Ok, I give:

I think it's important in an argument about climate change to acknowledge that the Earth's climate DOES change naturally (warmer or cooler) AND that it has, in fact, been warmer during periods of Earth's history than it currently is today. The issue is that it is accelerating dramatically due to human influences and may exceed anything Earth has experienced for millions of years.

Although the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature is important, there are other factors that affect the amount of solar radiation that is absorbed: periods of solar bursts of radiation, the shape of Earth's orbit combined with the tilt and precession of its axis, and the location of the continents allowing ice to build up and reflect radiation back into space.

There are also lots of natural ways of adding or removing CO2 from the atmosphere: abundance of plant life (remove), decomposition of living things (add), volcanic activity (add), capacity of the ocean to absorb it (add or remove), mountain building events that increase chemical weathering (remove).... etc.

Scientists' real microphone drop argument, however, is the following graph:

https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data

(I can't post pictures, so click on "400 Kyr" to see it best, but this graph extends further into the past)

Atmospheric CO2 levels settled in the 180-280ppm range for hundreds of thousands of years. Over the past 150 years, it has spiked to over 400ppm and continues to rise (Industrial revolution coincidence? I think not). The only uncertainty is with future predictions and the full suite of effects this will have on the planet - it's either going to be bad, or really bad.

Unfortunately, politicians with an agenda don't give a shit about facts and evidence, but as John Oliver once said "You can't bring feelings to a fact fight!"

it real

Yes the earth has very recently settled into a 180-280 zone for CO2, and very very recently settled into a 400 zone, however, using only the past few thousand years is lying by omission when talking about the history of earth as a whole.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/co2_temperature_historical.png

*cough* it doesn't look like a very high spike now does it?

>implying the Earth is that old
>implying anyone alive today knew about what the temperature and CO2 levels were that long ago, if the world was that old

First, I'll acknowledge that I do not have a PhD in the most relevant subjects. However, it seems to me that somewhere between 95% and 100% of people who do have weighed the reasoning involved and concluded that climate change is indeed happening. This seems to be a standard conclusion in the non-sketch studies done by experts in the field; in fact, it turns out even ExxonMobil's studies yielded these results all the way back in the 1970s.

However, that again isn't a good reason by itself to believe something. So let's begin from the basics: carbon dioxide (and certain other current pollutants, both commercial and industrial) are greenhouse gases- i.e., they restrict the flow of heat exiting Earth's system once it enters. So it follows that releasing carbon dioxide (and other pollutants) into the atmosphere changes the way heat interacts with our atmosphere and consequently adjusts global average surface temperatures- ultimately reshaping our climate.

Then the next question is- is this happening, like actually? This is also an important question because you generally shouldn't reason about the real world using hypothetical alone (as some of your assumptions might be wrong, and the only way to find out whether they are is by testing them). So it turns out, yeah, it is- we are seeing global ocean levels rise and at this point it's incredibly hard to dispute that (on average) the earth is warming and encountering what were previously considered very extreme weather patterns. Our observations and knowledge of climate over the past few hundred years seem to align with the model of anthropogenic climate change more closely than they do with any other model.

And yeah, the earth has had much worse extremes in the past than what we might see over another century of pushing ourselves down this path. But keep in mind that this planet used to be a volcanic mess and has also been heavily frozen in the past- and that the range in which human civilization as it currently exists can continue to thrive is rather narrow.

How narrow?



This narrow.

If you're genuinely curious about the topic (which you should be regardless of your stance on it- it's worth understanding), a friend of a friend of mine created this well-sourced paper using layman speak: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-wDqxtebCbbUXVFVndRcDBJTUE/view

It's got lots of pretty graphs too, like the one I just posted.

Edited 2/24/2017 04:59:01

Tbh, my position is pretty timid and has changed from the more complex position I used to hold, the climate is affected by humans, the degree can be in question, and that we should not fall in with doomsayers too quickly before looking at counter arguments.

Honestly I'm burned out on the whole debate, every time they say something bad will happen, and every time it turned out to be utter bullshit, I don't even care to keep up with what they're saying is gonna happen in 2018.

world is gonna end again, Empire of Kilos. like it did in 2012 and 2016

@MGSB: That's a good heuristic, but be careful about treating it as a conclusion instead of a method.

Also another advantage of being skeptical of the doomsayers is that you give yourself room to think of alternate solutions and dissect their position. There might be (and hopefully are) better mechanisms to combat climate change than those currently on the table, although it would be nice for us to figure them out soon.

Edited 2/24/2017 05:49:44

Fact: We affect it.
Fact: It's changing.
Fact: It's heating.

Possible, but I can't confirm: We're the main reason.

Given we had a colder point when population was booming and industry being born (Little Ice Age), it's pretty hard to predict the weather's patterns, no matter how hard we try.



There are many temperature/weather fenomenae that we cannot predict, and don't understand, such as the El Niño and the La Niña. Given the world has proven to us it can just randomly heat or cool whenever it feels like it (whatever causes it is yet unknown), I wouldn't be surprised if the main factor of the heating is something we're disconsidering or unaware of rather than pollution itself.

Though, it's not a discussion you can dodge because you don't believe on it. First and foremost, it's a great excuse to fuck Saudi Arabia by making hydroelectric powerplants and such. Secondly, because although CO² isn't nearly as harmful to the lungs as the media claims it is, Carboxyhemoglobins are, and they're a pretty nasty side effect of incomplete combustion of fuel.

Edited 2/24/2017 05:50:24

Also we should remember that not all climate change is bad; there can be change that is beneficial to human society. A greened Sahara for example.

World is already way too hot, and almost all kinds of what would seem like the "better" effects of climate change have big catches to it, like biodiversity loss.

I don't think a "greened Sahara" is possible without purposefully doing it, but assuming it is, is it worth to have more Sahel land for 2m water rise and more illnesses worsened or brought about by air pollution? It might be interesting to plot out the economic and death goods/bads.

We can change the kinds of pollution we put out purposefully, and make it cleaner to produce more of CO2 and less of the bad stuff. And new species can be developed to make up for the lost ones; so I believe the trade offs could be lessened in exchange for a vast amount of arable land.

Also we should remember that not all climate change is bad; there can be change that is beneficial to human society. A greened Sahara for example.

Nope. Even if you manage to make it non-desertic, the saharan soil is just about useless.

There may have other examples, this isn't one of them.

Edited 2/24/2017 16:13:26

If every country gave just %5 of their yearly income to a western based space program then we will be colonizing planets in 15 years and in 150 years....

Personally, I think that more thought should be given as to how to reverse climate change rather than just how to prevent it. If we were to, for example, make a machine to suck up a whole bunch of carbon, you would essentially solve the problem without hurting any businesses that currently rely on fossil fuels.

I'm not extremely well-educated on this, but it seems like if the problem is too many carbon emmissions then the solution is to get rid of some of the carbon, not to get rid of the energy sources that are making the carbon. Am I missing something here?

If we were to, for example, make a machine to suck up a whole bunch of carbon

it's called a tree

^ lol

get rid of some of the carbon, not to get rid of the energy sources that are making the carbon. Am I missing something here?

Without going into the details, CO₂ is a pretty stable molecule, it's hard to rid. If we would, we could.

Edited 2/25/2017 00:08:44

yeah! no carbon!

Carbons the real poison, ye know?