Human Induced Climate Change (2 Viewers)

[Lolsmith]

>deleting legit posts

ok

ikr

LOL NO MOAR OFF TOPIX

I don't know why they bother with such things since it's not like this has any impact on anything or like every other single board on the entire site doesn't have the same issue. If it's some sort of community thing then marginalising the only regular posters isn't helping either, oh look moderation is stupid what do you know

Personally I do not believe in the existence of human induced climate change, but I am more than willing to support the transition from "fossil fuels" to cleaner and more reliable sources of power. Thus the reason for my question as to how one would propose to cut "carbon emissions".

I've pondered that climate change doesn't exist beforehand but is basically a vague enough reason for people to throw political capital behind it. Generates support throughout countries, move away from our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil, stop letting Arab dictators live like kings. Sounds good to me, tbh, and if all it does is send the middle east back to the pits and piss off a few farmers and ultra conservatives, then idc really

 

[Belalan]

GCMs include dozens of forcings that are accounting for why "Earth's climate changes all the time" as another poster put it

If you want to disprove AGW, all you have to do is develop a global circulation model that can account for increased post-1970 warming without an increased greenhouse forcing component (or explain where the extra greenhouse forcing came from other than human emissions)

Why haven't any mainstream climatologists (or skeptics) done so yet?

The development of an accurate model is ridiculously hard due to the large number of systems and variables that are involved; the tilt of the earths axis; distribution of landmasses effecting approximate ocean heights around continents, solar input which, for all talk of cycles (and at last count there are at least 7 such cycles proposed) is effectively random and has huge impacts on the van-allen radiation belts, causing fluxuations of hundreds of kilometers as to just how big the atmosphere is; ocean thermal currents that transport heat, volcanic activity, cloud patterns reflecting sunlight, urban heat islands impacting ground based temperature records, the list goes on.

Current "Climate Change models" tend not to even include convection currents and just approximate a four or five tiers of interfaces in an attempt to simulate the atmosphere, let alone include the enormity of depth that is required. There is a reason Chaos Theory's best known application is in weather reporting, we can hardly predict the weather 5 days in advance, let alone years.

 

[boris]

long wave radiation cowabunga dudes surfs up

wait a second

 

[boris]

why do we have to stop climate change who cares it will all reverse in 5000 years anyway
who cares if the polar bears die will be replaced by ultrapolarbears in the next ice age etc

 

[Midnight_Lotus]

on average, 50% of solar radiation that hits the earth is absorbed by the oceans and land, 32 % is reflected straight away by the earth and 18% is absorbed by the atmosphere, that 68% leaves as long wave radiation eventually

so its that 18% that worries people, that what if it grew it to 19% and only 18% was still released at the same rate. hence warming

of course I'm one of those crazy people that think the amount of solar radiation we receive and its distribution across the surface of the earth caused by Milankovicth cycles is what is causing the climate to shift as it has since the earth had a climate

I believe that this is one of the more likely theories to explain it atm. There was a comparative graph shown (i will have to look for it) that overlayed the increase in heat with the increase in CO2 over time. What was revealed was that there was an increase in heat which was then followed by an increase in CO2 (not the other way around).
This makes sense with the above theory as the solar radiation heats up the earth causing dissolved CO2 to become gaseous CO2 (as per Le Chatelier's principle for equilibriums). If there was an increase in solar rays then more CO2 would become gaseous and so enter the atmosphere

 

[scuba_steve2121]

why do we have to stop climate change who cares it will all reverse in 5000 years anyway
who cares if the polar bears die will be replaced by ultrapolarbears in the next ice age etc

pretty much what i've been trying to say

 

[boris]

i really want an inland sea in australia again
is that too much to ask

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I believe that this is one of the more likely theories to explain it atm. There was a comparative graph shown (i will have to look for it) that overlayed the increase in heat with the increase in CO2 over time. What was revealed was that there was an increase in heat which was then followed by an increase in CO2 (not the other way around).
This makes sense with the above theory as the solar radiation heats up the earth causing dissolved CO2 to become gaseous CO2 (as per Le Chatelier's principle for equilibriums). If there was an increase in solar rays then more CO2 would become gaseous and so enter the atmosphere

yea maybe, but what me and thankfully boris are trying to say that we're all fucked in 5000 years anyways, who cares (provoding that human induced shit is real) if we speed it up by 100, 200, 500 years

 

[scuba_steve2121]

scuba, i think shane is more "being a dickhead" than trying to make a legit point

dude that's not cool

 

[boris]

little from column a little from column b

 

[boris]

again
little from column a little from column b

 

[boris]

oh yeah thats what i meant

 

[Belalan]

I believe that this is one of the more likely theories to explain it atm. There was a comparative graph shown (i will have to look for it) that overlayed the increase in heat with the increase in CO2 over time. What was revealed was that there was an increase in heat which was then followed by an increase in CO2 (not the other way around).
This makes sense with the above theory as the solar radiation heats up the earth causing dissolved CO2 to become gaseous CO2 (as per Le Chatelier's principle for equilibriums). If there was an increase in solar rays then more CO2 would become gaseous and so enter the atmosphere

This the one you're looking for lotus?

 

[Chemical Ali]

I wonder what it is about climate change that makes so many know-nothings disagree with real science when they'd just accept it for any other topic

 

[Carl Spitzweg]

what is climate change

nobody knows

what does it mean

 

[boris]

i doubt u imagine that when you think of dickhead u cunt

fuckoff u couldnt handle the things this beautiful mind imagines

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I wonder what it is about climate change that makes so many know-nothings disagree with real science when they'd just accept it for any other topic

I fully accept the science, I just don't think we should be doing anything about it since it won't matter in the long run

 

[boris]

I wonder what it is about climate change that makes so many know-nothings disagree with real science when they'd just accept it for any other topic

what other topic doesnt have people who disagree

i mean like we have people who disagree about medicine, something that makes you not die

 

[Carl Spitzweg]

climate change operation does not make you a real different climate just a planet with a mutilated climate

 

[boris]

ok so no one knows for sure if it's real or not, but isn't the whole point that human induced factors are expediting the process? yeah humanity will probably be forced to extinction some point in the future, but why make it happen sooner rather than later? It's like being sick and not taking any medicine cus well, you're gonna die later anyway right? I don't get your logic

>no one knows if it is happening
>humans are causing it to happen faster

i dont get your logic