense. The entire idea in general is that weather patterns become inherently messed up, for lack of a better word.

Hm, I see. I guess this does make sense now. I guess we have to hope Trump changes his stance or Congress more or less forces him to do something.

Eclipse, I never said temperatures had to rise THAT much, geez...

Edited November 9, 2016 by Anacybele

[Time the Crestfallen]

Hm, I see. I guess this does make sense now. I guess we have to hope Trump changes his stance or Congress more or less forces him to do something.

Eclipse, I never said temperatures had to rise THAT much, geez...

Trump might change his views, but I have my doubts about that. I also don't think that Congress will do anything, seeing that the GOP has a long history of climate denial.

[Anacybele]

Trump might change his views, but I have my doubts about that. I also don't think that Congress will do anything, seeing that the GOP has a long history of climate denial.

Eh, you never know. But if nothing happens, well... It was nice knowing this planet, I suppose. :(

[Lord Raven]

I don't know where Trump truly stands on it to be honest, because he denied calling it a Chinese conspiracy in the debate (even though he clearly did).

So there's the small chance he was ashamed and really believes it. The main issue now is with congress.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Anacybele]

I don't know where Trump truly stands on it to be honest, because he denied calling it a Chinese conspiracy in the debate (even though he clearly did).

Even if he did, knowing him, he probably means that that wasn't what he meant or he could've been joking when he called it that. Lately he's said a lot of things that have easily been taken the wrong way. That's why they're called controversial. I can't say if he's really changing his stance or anything either though. I just hope something is done by someone soon.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Anacybele

[Life]

I'm watching the Canadian Conservative Leadership Race debate right now and one of the questions was about the environment.

​I'm of the opinion that yeah, global warming exists. And I also think that government measures will pretty much do jack shit for environment concerns. Right now, the Keystone Pipeline is a huge discussion point in Canadian politics.

​Ever spoken to someone who works in fracking? The vast majority of them are environmental scientists and don't want to screw the environment. And oil (well, crude be honest) is vital to the world and creates less pollution than current "green" options which still require oil in the first place. Hell, one of the candidates in the race is a geo-physicist and he says the exact same thing.

I don't believe that government will solve any issues with the government. And it seems silly to think that government can "solve" global warming.

[EricaofRenais]

Trust me the weather has changed a lot in the past 10 years and at least where I live it is drier and warmer which is not a good thing, because I live in an area that has farms and this year was the first since 2007 that the farmers were given their full amount of water and were able to plant crops. This is happening all over the world and if we can't find ways to help it we may end up having food shortages if farmers aren't able to grow food because of not having enough water. Besides which fossil fuels will run out someday and finding new better cheaper sources of energy will help everyone on the planet.

Edited November 10, 2016 by EricaofRenais

[Moblin Major General]

I would say what's happening now is overcompensating for the Little Ice Age, which only ended about 150 years ago. Our coldest winters and hottest summers pale in comparison to some before and during the Little Ice age. Also, the worst climate change event will not even be manmade. Think about what sits below most of the Western US. Any damage we humans do will pale in comparison to that one event. Hell, it might even make North America unlivable for decades.

[Phoenix Wright]

you people really need to do your research. i'm not talking about op-ed articles spoon-feeding you information (in favor of either side), i'm talking about reading the papers that actually show how apparent anthropomorphic climate change is. looking at the plots, checking the data. it isn't hard at all--quite simple actually. read lord raven's post. read here: http://climate.nasa.gov/

i am frankly fed up with having to deal with people that don't understand science here so the only opposition i'm going to respond to are scientific points (ie, arguments based on real, sourced, published data) and balz/other scientists here.

i'll be the first to say consensus doesn't actually matter, and isn't a real argument. i don't care if every scientist but one believes dinosaurs never existed--the moment we find a fossil, they're all wrong.

the kicker here, much like with dinosaurs, is that the data is clear.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Sunwoo]

I'm convinced that people who deny global climate change either don't understand how science works, or they're purposely choosing to ignore it because they don't like it.

When we put shit into the atmosphere, that shit does not go away so fast. The "residence time" of a substance is the amount of time that said substance STAYS in a reservoir (like the atmosphere or water or the earth) before it gets washed out naturally. Carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases, has a residence time of 100-150 years. This means that a molecule of CO₂ that is put into the atmosphere today will stay in the atmosphere for 100-150 years. And guess what? CO₂ is actually one of the SHORTER lived greenhouses gases in the world. Other things like chlorofluorocarbons last a LOT longer. If you don't know what that is, then google it. Here, I'll link the wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Scroll down to the heading that says, "global warming potential", because see how much longer those other greenhouse gases last in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

Let's say that tomorrow, we come up with and implement a technology worldwide that cuts carbon dioxide emission down to zero. The damage has still been done because we've been pumping carbon dioxide into our atmosphere for years and years, and we will continue to see effects in the future because carbon dioxide is not going to magically go away just because we stopped putting it in.

Also, look up the Maldives and some of the other small island nations in the Pacific. The sea level rising even a meter has drastic consequences for these island nations, some of which are barely above sea level in elevation, and it HAS already impacted these places. The rising sea level will also overtake low-level coastal regions in the United States, if it hasn't already started. The Maldives isn't even responsible for all of the greenhouses gases that are in the fucking atmosphere. Don't know what the Maldives are? Google it. Places like the U.S., which pollute the most, are the ones who are causing most of the trouble, and they don't want to do their part to curb it? What the hell?

You can't say that people who act like global warming will kill everyone in twenty years is overreacting. The truth of the matter is, there is so much that scientists still don't know about global warming, and that is terrifying. The truth of the matter is, we don't know if we've already reached the "point of no return", in which the earth's climate cannot revert to its original state and the future will have to adapt to a new climate. There is still much that we don't know, but 97-99% of climate scientists AGREE that human-caused global warming is a thing, and that it's going to be a big issue.

Evidence from ice cores and tree rings and other natural climatological records tell us that there has never been such a dramatic RATE of increase in CO₂ as there has been since the industrial era. This kind of change is not natural. It's not the temperature, but it's the RATE of change.

Also, the crap that we put in the atmosphere is proven to have a negative effect on the Earth. Remember the depletion of the ozone layer? Yeah, that was us, pumping chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere that broke up the ozone molecules. That was ... how many years ago? First discovered in the 1960s, maybe the 1970s? Well, that ozone hole still hasn't healed and it's been anywhere between 40-50 years since then. In fact, some of the worst ozone holes on record have been in 2006, that's not THAT long ago. We're still feeling the effects, and people want to make it worse???

The U.S. is basically the only country that doesn't believe in climate change. That says a lot about us.

Anacybele, your posts give me the impression that you never learned about climate change in general or you don't really understand the mechanics behind anthropogenic climate change. This is my field, and what I've been doing since I went to college. That's seven years, up to my master's. A lot of other people on this site also seem to know a lot more about climate change and how it works as well. I don't think this is your topic to try to educate other people on.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Sunwoo

[Radiant head]

I'm convinced that people who deny global climate change either don't understand how science works, or they're purposely choosing to ignore it because they don't like it.

Well there's also the capitalism aspect, where a certain industry thrives on spreading disinformation

Though maybe that's what you mean by they don't like it.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Radiant head

[Sunwoo]

Well there's also the capitalism aspect, where a certain industry thrives on spreading disinformation

Though maybe that's what you mean by they don't like it.

That is exactly what I mean by it, yes.

And yeah, I've noticed that I posted a gigantic wall of text. But shit ... anthropogenic climate change denial makes me ANGRY. You can't embrace all the good stuff that science has given us, like technology and medicine, and ignore climate change because you don't like it.

[euklyd]

[spoiler=Perspective]

Ideally there would be no spoiler tags, but I'm not quuiiite that inconsiderate.

I don't have much to say that hasn't been said in this thread at least three times. Climate change is honestly something people should consider becoming a single-issue voter for. We talk about existential threats a lot, but it is literally an existential threat.

[Time the Crestfallen]

[spoiler=Perspective]

Ideally there would be no spoiler tags, but I'm not quuiiite that inconsiderate.

I don't have much to say that hasn't been said in this thread at least three times. Climate change is honestly something people should consider becoming a single-issue voter for. We talk about existential threats a lot, but it is literally an existential threat.

It pretty much already is for me and my brother. It's become a joke that you should never bring it up around us.

[The Geek]

And the thing with CO2 emissions is that climate change isn't the only thing they cause. Ever heard of ocean acidification? Life forms living in an environment that is generally pH stable (AKA the ocean) don't like having that pH messed with. And when it does get messed with, they die. That's what's happening to the coral reefs.

The other big issue is air quality. Seriously, ever seen a picture of any major US city before the Clean Air Act was passed? Can't see shit because of all the smog. Heck, for a modern idea of this look at Beijing. The Chinese government had to put all industry in the city on lock down for two weeks prior to the 2008 Olympics so that the athletes would actually be able to breathe.

[Sunwoo]

A lot of people seem to underestimate just how big a change of 1 degree Celsius has on the environment, never mind 4 degrees Celsius.

To use an example most people would be familiar with, body temperature is ... let's say about 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. If this is normal, and you measure 100 degrees Fahrenheit, you'd have a fever. That's only 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit ... and Fahrenheit's increments are smaller than Celsius's. Look at that sentence above when I said only 1 degree Celsius would change a lot in our environment. Your body temperature went from normal to fever by close to the same temperature rise.

If any of you have owned fish, then you'd know that if the temperature is slightly off or if the pH of the water is too acidic or too basic for them, then they are not happy with it and they die. You may think that a 1-4 degree Celsius difference is nothing, but many things in the environment or are living are not adapted to that range in variability.

[ChibiToastExplosion]

If any of you have owned fish, then you'd know that if the temperature is slightly off or if the pH of the water is too acidic or too basic for them, then they are not happy with it and they die. You may think that a 1-4 degree Celsius difference is nothing, but many things in the environment or are living are not adapted to that range in variability.

I don't disagree with you, but sort of bad example. Fish definitely have a min-max but are pretty remarkable in their ability to live within those ranges as long as the change is slow. They don't just "up and die" over a swing unless it's incredibly drastic.