What are /r/climate's favorite Products & Services?

The older bunch of "climate change isn't real" people are literally the same people who were saying "smoking doesn't cause cancer" a generation ago

The oil companies have known for a lot longer, and made a decision to spread doubt and denial instead of taking action.

By in large, that's not what happened with the money; it largely went into the pockets of the very rich, who only rarely give it to causes other than furthering their own wealth.

The tobacco industry was found liable for misleading the public about the hazards of smoking. Exxon literally went and hired the tobacco-cancer denial machine in response to finding out what their product would do.

So yeah, they're a bad actor in this case.

The problem is that the people there aren't engaged in rational discourse -- it's an effort to sow unwarranted doubt, led by a bunch of people who got their careers started telling people that tobacco smoke doesn't cause lung cancer. You can't hold rational discourse with them; the most you can do is to discredit them, and making them hard to find would be a step along that route.

The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells perhaps offers some reasons for us to care. I'm about 2/3 of the way through listening to it on audio. It's blunt and harsh and not an easy listen/read in some places. But people need to hear it in that form.

If you're brave enough to read it, then this article that was posted in r/psychology, will explain to you why you deny.

What do you mean? What minimum? We're talking about May because it's the most recent month. It's the eighth month in a row to be the warmest month ever.

>This is easy. Firstly I do believe that the climate warms and cools in natural cycles that are most likely dependent on solar output cycles.

This used to be true, but is not true any more. The climate is heading in the opposite direction it should be heading in if it was still primarily dependent on solar cycles (look up "grand solar minimum").

Here's a documented, published projection. This kind of stuff is easily available via google, which makes me wonder if you really do want to engage in a legitimate good-faith discussion. You are probably familiar with those long lists of "projections" put forth by climate science deniers that were never actual scientific projections to begin with (straw men).

None of this matters to deniers though - for them, any line of reasoning is valid as long as it results in a conclusion of "we don't need to do anything." All of their arguments fall into these stages of climate science denial:

1) It's not changing

2) OK It's changing, but it's natural

3) OK, it's changing because of us, but it's not bad

4) OK, it's bad, but we can't do anything about it anyway

5) OK, we could've done something, but now it's too late

You seem to be currently at stage 3 (AKA a "Luke-warmer"), but ultimately we see deniers shifting among all 5 "stages" above because the only thing that matters to them is the conclusion that we don't need to do anything.

It's almost like patterns of intentional racial discrimination in housing are responsible for the patterns of racial segregation we see today.

Salve! Hoc est verum! Vivate, res publica! Some other books: Consilience (E.O. Wilson); Man's Search for Meaning (V. Frankl); A Confederacy of Dunces (J.K. Toole), God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater (K. Vonnegut), and anything involving Calvin & Hobbes (B. Watterson)...

Its a yawn. The abstract says: > This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.

So they're promoting it as somehow showing that the MWP was global, rather than an Atlantic phenomenon. From that, readers of the denial blogs are supposed to somehow believe that the IPCC isn't trustworthy, and therefore global warming is a hoax. Paleoclimate is hard, and we've only figured out how to do a halfway decent job of it very recently. You're going to find lots of examples of people making modest adjustments like this to our understanding of regional climate variation from before the invention of the thermometer.

At the end of the day, it doesn't do anything to alter to the overall conclusion that human activity has warmed the world, and will continue to do so as long as we emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

The weather is flipping, Las Vegas is the safest place to be...

Southern Nevada gets nearly 90 percent of its water from the Colorado River, which begins as snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains. The snowmelt travels through a series of tributaries into the river, which winds its way south for 1,450 miles and empties into the Gulf of California in Mexico.

https://weather.com/news/weather/news/2018-07-03-snow-in-july-montana-idaho-northern-rockies

For information in regards to the Atlantic ocean, and essentially AMOC, at least within the Pleistocene, I would recommend looking at Heinrich (blue) and Dansgaard-Oeschger events (red) (timeline). We see a succession of rapid warming, followed by gradual, step-wise cooling. Speculatively speaking this could be abrupt climate change due to catastrophic collapse of the North American ice-sheets (during rapid warming phase), followed by the slow and gradual rebuilding of those ice-sheet (step-wise cooling).

In reference to the following: >...If "they" say there is an Ice Age going on in the whole world, people will believe it...

For clarity, we are currently in an ice-age that began ~2.6Ma.

Agreed. But this is just the start.

He needs the people to stay at his back, pushing him through the fight with the fossil fuel industry.

Tactically, I was surprised that he only plans to double offshore wind. The U.K. offshore wind generation deployment exploded in the last decade and it's now cheaper than gas. I think much more should be expected here.

He has to defeat the fossil fuel lobby because an even harder task lies ahead - defeating the agribusiness lobby and dramatically reducing meat production. If that doesn't begin to happen soon, then we still lose the climate.

https://sci-hub.do/downloads/2020-11-05/54/[email protected]

Every tree helps at this stage. For a similar project, use Ecosia search engine when browsing

https://www.ecosia.org/

Also it is easier to prevent deforestation, then replanting them. So support your local forest lock-on crew too.

November-Type Gales Hit England in August — Looks Like a Weird Atmospheric Response to El Nino + Climate Change May Be Unfolding

> ... the NOAA models are calling for the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge and the hot Blob of water off the US West Coast to mostly remain in place.

The long history of intentional racial discrimination in housing. mean that it is both a race issue and a class issue.

> It is predicted that the melting conditions of the Antarctic ice sheet surface will continue to increase, especially in West Antarctica and Antarctic Peninsula. Its impact on the sea level rise will become significant.

This degree of detachment is inappropriate to the speed of effect. Those not trained in math don't see that "conditions...continue to increase" means accelerative effect, or don't see that such an issue is the key point made here, buried in highly abstract discussion so it's easy to overlook.

Incidental to one of his stories, Frank Robinson makes an interesting observation which I'll try to paraphrase. He tells it related to carrying capacity of the planet, but it can just as well describe any exponential process.

He supposes that if you have some measure by which the planet is full at some point in time, after doubling every twenty years, then the hard to grasp issue is that 20 years before that, it's only 50% full, and 20 before that only 25% full, and 20 before that only 12.5%. But people are prone to think linearly and think "In all time, we have filled only x%" (or "consumed only x%") and to feel safety in how much there is yet in front of us. That's true only for linear processes. We need to see that these climate effects are clearly not linear and we need to see the time we have left as much shorter than our natural intuition tells us.

The reality is that the big oil companies in the US understood what was going on decades ago, and went and hired the tobacco-cancer denial machine to make their case. That's why there is so much disinformation out there.

I really think it's a waste of time discussing semantics, but look, it was a slip of the typing fingers really. Why can't we all assume we're operating in good faith here?

I clearly stated I did my 'research' by Googling. I said that in my first sentence.

But since we're being petty, here's a definition of 'research':

>The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions

In my 15 minutes of Googling I uncovered a couple of peer-reviewed papers and five or so popular science articles of varying complexity, which I scanned pretty swiftly. This was systematic, though not very thorough. I studied multiple sources. I established facts I was not aware of and reached conclusions which were new to me. Therefore, arguably I did research. I explicitly stated the 'research' I did was brief and not at all thorough, because scientists try to be honest about their limitations.

Now perhaps we can drop it? All I was saying was that I hadn't heard of the claim before, I did some hunting around and found that it's something people are indeed talking about. I thanked the poster for pointing me in this interesting direction from which I learned something.

Here's a semi optimistic article on this from 2012.

Note particularly the update at the end of the article, which refers to this paper.

Nor did any one critic review it either, in six months!

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/climate_hustle/

This says a lot about the level of illusion in the denialist community, which despite its high audibility, is mostly just bots and shills (B&S).

prism.nacse.org/comparisons/images/drought/800m/ppt/monthly/2019/prism_ppt_us_30s_201905_anom-2010-30y_09m.png

It's also been one of the floodiest years in the 48 mainland states' history and the wettest rolling 12-month period of the >1400 on record: https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Wettest-12-Months-US-History-Yet-Again

Honestly no, I know very little about the carbon sequestration side of geoengineering. It's fairly often discussed at the geoengineering research group on Google Groups though. There's an example thread here, but there's plenty more if you're interested.

accuweather has some good infographics on this.

hotter, and much dryer for the western half of the country.

they also have this year's summer forecast. sucky on the west, busy time for firefighters, and lots of thunderstorms by great lakes region.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMRtXJuq6/ I hope she can help you. She's a scientist and climate communicator, she posts good climate news & relevant climate info. There are tons of ways we can all help including pushing our governments to address climate change aggressively, donate to organizations that put in the work to get it done, volunteer, or even switch search engines

With the shifting of the arid Great Plains climate setup eastward, there is actually more wheat suitable land at the expense of corn suitable land.

The same issues eventually apply here however.

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2018-04-12-100th-meridian-great-plains-shifting

>The global mean sea level anomaly has increased by just 24 centimetres from when CSIRO records began in 1880 to the result for 2015.

So says one of the most eminent climate scientists: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-rise-james-hansen-climate-change-scientist

>It makes other options more attractive sure, but you don't actually save money by going to the alternative because it is still too expensive and a carbon tax that would bring it to parity would be so high that it would never be accepted by the community.

Well, necessity says that they have to accept it if we are to have much of a chance to avoid the worst climate impacts. And they're much less likely to accept it if we don't rebate the carbon fee back to them.

That skevy asshole is in league with the oil companies. Link

Since Trump has been meeting with Harold Hamm and Mary Fallin, this news doesn't surprise me.

Eastern Pacific Hurricane Parade Continues; Record Ocean Heat Energy in the Atlantic - https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/eastern-pacific-hurricane-parade-continues-record-ocean-heat-energy-i

While the eastern Pacific is quite active, the lack of storms in the Atlantic has caught many researchers by surprise. Especially surprising as there is significantly increased ocean heat to fuel a hurricane.

It's hard to quantify because a lot of these disasters would have happened anyway without climate change. Droughts and storms are obviously nothing new for human civilization.

But we can say without a doubt that climate change makes many of these events more severe. So for example, instead of 140 people dying in India's 114°F heat wave, the disaster is exacerbated to 116°F and 160+ people end up dead. In a few years it will likely repeat with even worse extremes.

And as mentioned already, there are cascading effects on civilization like reduced ability to grow crops, which increases food prices and incidences of starvation, which also makes civil unrest and conflict more likely. Basically all the environmental stresses that humans experienced for 50,000 years will now be jacked up on overdrive with a much bigger population. We're in for a wild century, buckle up.

You're welcome. Just be aware - skepticalscience.com was built to respond to the fossil fuel industry funding of a fresh lie about climate every week. It's not an ideal method to get a good overview of what's going on; I recommend something like this course or this book for that.

They've known for decades, but chose to hire the tobacco-cancer denial machine instead of ending fossil fuel extraction.

I hate to toss a textbook in somebody's direction, but if you want a decent summary of what's actually happening with the climate, this book isn't a bad place to start. Getting through the basics will make it a lot easier to understand what makes sense and what doesn't, and will make it easier for you to discriminate between ideas which don't make sense at all (like this one) and ones which are based on what is actually happening in the world.

A very quick summary is this article.

There are a bunch of people whose job it is to put out hard-to-debunk nonsense. People aren't going to watch this kind of video content because it takes a big chunk of their day, and they're not going to learn anything meaningful from it. Instead, try to identify the argument that they're making, and do a site-specific search on skepticalscience.com, which maintains of database of this kind of stuff, along with explanations of why it is wrong. Something like: site:skepticalscience.com natural cycle

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.

The market thinks otherwise.

As I said, base load isn't going away, but it will soon matter much less. If you work in utilities, look for another job. For a preview of coming attractions, look at the stock chart for Germany's largest electric utility.

> One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is "modern democracy", he added. "Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

James Lovelock

This is a known source of disinformation.

Please see the book Merchants of Doubt to understand why people produce stuff like this.

See this infographic for an explanation of what is going on with the climate.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.

The difference is this: people doing that don't have a history of trying to confuse the public about what the science is saying, which is something the fossil fuels industry has been doing for decades.

There is such a thing as overwhelming evidence.

When you respond to that with conspiracy theories, as this individual did, then you're not engaged in science, and shouldn't be in a position of power.

We'd have had the time to actually do things if we'd started when the oil companies found out there was a problem. But no, they spent decades preventing appropriate action.

So yes, they're exactly the same kind of villain that the tobacco companies are. The fossil fuels industry even went so far as to hire the same people to prevent action.

There are a bunch of people whose job it is to put out hard-to-debunk nonsense. People aren't going to watch this kind of video content because it takes a big chunk of their day, and they're not going to learn anything meaningful from it. Instead, try to identify the argument that they're making, and do a site-specific search on skepticalscience.com, which maintains of database of this kind of stuff, along with explanations of why it is wrong. Something like: site:skepticalscience.com natural cycle

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.

The "political" thing happened because the oil companies knew about the problem decades in advance and chose to hire the tobacco-cancer denial machine instead of doing the right thing and shutting down their extraction business

There are a bunch of people whose job it is to put out hard-to-debunk nonsense. People aren't going to watch this kind of video content because it takes a big chunk of their day, and they're not going to learn anything meaningful from it. Instead, try to identify the argument that they're making, and do a site-specific search on skepticalscience.com, which maintains of database of this kind of stuff, along with explanations of why it is wrong. Something like: site:skepticalscience.com natural cycle

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.

Funny how Exxon and the other oil companies knew what was going to happen well in advance and chose to hire the tobacco-cancer denial machine to confuse the public.

The link from u/KeitaSutra is actually to a sodium-cooled reactor. It was a fantastic reactor in many ways, along with its successor the Integral Fast Reactor, and there's a great book about it, but sodium is not the same as salt. Table salt for example is sodium chloride.

So there are also molten salt reactors. There were two experimental reactors in the early days of fission power, then people forgot about them for decades, and now there are a bunch of companies trying to commercialize them.

The Integral Fast Reactor uses solid fuel, in a pool of molten sodium. In molten salt reactors, the fuel itself is liquid. This has a bunch of advantages. For example, in many designs, if the fuel starts to overheat or the reactor loses electrical power, a frozen fuel plug melts, and all the fuel dumps into a tank designed to passively cool it.

Companies working on these include Terrestrial Energy, Moltex Energy, Elysium, Seaborg, Thorcon, and Bill Gates' company Terrapower which is also working on a variant of the Integral Fast Reactor.

Lol no. The executives made an explicit decision to respond to that knowledge by mounting an intensive disinformation campaign using the same tactics and personnel as the tobacco-cancer denial effort.

Many people do mine bitcoin with graphics cards, and it can be very profitable. https://www.nicehash.com/profitability-calculator/nvidia-rtx-3070

It's not just ASICs.

Maybe, but with no Arctic summer sea ice starting about 3 years after that, have fun with the likely ongoing breakdowns of the polar vortex, allowing Arctic air to sweep south to you for some truly bitter winters.

https://weather.com/news/news/2019-09-02-hurricane-dorian-impacts-bahamas-abaco-islands-grand-bahama

>As Hurricane Dorian remained nearly stationary over Grand Bahama Island in the devastated northwestern Bahamas on Monday, officials said they were overwhelmed with distress calls and urged residents to find other means to stay alive.
>
>Authorities were telling people to find floatation devices and, for those who retreated to their attics, use hammers to break through the roofs of their homes, according to the Associated Press. Police Chief Samuel Butler told ZNS Bahamas that the storm's winds were too strong for crews to go out and perform rescues, the AP also reported.

>>Oil giants BP and Shell each pledged $1 million to Americans for Carbon Dividends, a Republican-backed lobbying group that supports carbon pricing for polluters with proceeds distributed to the American people to tackle rising energy costs. ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and other major corporations have already indicated their backing. (One catch: The proposal would eliminate a growing source of concern for oil companies — the lawsuits holding them accountable for their contributions to global warming.)

How convenient. What a sea change- $1m in funding for a Republican backed plan. I guess that does help a little to offset the more than $110 billion in new fossil fuel investments since the Paris Agreement and the more than $200m annually that they pour into lobbying to obstruct action on the climate.

It's funny how even life long technocrats are coming to realize how ineffective their messaging has been.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/09/magazine/climate-change-politics-economics.html

Technocrats are really bad at politics.

Did you listen to the key architect of the GND? https://player.fm/series/the-ezra-klein-show/meet-the-policy-architect-behind-the-green-new-deal

The bar chart in the article assumes training is performed on a consumer grade GPU (specifically a NVIDIA Titan X) and average CO2 emissions numbers for electricity in the US. That's not really relevant for Google search which internally uses more efficient hardware and sources zero-emission electricity for their data centers. The training cost also gets amortized across billions of searches (at least), so even if training has to be performed multiple times it's not super clear how important it is overall. IMO, I'd say the article is being borderline deceptive by omitting that context, but the paper they're discussing isn't much better, so at least its an accurate summary.

Even combined-cycle natural gas generation (64% efficient) -> induction stovetops (90% so 0.64 × 0.90 = 57% total efficiency) is more efficient than gas stovetops (40%). Gas stovetops waste about 60% of their energy in ambient warming. Indoors, many professional kitchens are shifting to induction to improves working conditions, and in warmer seasons/climates the reduction in waste heat means less AC use.

As to whether your local grid is presently that carbon efficient, in the US one can look at the eGRID2020 data. Find which grid you're on, and table 1 offers lb CO2eq / MWh, which is a useful measure of grid carbon efficiency. In places where that's below about 900 lb CO2eq / MWh, the grid is predominantly renewables, nuclear, or natural gas, and induction cooktops would have an emissions benefit. There are places where the emissions are more than 1400 lb CO2eq/MWh, where coal or oil are major parts of the generation mix, and there, natural gas stoves may be more carbon efficient at present. Looking forward, the renewables share of our generation mix will continue to increase and coal will continue to decrease, so the carbon efficiency of induction cooking will rise. The only carbon efficiency improvements possible with gas flame cooktops would be the sort of heat exchangers used by backpackers.

A key benefit of induction for backyard cooking is that there are numerous single burner models (ie, $75 for the NYT top-rated) that are inexpensive enough to experiment with, and portable enough to store inside (and take on trips). I haven't had much luck with gas grills surviving the elements for more than 8-10 years, though I'm sure the $700+ all stainless models are better.

A couple years ago I read a book about this. The energy loss in microwave transmission is about 50%. That's not bad, since a solar panel in geosynchronous orbit collects five times as much energy in 24 hours as the same solar panel on the ground.

Plus you get that power 24/7, so you don't need much storage. For parts of the year you get a few minutes of downtime per day, with an overall capacity factor over 99%.

If SpaceX succeeds in lowering launch costs dramatically with Starship, solar power satellites could actually be economical. The book estimated 15 cents/kWh based on pre-SpaceX prices; plugging in Starship numbers I got 4 cents/kWh, which is pretty good for 24/7 clean power.

Not quite, but not out of the picture entirely, either. The absolute worst case must be integrated into a responsible risk approach. As one climate scientist recently put it, it's the difference between playing roulette and playing Russian roulette with a loaded pistol.

5% chance of exceeding 5C of heating by 2050

potentially high ECS could lead to 7C of heating in the lives of children today.

Agree that whether or not we continue to choose to fail today could have profound consequences for the future.

Yeah, that is very strange. No idea what to make of that. Looks like some of that air is filtering up north into the arctic after turning back at the west coast.

I thought I would cross check other sites as well, this one looks really strange too, showing an extremely weak jet stream with wind speeds less than half of normal: https://www.wunderground.com/maps/wind/jet-stream

> The permafrost feedback loop is as of yet hypothetical and unconfirmed.

“The authors of the Hothouse Earth paper have given us a convincing argument that even strong action to control greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming to 2°C may not be enough to prevent the destruction of a livable climate for humans. “

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Global-CO2-Emissions-Hit-All-Time-High-2018-Hothouse-Earth-our-Future

Here we go:

> Less than one month after a historic heat wave gripped more than half of Europe, another far-reaching heat wave will affect many of the same locations this week. In the final week of June, France set its all-time high temperature and all-time June high temperatures were set in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Czech Republic and Slovakia.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/dangerous-heat-wave-to-grip-europe-from-spain-to-germany-to-italy-next-week/456567

Oh, wait, that was 2019... now we have a new heat record in 2021! Yes, this is due to fossil fueled global warming, but wow, isn't Europe happy that the Suez is open so they can import and burn more gas and oil! It's like they're drug addicts on a downward spiral to oblivion or something...

Windy is a climate monitoring site with up to the minute measurements... so think of it as a snapshot of the current moment.

So the submission 7 days ago is not the same as the submission today.

For example,here is the current snapshot.

This is the CURRENT NO2 emissions tracking from CAMS (Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring System)....Tell me again how this is disingenuous.

This is undisputable scientific data.

Why the heck would anyone simp for china?

Yep you see a lot of china bot propaganda talking about 'per capita' emissions. Its a pretty stupid argument because if you want to use per capita then it makes china look insignificant and Trinidad look like a toxic polluting monster.

Meanwhile...we have actual up to date monitors for emissions that show EXACTLY where the problem is.

Hello, I'm a bot! The movie you linked is called An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, here are some Trailers

The Lat, Lon coordinates displayed on EarthNull of appox 110 west & 44 north (Wyoming)are close to a underground Natural Gas Storage facilities that does have a history of leaking.

I'm going off of the 1750 (pre-industrial) baseline which is currently 1.44 degrees. The methane release is expected to add .6 degrees on top of that.

This is a known source of disinformation.

Please see the book Merchants of Doubt to understand why people produce stuff like this.

See this infographic for an explanation of what is going on with the climate.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259609641_Energy_payback_time_and_carbon_footprint_of_commercial_photovoltaic_systems

>The energy payback times and carbon footprints are 1.96, 1.24, 1.39, 0.92, 0.68, and 1.02 years and 38.1, 27.2, 34.8, 22.8, 15.8, and 21.4 g CO2-eq/kWh for monocrystalline silicon, multicrystalline silicon, amorphous silicon, "micromorph" silicon, cadmium telluride and CIGS roof-top photovoltaic systems, respectively,

I'm sure there will be infinite amount of, "but"s and "no"s since you've likely made up your mind. But others may get some value from it.

There are a bunch of people whose job it is to put out hard-to-debunk nonsense. People aren't going to watch this kind of video content because it takes a big chunk of their day, and they're not going to learn anything meaningful from it. Instead, try to identify the argument that they're making, and do a site-specific search on skepticalscience.com, which maintains of database of this kind of stuff, along with explanations of why it is wrong. Something like: site:skepticalscience.com natural cycle

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.

There are a bunch of people whose job it is to put out hard-to-debunk nonsense. People aren't going to watch this kind of video content because it takes a big chunk of their day, and they're not going to learn anything meaningful from it. Instead, try to identify the argument that they're making, and do a site-specific search on skepticalscience.com, which maintains of database of this kind of stuff, along with explanations of why it is wrong. Something like: site:skepticalscience.com natural cycle

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.

There are a bunch of people whose job it is to put out hard-to-debunk nonsense. People aren't going to watch this kind of video content because it takes a big chunk of their day, and they're not going to learn anything meaningful from it. Instead, try to identify the argument that they're making, and do a site-specific search on skepticalscience.com, which maintains of database of this kind of stuff, along with explanations of why it is wrong. Something like: site:skepticalscience.com natural cycle

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/climate) if you have any questions or concerns.

Storms are forming, but for what ever reason they are not developing to full hurricane potential https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/three-nonthreatening-atlantic-invests-to-watch-92l-93l-and-94l and https://www.wunderground.com/blog/bnorcross/a-post-on-hermine-and-why-we-need-more-hurricanes

Changing climate patterns no doubt, but what has changed?

"So, you are an "ice age denier"?"

I just love how ridiculous this statement is. pkrhed has learned that was an ice age and the ice has been melting so obviously it's getting warmer so don't worry about climate change. Apparently according to pkrhed no scientists anywhere in the world must have thought about the ice ages when considering the science of climate change.

pkrhed learned about this huge secret and now he is sharing it with the world. He can even spot an ice age denier WOO HOO!

Unfortunately for pkrhed he was not smart enough to look into the science of ice ages and he has now acted the fool for the world to see.

Here you go pkrhed, this is how science really works

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/154612/

"Milankovitch cycles refer to long term variations in the orbit of the Earth which result in changes in climate over periods hundred of thousands of years and are related to ice age cycles."

Am I an ice age denier?

Combine that with the recent paper in Science on the urgent need to move to a sustainable food system alongside rapid reductions in emissions from fossil fuels etc, and it's clear that we are past the "personal choice" phase of change for the food system.

Over the last few years, most EU governments substantively conceded that moving away from fossil fuels was actually something that they would work on.

But it's now time for them to start talking about substantial reductions in consumption and production of food products from animals. It will be a brave government that goes first on this but we have to start demanding it. The science is now crystal clear. Changing our food system is not a "nice to have". The numbers clearly show it is an urgent necessity.

Take Action and learn more: Check out our webinar at 2:30pm ET tomorrow. We have 3 climate leaders from the city of Boston and Denver talking about how cities are reducing emissions and building resilience. Sign up here: https://zoom.us/webinar/590608910