What do we know about climate change and is it anthropogenic or not?

[Trump's Chosen]

I am a conspiracy thinker and I theorize things backward, which is why I think anthropogenic climate change is mostly a hoax.

If you want get a political grip on farmers it's quite hard. They're incredibly self sufficient. A climate change narrative solves this, as suddenly you get to decide how many cows they can have, how much fertilizer they can use, and so on.

If you as a worldwide economic powerhouse, a goldman sachs or a rothschild heir, want to affect policy not just in one nation but in multiple at the same time, it's incredibly hard. How do you get european rivals on the same plan?

You need external enemies that they can band together against. Climate change is a perfect narrative, a kind of unseen enemy. With ideas of run away carbon gasses when icecaps melt that would become irreversable, with ideas of species going extinct... I think most of us grew up with a variety of ideas about the potential horrors of global warming (before it was rebranded, and after the 70s when it was global cooling that people were made afraid of).

But I admit that this is theory, not proven. I know there is a very strong group think in universities about this subject and that alternative ideas are taboo.

My question to you all is: I know fuck all about the science of it, all I know is that one of my chemistry teachers was skeptical about it and would talk about more carbon not just reflecting heat back in, but also would reflect more sun radiation out before it hit the earth. I've also watched people explain why this would be different and not comparable.

Anyways, my question to you is if you believe the climate change as presented, that we're very close or over a irreversable tipping point. Whether you believe it's human industry that influences this hockey stick of rapid global warming. Whether the solution is to de-industrialize.

And also the counter question, whether the climate change skepticism is just some oil funded nonsense to continue to allow them to wreck the earth for profit.

 

[30+GameOvers]

Climate Change isn't real so I don't think about it. Simple as.

 

[Nicholas Gur]

Thank you for making me look up the definition to a new word that I will not only refuse to incorporate into my vocabulary, but has more letters and syllables than the two word alternative.

Anyway, no climate change is natural cyclical change and the hubris of humans to imply we are the cause is hilarious.

 

[The Blue Morpho]

Don't ice-layer records in the arctic regions more or less prove that the climate was cooling prior to the time we started to collect climate records and that we'd expect things to be heating up now?

 

[Whatevermancer]

It's a mystery. No way to tell for sure. Stop noticing things.

 

[WielkiWapiesz2137]

Considering that they were lying about it since 1960 i doubt that it is human made. Not mentioning that it conveniently gives the state all the power to do basically whatever it wants.

 

[Otterly]

But that’s 1850 to now. It’s a tiny blip. Zoom out and look at a few million years to now.
Someone a while back posted a great article that looked at the Tongan volcano eruption and pointed out that it had put so much water vapour into the upper atmosphere that it was making a noticeable warming effect. There’s all sorts of stuff like that.
I think we are having some anthropogenic change but that natural cycles and and events are bigger.
I also think that the focus on carbon dioxide is VERY damaging to real environmentalism. I am an old hippy for that kind of thing, and I am very much for Not Fucking Up The Planet. But it pisses me off when companies get a green tick for mug carbon while they are dumping sewage into the rivers and seas I used to be able to swim in they were so clean. Not clean now. And the focus is completely off habitat destruction, soil degradation, species going extinct, persistent organic pollutants, fucking plastic everywhere in everything, and general soil, water and air pollution.
All those are problems we COULD fix , many are local based. But carbon? You can’t see it or touch it it measure it yourself you just have to take The State’s word for it. You can’t do anything about it. You could for example stop a local old growth woodland being bulldozed. But carbon? You can’t do shit. Except the State now has a list of restrictions for you to obey.
That’s what makes me Sus about it all, it’s an unmeasurable bogeyman, and the state is using it to do things it wants to do.
If we could go back to the save the rainforest kind if conservation, then I’d be happy.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

It's a mystery. No way to tell for sure. Stop noticing things.
View attachment 7072637

I know rite

 

[Whatevermancer]

I know rite

View attachment 7072669

From that graph it looks like the temperature was supposed to peak about 10k years ago and should be dropping off right now, instead of rapidly growing within the last century.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

From that graph it looks like the temperature was supposed to peak about 10k years ago and should be dropping off right now, instead of rapidly growing within the last century.

From your comment it looks like you don't know how to read graphs.

But prove me wrong. Show on the image how wide 10k years is to prove your point.

 

[Whatevermancer]

From your comment it looks like you don't know how to read graphs.

But prove me wrong. Show on the image how wide 10k years is to prove your point.

I mean, I had to look up when Holocene started, which was about 10k years ago, graph only marks time at 100k year intervals.

 

[cybertoaster]

The climate has been warming since the ice age ended, the sahara used to be a savannah with grass, and those arid deserts in Iraq used to be agricultural land. But spewing tons of pollutants certainly is accelerating that trend, that can't be denied.

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

I am all for return to monke

 

[bingin]

i think no matter what happens we'll survive, nothing can beat human ingenuity

 

[JohnnyG]

But spewing tons of pollutants certainly is accelerating that trend, that can't be denied.

Oh I can certainly deny a "trend" whose core claim is: "this computer model I made that can't get any forward-looking predictions right says the world will end if you don't give politicians eleventy-gorillion dollars and control of every part of your life".

And I'll happily denounce a "science" whose billions in grant money is contingent on agreeing that only government can save us from imminent heckin' apocalypse, and whose claims have no outcome that refute the theory (too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, more storms, fewer storms...ALL prove us correct!)

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

Considering the other ways that humans have reshaped have reshaped the world, it's not necessarily crazy to think that we're having an effect. However.

1. There are strong indications that earth's climate and temperature fluctuate naturally, on both short and long time scales.
2. Predictions about climate doomsday have about the same accuracy record as the Rapture.
3. It's rather convenient that the only way to prevent the apocalypse is to eat the bugs and live in the pod.

 

[teriyakiburns]

The entire "greenhouse effect" is predicated on the assumption that CO2 absorbs particular frequencies of outgoing long-wave infrared radiation and holds that energy in the atmosphere for longer than it otherwise would remain there. It is flawed in multiple ways, the most important of which is this: It assumes a dry atmosphere. The bands that CO2 absorbs are also completely absorbed by water vapour within the firsts few dozen metres of the earth's surface.

The second most important way it's flawed is that it assumes the atmosphere is functionally static; it ignores convection. Gas is heated when it absorbs radiation, which in an open column makes it tend to rise until it reaches a thermal equilibirum with its surroundings. In earth's atmosphere this point of thermal equilibrium is the tropopause, the top of the troposphere, where the majority of the heat transported through the lower atmosphere is radiated to space. Heating the atmosphere causes it to convect at a faster rate, transporting heat to the upper troposphere much faster.

The earth's surface temperature is moderated and stabilised by the huge amount of water on its surface and in its atmosphere, which already absorbs and transports all the energy from the radiation bands that CO2 is supposed to "block". Adding CO2 makes no difference.

 

[cybertoaster]

Whatever happens we will adapt, the flood myth being common in so many cultures that were completely isolated its proof of that. Theories about a shared ancestral civilization or atlantis its just retarded autism, the flood myth is the result of the rising seas from the last ice age engulfing early protocities forcing people to move inland. We know now the persian gulf used to be a lush valley, the dried up hell that's now bahrain used to be the garden of eden, again proof climate is not constant and things can change in living memory. If early civilization could still flourish despite all this we can certainly engineer our way out of this shit.

 

[Lowlife Adventures]

I know rite

View attachment 7072669

This doesn't contradict anthropogenic climate change. If you closely examine the rate at which temperature rises, the graph from 1850-2023 shows a 1.7 degree change over ~170 years. In your graph, the most rapid change (from the last ice age to the holocene) shows a 5 degree change over ~11,360 years. That corresponds to a 1.7 degree change over ~3,862 years which is still much slower than the rate in the first graph.



I hate having to keep pointing out that the claim isn't that the climate never changed, it's that the climate has never changed this rapidly and that people won't be able to adapt quickly enough. Sure, people will probably survive, but you better expect the standard of living to drop. I agree that the climate is being used as an excuse for the elites to push an agenda, but just because a crisis is being taken advantage of by bad actors doesn't mean that there isn't any crisis at all.

 

[teriyakiburns]

it's that the climate has never changed this rapidly

We do not know this. The proxies used for these multi-millenia time series do not have the resolution to preserve the sort of rapid changes we can see in the instrument record. Their precision is often down to single data points per decade. Proxies with higher resolution do preserve more rapid changes, but suffer the same resolution issue.