# Climate change sperging



## Penis Drager (Mar 23, 2021)

I know this is somewhat of a splinter issue here, but it doesn't get talked about much despite how divided the "community" here appears to be on the subject. So why not have a thread about it?
Ice at the poles is not exactly the norm in earth's history. That shit came and went many times in the past and it seems to correlate with the carbon in the atmosphere. And one of the driving factors for cooling is the fossilization of organic matter. This traps carbon in the earth and prevents it from being released in the atmosphere. What happens when you take a hundred million years worth of sequestered carbon and dump it into the atmosphere over the course of a century? Temperatures go right back up, of course. 
To be fair, there's plenty of other ways carbon is leached out of the atmosphere. Chemical weathering is a thing and whatnot. But the amount of carbon that's simply buried as coal, oil, and methane adds up to a lot. Certainly more than enough to bring us out of our current ice age if a significant chunk of it went back into the air.
That said: Al Gore is a shameless grifter. AOC is either a grifter or just stupid (both?), and Thunberg is just stupid. Politicians and activists are doing jack shit to fix the problem, especially when they go on to advocate for destructive policies that encourage the organic industry. But maybe that's a spergout for another time...


----------



## $5.3 Million Dollars (Mar 23, 2021)

All I know is that the winters are not nearly as harsh here as they were in this area when I was a child, and that my older relatives in the region have all said the same. While rising water is a great concern if you live on a coast, I'm personally more worried about how this effects crops and wildlife. When the weather gets too hormonal in the spring and you get those cold snaps into sudden heat waves your crop can get fucked quick. 

Add to that the fact that North America produces a fuckton of food globally and that this might effect it and you'd think politicians would be a bit less willing to use this as a cudgel for whatever agenda they're pushing for that week and would actually attempt to find a solution or even just some emergency plans for worst case scenarios.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Mar 23, 2021)

An ice age would be worse in every way than a fairly negligible rise in global temperature. Glaciers are far more destructive than rising sea levels and move a lot faster, cold traps moisture that could turn into precipitation, etc. 

Bring on the warming, I say.


----------



## NOT Sword Fighter Super (Mar 23, 2021)

I think it's mostly bullshit.
I really liked Michael Crichton book "State of Fear".
Yeah I know, poplar trash sci fi writer, but it had an interesting point of view.


----------



## User names must be unique (Mar 23, 2021)

The actual worst effects predicted by the alarmists are nothing. Far from the worst climactic shifts in the history of the planet, far from the worst climactic shift protohumans and prehistoric peoples endured. There are cave paintings in the middle of the Sahara depicting it as a lush paradise with lots of plants and animals, there are human settlements now 50m under the sea.


----------



## Penis Drager (Mar 23, 2021)

Expurgate Contradictions said:


> An ice age would be worse in every way than a fairly negligible rise in global


We're IN an ice age, bruv (well, technically a warm interglacial period within an ice age but whatever). And milankovitch cycles shouldn't put us in a glacial period for another 10,000 years. 
Just because one thing is better than another doesn't mean the one thing shouldn't be avoided.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Mar 23, 2021)

Penis Drager said:


> Just because one thing is better than another doesn't mean the one thing shouldn't be avoided.


I kind of unironically want it to get warmer.


----------



## Rusty Crab (Mar 23, 2021)

I couldn't tell you if climate change is a scam, but it sure _looks_ like one.

Intentional sense of urgency and fear, used to push solutions that don't address the issue, repeatedly moving the goalposts, intentionally misleading statistics, etc.

The hopeless venture that I can't communicate to anyone else is that I trust _science_, but I do not trust _scientists._ They are political entities. They have biases and they have a great many reasons to be dishonest. Whether they are willingly lying or if they're forced to lie to protect their career does not matter to me.


----------



## Pyre (Mar 23, 2021)

The planet will live on without us no matter what we do, but that doesn't mean we will. Lot of problems come from global rises in temperature. It effects migration patterns for animals, causes extreme weather conditions, causes shifts in local biomes and damages undersea life especially. Coral bleaching is an extremely, alarmingly common problem now, that and micro plastics in the oceans.
Climate change is a major problem and is very dangerous. The idiots have made a lot of people believe it isn't through their retarded behavior.


----------



## Not Really Here (Mar 23, 2021)

Penis Drager said:


> That shit came and went many times in the past and it seems to correlate with the carbon in the atmosphere.


Atmospheric CO2 is a lagging indicator, it warmed first then CO2 went up.
Shifting animal and plant life is a whatever, even in the pesimistic 2 to 3 degrees warming over the next century living shit will just move faster.
Higher atmospheric CO2 is, decreasing the amount of water plants need to survive, and thus will increase food production and CO2 sequestration.


----------



## It's HK-47 (Mar 23, 2021)

This seems like as good a spot as any to dust off this old post from 2019, and bring up that this whole "The world is going to end due to climate change/global warming/global cooling" has been going on since at least the early 1900s.  For such an impending crisis that's going to destroy us all in the span of a few years (Even if these predictions seem to fail periodically)  it sure does seem like tomorrow never gets here.


----------



## Penis Drager (Mar 23, 2021)

Not Really Here said:


> Atmospheric CO2 is a lagging indicator, it warmed first then CO2 went up.
> Shifting animal and plant life is a whatever, even in the pesimistic 2 to 3 degrees warming over the next century living shit will just move faster.
> Higher atmospheric CO2 is, decreasing the amount of water plants need to survive, and thus will increase food production and CO2 sequestration.


On the first point: yes, CO2 tends to lag temperature during the 100,000 year snapshot we have from ice cores. This is because the milankovitch cycle caused the initial warming and that released carbon from the ice which vastly accelerated it and caused a positive feedback loop. This is something we see today even.
On the other point: the whole concept of plants sequestering carbon is dumb for exactly the same reason people blaming livestock for carbon release is dumb. Plants take in carbon and release it when they die. It doesn't matter if it's a cow eating the shit or foraging insects or bacteria. Unless the plant manages to fossilize, all the carbon they stored is going right back into the air the moment they die.


----------



## tonyabbotfan553 (Mar 24, 2021)

bring back global cooling I wanna go snowboarding more often


----------



## Fanatical Pragmatist (Mar 24, 2021)

Its bad, yeah, but its just the bad that affects everything.
The few species at risk of extinction from climate change are generally "cloud-island" specialists, where they occupy a very narrow range at a fixed altitude due to temperature and habitat needs fixed to those elevations (such that it creates an "island" surrounded by relative inhospitable habitat).

Most species are being fucked by some other shit, and they just tack on climate change to sell the point home.
For example the Frosted Flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) lost over 99% wetlands across its range due to 1) industrial pine agriculture 2) suppression of natural wildfires 3) invasive plant take-over and 4) diseases killing off healthy adults. Of the <8 remaining wetlands that support this species, most are located on a national wildlife refuge which is low to sea level and within storm surge range (storm surge = salt water, salt water = dead amphibians) - so because of this climate change is listed as the #1 threat to the Frosties. IMO this is fucking dumb, because it wasn't climate change which drove the species to that critical stage, it was so many other more pressing issues.
Every time a frog in Central America goes kaput its probably either Chytridiomycetes or Ranavirus to blame, if not literally their habitats being slashed-and-burned for more urban sprawl - but that wont stop Greta from acting like they died because of CO2.

Habitat loss and invasive species are the top two drivers of biodiversity loss but of course habitat fragmentation and invasive species don't threaten multi-million/billion-dollar waterfront properties, so those get pushed to the back-burner while fractions of degrees of weather differences do.

TL;DNR:
Climate change is bad, but there are worse issues facing global biodiversity.


----------



## Oliveoil (Mar 24, 2021)

The Paris Climate accord IS.
It does not hold China accountable to the same standard. That being said lefties are usually - out of sight out of mind approach happily selling out our jobs to a country where there are no regulations.
I much rather work to keep jobs here so we CAN regulate the emissions.
Also end subsidies to green technologies.


----------



## Astro Galactic Megalul (Mar 24, 2021)

Is your name a play on Dennis Prager? If so, quite fitting

Oh, wait, I've got a funny: It's not climate _change_, it's climate _affirmation _you bigot!


----------



## Penis Drager (Mar 24, 2021)

Astro Galactic Megalul said:


> Is your name a play on Dennis Prager? If so, quite fitting


My name _was _anti pedo action*, which was a play on antifa and I picked it for literally one dumb joke (if disagreeing with anti fascists automatically makes you a fascist, then disagreeing with the anti pedo automatically makes you a pedophile). The joke got old fast and I eventually let Q&A choose my new name. You're probably best off asking @Large what the fuck my name's supposed to mean (I think he was the one that chose it but I'm too lazy to double check.)
*note: before I made this account, I was @Watermelanin but I lost the password because stupid. 
If anyone wants an account to be a retard with and feels like brute forcing a password that was some form of "bix nood 420" with dollar signs thrown in and some numbers replacing some letters, have fun.


It's HK-47 said:


> View attachment 2023890
> 
> This seems like as good a spot as any to dust off this old post from 2019, and bring up that this whole "The world is going to end due to climate change/global warming/global cooling" has been going on since at least the early 1900s.  For such an impending crisis that's going to destroy us all in the span of a few years (Even if these predictions seem to fail periodically)  it sure does seem like tomorrow never gets here.


1859 is when the greenhouse effect was first discovered if I'm not mistaken. It was something that was noted, but not really given a spotlight because we just left the industrial revolution at the time. Fear mongering at that point would be like telling people not to piss in the ocean because you might flood the beaches. But by the 1960's we had begun to pump out so much CO2 that the effects were measurable. 
The "ice age" shit was a bunch of bull. most studies at the time predicted warming even back then. That's just the media retards being the retarded media. Most of the climate predictions have actually been quite accurate, especially given their technological limitations. 99% of the doom and gloom is just horseshit coming from some guy with credentials or just politicians/activists being retards/grifters.


----------



## Dandelion Eyes (Mar 24, 2021)

I'm no expert, but merely several decades ago winters where I live used to be snowy and summers used to be milder. Now there's barely any snow in the winter and summers are hot as fuck.


----------



## FunPosting101 (Mar 24, 2021)

It's HK-47 said:


> View attachment 2023890
> 
> This seems like as good a spot as any to dust off this old post from 2019, and bring up that this whole "The world is going to end due to climate change/global warming/global cooling" has been going on since at least the early 1900s.  For such an impending crisis that's going to destroy us all in the span of a few years (Even if these predictions seem to fail periodically)  it sure does seem like tomorrow never gets here.


This a good post and worth quoting, that aside, even if man-made climate change were both real(I think it is, fwiw.)and precisely as bad as most of the alarmists are claiming it is.(I find this highly doubtful, doomsaying typically never amounts to much.) We still wouldn't do anything about it because the costs involved in mitigating or reversing said climate change are simply too steep, you would basically have to shut down industrial civilization and we just aren't going to do that. A better idea in that case would be to develop methods of surviving and thriving in an increasingly warmer world.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Mar 24, 2021)

Penis Drager said:


> Ice at the poles is not exactly the norm in earth's history. That shit came and went many times in the past and it seems to correlate with the carbon in the atmosphere.


That's true, but the length of time which separates the periods where there was ice at the poles from the periods where there wasn't is typically on the order of tens of millions of years:



It takes time for life on Earth to adapt to these kinds of global temperature changes, and I don't think anyone really knows what the full consequences might be of accelerating them to the degree we have since the industrial revolution. Almost certainly, the consequences will be bad, it's simply a question of how bad.

I'm very far from an alarmist when it comes to climate change. I think we'll probably manage to get it under control by the end of this century, but I also think it's in our interest to take proactive steps to lessen the damage it's likely to cause in the meantime. Millions of people are on track to be displaced by rising sea levels; desertification and changes in the migration patterns of invasive species pose a real threat to our food supply. It is a serious problem; even if it's not a world ending one.


----------



## Super-Chevy454 (Jun 21, 2021)

Sorry if I posted in the wrong thread and the bump but the zoomers in Switzerland pissed off Greta Thunberg who'll said her catchphrase "How Dare you?" about climate change. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/swiss-reject-climate-change-zoomers-and-millennials-leading-way ( https://archive.ph/3i9MH )


> _Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,_
> 
> *A climate change referendum in Switzerland just went down in flames led by 18-34 year old voters...*
> 
> ...


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 21, 2021)

Hellbound Hellhound said:


> That's true, but the length of time which separates the periods where there was ice at the poles from the periods where there wasn't is typically on the order of tens of millions of years:


It's worth keeping in mind with graphs like that is that the recent history is very precise and granular, whereas the past is somewhat imprecise and broad strokes.

If there were big fluctuations we wouldn't know because we weren't there to measure the temperature every day in numerous locations.

--

I generally understand the world through seeing what lies there are. What is being censored? What is being covered up?

In the Netherlands we changed some of the locations where we measure the temperature. And because the readings there are different, they readjusted the readings from 50 years of history based on the difference between these locations of 1 year. So no most of the historic readings are modified by an almost arbitrary constonant.

As a result we've gone from historically having 6 to 43 heatwaves. Suddenly it looks like the earth is warming alarmingly. And the researcher who tried pointing the error of this... need I even say what happened?


----------



## naaaaiiiiillllll!!! (Jun 21, 2021)

I’m going to agree with @Fanatical Pragmatist that there are lots of other environmental issues in the world that are being sidelined or outright memory-holed because of the climate change grift.  Freeman Dyson, a very successful scientist (also inventor of the Dyson Sphere in science fiction) who I had the pleasure of meeting, infamously said this exact thing back in the early 2000s.  Nature can adapt and adjust to changing atmospheric carbon better than most other pollutants (heavy metals and mining runoff come to mind for me).

Also going to second @Rusty Crab about trusting science but not scientists.  Being educated and employed in that field showed that everyone involved is just as human and prone to manipulation and agenda-pushing as any other field (although STEM folk seem to have bigger egos, probably from decade+ worship by normies/IFLS crowd — not as bad as politicians, but there is a lot of overlap now).  The above location changes where temperature is measured mentioned by @Lemmingwise is all too common in scientific research these days.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 21, 2021)

Super-Chevy454 said:


> Sorry if I posted in the wrong thread and the bump but the zoomers in Switzerland pissed off Greta Thunberg who'll said her catchphrase "How Dare you?" about climate change. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/swiss-reject-climate-change-zoomers-and-millennials-leading-way ( https://archive.ph/3i9MH )


Swiss have highest IQ in europe.


----------



## Str8Bustah (Jun 21, 2021)

I'm just going to drop a recommendation for the Suspicious0bservers youtube channel as I always do in these threads and leave it there. Why waste time on an autistic internet argument when other people have already made the same point but way better than I can?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 21, 2021)

Str8Bustah said:


> . Why waste time on an autistic internet argument when other people have already made the same point but way better than I can?


It's fun. Look at all the fun we're having.


----------



## thx1138 (Jun 21, 2021)

Eh, it was "A New Ice Age" when I was a teenager.  Then it was "Well, nuclear winter gonna kill us all." the first turned out to be false.  The second turned out to be a _lie.  _Sagan and his peers deliberately manipulated data to make a worst-case scenario pitch about nuclear winter.  I don't want to say "A nuclear war would have been wonderful," obviously it would have been unimaginably awful but Sagan did it to push a unilateral disarmament agenda that would've left the west defenseless.  MAD only works when the "M" part is in place.  I mean, did the people who made that up think that if everyone in the west had thrown all their nukes into the sea that the Soviets would have, too?

Anyway, moving right along...then there's Global Warming.  That's what it was in the 90s.  Global Warming!  I remember sitting on the freeway, listening to either Hannity or Limbaugh play a recording from some guy who'd said in like...1995?  or so that by 2000 there'd be no glaciers on Everest.  Well...there they still are.  So they switched from "Global Warming" to "climate change".  Yeah the fucking climate changes, it's called "weather".  Did you notice how fast the leaked "climategate" emails got buried?  Until the people responsible for telling lies, lies that were exposed in those emails, can explain why they lied, what they stood to gain from lying and fearmongering, I flat out refuse to change one iota of what I do or how I do it.  They fucking lied in those emails and said "Boy howdy if it ever gets out that we're manipulating data, people are gonna want to lynch us!"  I guess they didn't count on such a compliant media.  The whole thing is about control, anyway.  Live in your pod, eat the bugs, own nothing, do as we say, _it's to save the Earth, you dummy!  _That's been their marching tune all along.  It's just about control.


----------



## Super-Chevy454 (Jun 21, 2021)

thx1138 said:


> The whole thing is about control, anyway.  Live in your pod, eat the bugs, own nothing, do as we say, _it's to save the Earth, you dummy! _


It's so tempting to reply to them with this: "If a big asteroid or meteor hit the Earth, do you think then we wasted our time to save the Earth?".


----------



## NOT Sword Fighter Super (Jun 22, 2021)

Pyre said:


> The planet will live on without us no matter what we do, but that doesn't mean we will. Lot of problems come from global rises in temperature. It effects migration patterns for animals, causes extreme weather conditions, causes shifts in local biomes and damages undersea life especially. Coral bleaching is an extremely, alarmingly common problem now, that and micro plastics in the oceans.
> Climate change is a major problem and is very dangerous. The idiots have made a lot of people believe it isn't through their retarded behavior.


That was one of the things that I liked from that book I mentinoed earlier this thread "State of Fear".  People love to say shit like "we're destroying the planet" when that couldn't be further from the truth.  With all our destructive capabilites we coudn't even destroy the planet if we wanted to.

We're just making it more inhospitable to ourslves.  I know that can seem like a petty difference, but it really speaks to how full of ourselves we are.


----------



## HissingBastard (Jul 21, 2021)

I'm of the opinion that we're headed towards a Great Mortality event of the same caliber as the Black Death. I don't see humanity going extinct. We're the greatest, sturdiest, most adaptable plague this planet has ever bred. The planet will be fine in the grand scheme of things. Mass extinctions have happened before and they'll happen again. But mass mortality, resource scarcity and general societal unrest are on the horizon without a doubt.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 21, 2021)

talk sh1t said:


> More info on this? Who's the researcher that got disappeared?


Oh I guess I do need to say what happened. He didn't get disppeared. They went on the offense and made sure he was media blackballed.


----------



## Cyclonus (Jul 21, 2021)

Is there any realistic way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?


----------



## 737 MAX Stan Account (Jul 21, 2021)

Whole thing is perhaps the single biggest grift of our time.

Now, with that out of the way, enjoy this Dodge Demon.


----------



## knobslobbin (Jul 21, 2021)

Let's combine the wedge issues all into one so we can just skip to identifying your team already and then disregard.  Climate Change + abortion + troonery + marxism!   If you're in for one you're in for all, might as well cut to the chase.

Team globalist or team racist, choose wisely. The winners will likely slaughter all of the other team before turning on their own.

Spoiler: fucked either way *teehee


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 21, 2021)

talk sh1t said:


> But what's his name goddamit lol


I think it was Marcel Crok, I'll see if I can confirm it and am not mixing up people.

Edit: yep it's marcel crok. Looks like I what I was saying is a little out of date (2 years). It was accurate, but since there have been further scandals vindicating him.

This was from then: 




And this is as of now:


----------



## Lunar Eclipse Paradox (Jul 21, 2021)

User names must be unique said:


> The actual worst effects predicted by the alarmists are nothing. Far from the worst climactic shifts in the history of the planet, far from the worst climactic shift protohumans and prehistoric peoples endured. There are cave paintings in the middle of the Sahara depicting it as a lush paradise with lots of plants and animals, there are human settlements now 50m under the sea.


There was actually a theory called the Sahara Pump Theory that this was caused by 26,000 Year Precession Cycle where Earth's Axis goes in the opposite direction thus Summer months would be Winter months at the other end of the precession cycle which could explain why the Sahara Desert was a lush paradise some 10,000 years ago but that seems to coincide with the end of the Ice Age around the same time.


----------



## Chongqing (Jul 23, 2021)

Climate change is real. The climate is changing around the globe due to human-made carbon emissions. I'll give them that.

However, much of the climate change hysteria is allowed to exist because the green takeover of technology will make many people billionaires, and turn some billionaires into trillionaires. That's why they push it; that's why American media points to wild fires in the west and says, "this is because of climate change, forest management couldn't have ever mitigated this," even though the data shows otherwise.

There are some people in America who were so into the environmentalist cause that they dedicate their whole life to it. That's how all or nothing and unwavering they are to the climate change cause.

The thing is, they're all hypocrites. Almost all environmentalists (or people who care about climate change at all) demonize trucks, diesel vehicles and SUVs. Meanwhile, most of them conveniently ignore the environmental impact of having a dog. The carbon emissions of a dog for half a year exceeds the carbon emissions of an SUV for the entire lifetime of the vehicle. Some environmentalist hikers will have four large dogs with them on the trails. Six months of that lifestyle is like driving an SUV every day for 80 years.

These people with dogs who you see on hikes, they likely want you to make major sacrifices for climate change. They think you should ride your bike to work, never fly on a plane, take cold showers for 45 seconds a day, and so on. But they'll never make major sacrifices themselves (like getting rid of their dogs, or raising awareness about their impact). Instead, they completely contradict themselves.

Meanwhile, many people who are financially comfortable will invest in green technologies, and rely on governments like the EU to pass laws to force companies to go green (all electric vehicles manufactured after a certain year, for example). It's the only reason people are pushing it, because they know they can get rich.

Tin foil hat for moment: I see the rise of climate change concern coinciding with the rise of atheism as being the norm or orthodoxy in America and Europe. Many religions have ideas in them that resources available to you should be used. Maybe it's just a total coincidence, but I've found that most all climate change spergs are also unflinching atheists who will tell people how wrong they are to believe in anything.



Spoiler: Here's some dumb thoughts



I also feel like climate change concern is our child-like way of thinking coming through. When I was a kid, I would ask my parents where the garbage would go, and they would explain it would go somewhere else, with more garbage. As a kid, this scared me a lot because I thought the garbage place would overtake the whole world, we would be trapped in our houses because there would be so much garbage blocking every step. Like a world where every square foot is covered in trash; that's what I imagined. But that's not realistic.

But when you're an autistic child like Greta, you can stick with that way of thinking. You can think that American SUVs are robbing you of your childhood. Adults will even go along with it.

It's terribly sad.



Here's a link to that study I mentioned: https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/59619/dogs-cause-more-pollution-cars
It's possible that I completely misread it and maybe it's a year by year basis.  
Anyway, notice the jist of all the comments is, "I will NEVER sacrifice!!"



Spoiler: One last thing



I hate how their rhetoric is, "we're destroying the planet!" No, we're just making it more inhospitable for our own species, which is different. It's like how a state will pass laws against trans athletes competing against girls and people who oppose it will say, "this takes away *their right to exist*!" Something tells me they'll still have a right to exist. It's so dramatic and emotionally manipulative.


----------



## TracdacianTortoise (Jul 23, 2021)

My general opinion on this is that at this point, it's basically impossible to form a well-reasoned opinion, because what might be incompetence to some, is seen as malicious to others. I remember in my childhood the primary worry was that we were going to run out of fossil fuels, and that's why we had to preserve them, since then it's become Climate Change.

Generally, I feel that most of the measures taken to address climate change are worth taking anyway, at that level I see no reason to oppose most of them, but in addition, some of the ideas are patently retarded. While I feel that burning petrochemicals is dumb, given how absolutely vital they are to so many other processes, trying to force everyone into electric vehicles is poorly thought out, and seems like it'll come with  it's own set of issues. I feel governments would be better off investing in solid public transport, reducing car traffic in cities, moving truck carried freight to trains where practicable, as well as investing into manufacturing methods where waste products from one factory are used for processes in another. 

Regardless, the approach to this seems stupid. Rather than demonising those who are skeptical of climate change (not entirely unreasonable given the amount of weird fuckery that goes on, and it's use politically to shove policy through), you'd think governments would try to appeal to just generally making the world less shit.


----------



## Ser Prize (Aug 1, 2021)

Cyclonus said:


> Is there any realistic way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?


Plants.


----------



## Car Won't Crank (Aug 1, 2021)

I am of the opinion when push comes to shove where the push is an actual threat to the survival of the human species, human ingenuity will take over and either triumph or fail miserably.


----------



## Dandelion Eyes (Aug 7, 2021)

I think global warming is real and only eco-terrorism in Fortnite can save humanity.


----------



## CreamyHerman’s (Aug 9, 2021)

Climate change  is real, but, man made is sissy gay. Plus there should be better alternatives to solving issues which does not autistically demand more government control


----------



## Enjoy_the_Soylence (Dec 13, 2021)

Str8Bustah said:


> I'm just going to drop a recommendation for the Suspicious0bservers youtube channel as I always do in these threads and leave it there. Why waste time on an autistic internet argument when other people have already made the same point but way better than I can?



I recently fell down that rabbit hole through offbeat archeology videos (why _were_ the ancients obsessed with the processional equinox?). Um. I hope to fuck they're wrong. I'm too retarded to tell how likely any of it is.  
/adds boat and underground bunker to prepping list


----------



## Super-Chevy454 (Apr 12, 2022)

Not directly linked to Climate Change who's now almost a religious sect. I saw this blog post from American Thinker talking of Earth Day and some of the predictions they did in the past.


			https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/04/earth_day_is_coming_up_it_is_a_good_time_to_remind_the_public_what_the_predictions_were_52_years_ago.html
		



> April 12, 2022
> Earth day is coming up. It is a good time to remind the public what the predictions were 52 years ago​By Jack Hellner
> 
> On the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970, the world was warned that billions would die soon because of a disastrous ice age. The Earth had been cooling for thirty years and it was about to get much worse. Crops would not survive the ice age so the people couldn’t be fed, The Earth was cooling even though CO2, the population, and fossil fuel consumption was rising rapidly, which we are told causes warming.
> ...


----------



## Profilmenn (Apr 14, 2022)

I think man-made climate change is a fucking hoax, look at all these stupid gay faggot windmills and solar-panels stupid nigger-faggot put up all over the place, it's a grift. Some guy is making bank having these thing manufactured in China (notably eco-friendly!), shipped across the Pacific using cargo-freighters (good for the environment!). I've seen so much bullshit about temperature differences being manipulated, the predictions being complete bullshit, and anyone who disagrees being shoved out, that there's no way to think _anything_ they say is legitimate.
Any hey, how about this - how about we reduce pollution, not because the world is going to end, but because I don't like my rivers catching fire and my water being undrinkable? How about you discourage littering, not because it will LITERALLY PLUNGE FLORIDA INTO THE SEA, but because I don't like the Earth God gave us looking like shit? I fucking hate how the only way you can be against pollution and trash being dumped into rivers and lakes is because of climate change lunacy. Maybe I just want to go fishing without there being coke cans floating atop the river.


----------



## Dude Christmas (Apr 14, 2022)

Man-made climate change is fake and gay.


----------



## MarcellaM (Apr 15, 2022)

I think that climate changes are real, but they are natural. Maybe, people affect it somehow, but I'm not experienced enough in that question. I've started listening to one podcast dedicated to that topic, and I hope that I'll find out more info. Also, on this source https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/climate-change/ there are some interesting articles about climate change, its impact of it on our planet, and many others. Also a pretty useful resource for those who are interested.


----------



## Thiletonomics (Apr 16, 2022)

What are your thoughts about how climate change is depicted in media, i.e. TV shows, movies, and video games?

Battlefield 2042 comes to mind, as climate change is the reason that the world reached a fucked-up state that over 40 countries have became failed states (including Germany and the European Union, which does not make sense, since the EU is a faction in Battlefield 2142, which takes place after this game.), and Russia and the US are the only Superpowers left in the World, fighting each other, while using No-Pats, people who have lost their country due to either climate change or societal collapse, to do most of the fighting. Granted, the Lore is very patchwork if you take a look at it closely.

Climate change is also hit and miss when it comes to it's depiction on the maps in that game.




Doha, Qatar, somehow became the World's largest sandbox after the oil ran out (although their primary resource is natural gas) while they were trying to fight off desertification. I still am trying to understand what it would take for Doha to actually turn into a dustbowl, like how it is in the game?



Singapore somehow managed to survive, by building a giant ass seawall to protect it from rising waters. But since the World had the 2nd Great Depression at some point, how would they get the resources needed to build it?



Antarctica became home to an illegal Russian oil drilling operation, after ice melted. But how much ice did melt, and how much did the oceans rise in sea level as a result?



South Korea was one of the few countries that actually thrived, when the whole world went to shit in BF2042. However, this city, Songdo, is coast-side, so how did it not get flooded? Or is this a different version of Songdo, relocated, after sea levels rose?



There was a successful farming operation in East Egypt, where a company managed to create a new bread basket, with genetically modified crops, and a high-tech irrigation system? But wouldn't that have been stopped by the whole "natural farming" trend, like how Sri Lanka decided to do by banning fertilizer, to disastrous results?

It's as if the Climate Change aspect of the game, and it's Lore, was also pulled out of it's ass and is a total mess, just like the gameplay itself.


----------



## Super-Chevy454 (May 10, 2022)

We got to give some kudos to the guy who did that article about climate change.


			https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/05/demographics_deglobalization_will_fix_climate_change.html
		



> May 10, 2022
> Demographics: Deglobalization Will Fix Climate Change​By Anony Mee
> 
> “We are on the verge of something fundamentally different right now, yes. But a lot of it looks more like the world before 1945 than the world of the future.” There is good news coming out of the global population collapse.
> ...


----------



## Neurotypical Mantis (May 10, 2022)

climate change here = snow in april which has never happened on record before. right around the time i discovered a new song that i thought would be perfect to listen to while walking in the snow at night when it's completely quiet.
big w for me  more snow plz


----------



## CreamyHerman’s (May 10, 2022)

Thiletonomics said:


> What are your thoughts about how climate change is depicted in media, i.e. TV shows, movies, and video games?


Geostorm is my favorite work of climate change  propaganda art. None of it is accurate whatsoever and the villain is basically a Donald Trump clone who wants to destroy the world for MAGA country. 

Here's a clip towards the end of the movie where they're driving through a lightening storm:




None of this shit makes any sense, as their car windows would be blown the fuck out and you wouldn't hear shit. The most based thing about the movie is that you see a sandnigger get sneeded on by the ocean and the DNC getting blown up.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (May 10, 2022)

Climate Change was always a scam in the vein of "tails I win, head you lose".
We have any catastrophe, doesn't matter how much it's related to the climate it's all the fault of us not doing enough.
Nothing happens and it's because how much NGOs and the UN done, but don't let that silence go to your head, there's a lot more money to be wasted.

But the most infuriating thing about the movement is how the methods they promote are not only inefficient, but actually contrary to the goals of reducing emissions. Primarily "let's make more shit and move production into locations without any ecological oversight". And not only people will ignore it, but actively engage you for pointing this out.


----------



## Donker (May 10, 2022)

I have no idea why you all think Climate Change is fake. It's absolutely real, you would literally have to be purposely naive/delusional to think otherwise and there is pretty much nothing being done about it. IPCC reports are conservative, we've blown past every single fucking IPCC worst case prediction and we're hitting levels of shitstorm that weren't even predicted until 30 years from now. We're starting to see fucking the beginnings of violent Water Wars in the US for fuck sake.

The only real "scams" related to climate change, are more to do with bullshit Net Zero targets that leave action to the last possible minute, bullshit Green Washing where corporations and NGOs just engage in their own money laundering scams under the cover of Climate Change mitigation and dogshit retardation corrupt moneysinks like Carbon Capture and Use. (World has about <1% CCU that was predicted we would have now in 2000, and every IPCC mitigation model relies on us having utterly fucking astonishing levels of carbon capture, we're talking tens of thousands of times of what we currently can do) Fact is, world isn't willing enough to make the sacrifices needed, or divert the resources it needs in time to stop everything going to complete and total fucking shit by the end of this century.

How is Climate Change some big scam? Literally _everyone_, is ignoring it, because it's basically some eldritch level abomination.

Climate Change is the major reason I'm getting the fuck out of the city and going full prepper. This last few years has shown global leadership are a fucking hyper corrupt capitalist death cult and aren't willing to do anything major to prevent major disasters. Friends who are Environmental Scientists have already bought land out of the city, have moved their families away from school, work, friends etc and are doing the same. Which should show you this ain't no fucking scam.



Dandelion Eyes said:


> I think global warming is real and only eco-terrorism in Fortnite can save humanity.


It will be coming. Hundreds of Climate Activists are murdered every year. It's only a matter of time before radicalisation occurs. You'll be seeing it very soon in the US with this water crisis playing out west which is already becoming violent, Ethiopia/Egypt is a Climate Change disaster powderkeg ready to explode and honestly shocked we aren't seeing Eco Terrorism in Minecraft South America and Africa already where this is already killing hundreds of people, hell Climate Change based water wars between ranchers and farmers is already a thing in Africa.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (May 10, 2022)

It's never an issue I consider on a personal level. I can't do anything. All I know is it's highly profitable for the elites to blame the proles for the destruction of Earth and they take advantage every step of the way. Carbon taxes, banning plastics, charging for paper bags, banning single-use this and that, charging for every single-use item whether it's eco-friendly or not, etc. Climate change is a really successful grift first and an actual issue second. If it were truly an existential threat we'd have moved to carbon-neutral solutions decades ago just as we have moved away from using just about every other severely harmful or dangerous product we know of (radon, lead, mercury, CFCs, chromium, asbestos) despite the fact that banning those products crushed some industries.


----------



## Gender: Xenomorph (May 10, 2022)

Donker said:


> How is Climate Change some big scam? Literally _everyone_, is ignoring it, because it's basically some eldritch level abomination.


Because nobody actually cares.

People on social media only virtue signal. They will continue living their lives as if nothing happens, even throwing junk and actually polluting.

UN/NGOs literally do nothing. They just take the money and funnel it towards their employees and expenses, less than 1% of the money that goes into an NGO actually gets put to good use. The rest is bureaucracy.

What's left? World governments? Not so much. They care to promote a healthy living to the plebs, but it's just fart sniffing. Look at Germany; they constantly like to sniff their farts on how great regulation actually does something (it doesn't); pretty much any German manufacturer produces its cars abroad of fudges the tests. Nobody actually cares.

Eco terrorists? They may have cared at one point, but they're so deep into the eco-cult, they lost their original message. They're used as personal armies.


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (May 10, 2022)

Donker said:


> How is Climate Change some big scam?



Because the government steals a shit ton of my money to do absolutely nothing about it that makes even remotely practical sense. The solutions are stupid, and the alarmists are always wrong. EVs will fix nothing. Forcing everyone into public transportation will fix nothing, WEF 2030 eat bug live in pod work at home and own nothing shit will not fix anything.

On top of that, the alarmists buy iPhones every single year. They buy Priuses and Teslas, instead of reusing the hundred-year back catalogue of automobiles that are primed and ready for electric conversion, or altfuels like woodgas, hydrogen, biodiesel, etc. They pay $640k cash for waterfront property on Lake Michigan, and only use it for the summer months. They're the ones buying Funko Pop vinyl figures. They book flights all the time. They eat out all the time. They order doordash when they're lazy, and they somehow don't think they're the problem.

I personally live far more spartan than the way they always tell people to live, by default, and enough to still feel good about being a classic car mechanic who dumps his fuckin oil in the front lawn. I've got a cabin in the woods, heated by mostly naturally fallen timber, powered by solar (and gasoline when that's not enough), with a battery bank that usually maintains full capacity when I'm away. I have no grid tie, I collect my water from a lake, and purify it myself. I don't live like that all the time, but I sure as shit could, and it costs me practically nothing but equipment. No champagne socialist or pussyhat liberal will ever live like this. It's not convenient, and it's too much work. They can't live more than 2 blocks away from their favorite Phở place, or they will surely die. Leftists are the biggest grifters and hypocrites of the 20th and 21st centuries, because it's YOU who has to change, not the urbanite bugman who has to wake up at the asscrack of noon to write his 3 article buzzfeed quota for the week.

There's your answer. The people who buy the bullshit the least are the ones who are more eco friendly than the bugeyed lunatics who screech about it on CNN.


----------



## Car Won't Crank (May 10, 2022)

Donker said:


> I have no idea why you all think Climate Change is fake. It's absolutely real, you would literally have to be purposely naive/delusional to think otherwise and there is pretty much nothing being done about it. IPCC reports are conservative, we've blown past every single fucking IPCC worst case prediction and we're hitting levels of shitstorm that weren't even predicted until 30 years from now. We're starting to see fucking the beginnings of violent Water Wars in the US for fuck sake.
> 
> The only real "scams" related to climate change, are more to do with bullshit Net Zero targets that leave action to the last possible minute, bullshit Green Washing where corporations and NGOs just engage in their own money laundering scams under the cover of Climate Change mitigation and dogshit retardation corrupt moneysinks like Carbon Capture and Use. (World has about <1% CCU that was predicted we would have now in 2000, and every IPCC mitigation model relies on us having utterly fucking astonishing levels of carbon capture, we're talking tens of thousands of times of what we currently can do) Fact is, world isn't willing enough to make the sacrifices needed, or divert the resources it needs in time to stop everything going to complete and total fucking shit by the end of this century.
> 
> ...


Well done sir if this is a bespoke copypasta/shipost.


----------



## teriyakiburns (May 11, 2022)

Donker said:


> we've blown past every single fucking IPCC worst case prediction


No we haven't. Atmospheric temperature readings are currently bumping along the bottom of the spread for climate models, all of which run wildly hot because of built-in assumptions about what actually drives climate. It's not CO2. If it were CO2, the earth would have turned into a venus-style hothouse hundreds of thousands of years ago, when CO2 levels were far higher than they are today.



This graph is from about 7 years ago, but the UAH and HadCRUT temperature series haven't deviated much from their trends to that point, while the models have continued along the same predictive slope. Temperatures have not risen significantly since that point. The black line is the ensemble mean of the models the IPCC uses to predict the end of the world (as if averaging the mean of a bunch of wrong answers somehow gives you the right answer).

Arctic ice was predicted to have disappeared by two years ago. It's still there. The antarctic has more ice now than at any point in history. The only way they can show "warming" down there is by taking measurements from the northern tip of west antarctica, which is a microclimate almost entirely divorced from the rest of the continent, and then "averaging" that temperature across the entire landmass.

Anthropogenic climate change is a crock. It is a lie. It's entire point is to force you to give up your liberty and hand over control of everything to unelected, unaccountable technocrats and bureaucrats, who believe they have the right to order our lives as they see fit, because they "know best".


----------



## Sad Crusader (May 11, 2022)

lol polar bears.


----------



## NevskyProspekt (May 11, 2022)

Donker said:


> I have no idea why you all think Climate Change is fake. It's absolutely real, you would literally have to be purposely naive/delusional to think otherwise and there is pretty much nothing being done about it. IPCC reports are conservative, we've blown past every single fucking IPCC worst case prediction and we're hitting levels of shitstorm that weren't even predicted until 30 years from now. We're starting to see fucking the beginnings of violent Water Wars in the US for fuck sake.
> 
> The only real "scams" related to climate change, are more to do with bullshit Net Zero targets that leave action to the last possible minute, bullshit Green Washing where corporations and NGOs just engage in their own money laundering scams under the cover of Climate Change mitigation and dogshit retardation corrupt moneysinks like Carbon Capture and Use. (World has about <1% CCU that was predicted we would have now in 2000, and every IPCC mitigation model relies on us having utterly fucking astonishing levels of carbon capture, we're talking tens of thousands of times of what we currently can do) Fact is, world isn't willing enough to make the sacrifices needed, or divert the resources it needs in time to stop everything going to complete and total fucking shit by the end of this century.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you mentioned the enormous fucking elephant in the room that is water resources in the American Southwest. Boomers couldn't give two shits about the astronomical amounts of water wasted on golf courses and recreating New England in the fucking deserts of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Their only solution seems to be 'just pump more in'. The aquifer beneath Texas Hill Country is shrinking at a massive rate while bluehairs are moving in droves to the area and just *HAVE* to have their McMansions and lawns on rocky soil not built for it. They'll completely strip the local vegetation from their properties and replace it with shitty water-intensive sod.

Edit: Spelling


----------



## Gender: Xenomorph (May 11, 2022)

teriyakiburns said:


> No we haven't. Atmospheric temperature readings are currently bumping along the bottom of the spread for climate models, all of which run wildly hot because of built-in assumptions about what actually drives climate. It's not CO2. If it were CO2, the earth would have turned into a venus-style hothouse hundreds of thousands of years ago, when CO2 levels were far higher than they are today.
> 
> View attachment 3271063
> 
> ...


Wouldn't be surprised if CO2 is a scape goat, and people pushing this agenda actually know the cause and purposefully cover the true cause and blame it on the plebs.


----------



## DamnWolves! (May 11, 2022)

I have trouble believing 2 or 3 degrees is going to be the disaster everyone seems to think it is. Most shit can survive a 2 or 3 degree shift in temperature; even microbes. Sure, the coral spazzes out for a while and expels all its dinoflagellates like an autist who flips his desk because he came back and found his pencil in a slightly different place, but it'll get used to it. Some species may be affected, but I doubt most will be.

As an oldfag, they've been banging this drum since I was a toddler. The effects of "climate change" have been literally imperceptible since then. It's just another "hole in the ozone layer" if you ask me.


----------



## stares at error messages (May 11, 2022)

It's not real. It's just boomers chicken-litteling.


----------



## billyherrington (Jul 24, 2022)

I think the problem of climate change is not that important compared to the greying of the planet. These advocates scream about CO2 etc., but they don't even remember the whole islands of drifting plastic in the oceans, rivers of shit in India, trash-covered African cities. I wrote several essays on the subject in college. But I always had a problem with spelling and grammar, when I was too lazy to do proofreading, I used https://www.essaygeeks.co.uk/proofreading/ and had the highest essay score. And I spent the time I saved on other more important things than spelling, etc.


----------



## Meriasek (Jul 24, 2022)

Gender: Xenomorph said:


> Wouldn't be surprised if CO2 is a scape goat, and people pushing this agenda actually know the cause and purposefully cover the true cause and blame it on the plebs.


While I generally think anthropogenic warming is a thing, I am a bit sceptical about certain things. Like the actual effect of CO2, because while the physical principle of CO2 absorbing longwave infrared and warming up other parts of the air is sound, I find it a bit unintuitive that such a relatively small change in relative pressure of CO2 can have such a huge effect in such a short time. 
But then again, we do measure a warming effect, don't we? There I'm not exactly happy with how the data is measured and worked with. They take the local measurements from all over the world, from decades back to now. But we know that local temperatures and humidity are hugely affected by things like local flora, ground sealing, construction and so on. Even wind turbines and solar panels have an impact on the local temperature. Given that in the past hundred years humanity has not only emitted loads of CO2 but also simply risen in numbers with all the creation of impervious surfaces and building roads and whatnot that this would entail, surely there would have been a very noticable impact on those measured temperatures. How is that effect controlled for? In the IPCC models, cloud coverage is barely accounted for, and it's a huge impact. In the end, they just take all those measurements, and the only parameter they allow for fitting is the amount of CO2 forcing, basically predetermining that CO2 has a huge effect on climate. And since every year in their model is based on the previous year's temperature, the error on those numbers would propagate with each year and become absolutely astronomical, making the model even more useless. Lucky that they don't actually ever show error bars, I guess. 
All those impervious surfaces, all the influences on wind directions and strengths and humidity profiles from simply expanding humanity everywhere on a massive scale seems like it would have a huge impact on all the local climates, right? Could even create droughts and so on, but no, the only important effect is CO2 forcing? 
I don't know, I'm not deep enough in climate physics, but I do have some passing scientific knowledge and it just doesn't gel me with 100%. It doesn't help that it's sometimes hard to get clear answers because any critical question is seen as something like heresy, at least by the laymen.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Jul 24, 2022)

If we're speaking about the "science" I think the absolurely worse thing I've ever seen of the topic is this chart from XKCD:




If you have ever dealt in data science the idea of any system just going linearly in one direction, seemingly forever after being rock solid for fucking millenias, despite multiple global scale cataclysms that must have happened in the mean time, means that either:
A. The entire past segments is completely falsified to drive a point.
B. The last 30 years gap is completely false to present a fake threat.
C. Nothing happened for the last 10000 years that caused a change in global temperature. Including the two world wars.

But seemingly intelligent people are falling for it hook, line and sinker. My guess is that it makes them feel important after rejecting god and living in a bughive.


----------



## TurdFondler (Jul 25, 2022)

I was really into climate catastrophism for a long time, it's driven into you from childhood. I fully believe the climate is fucked and all the animals are dying. I used to see lots of different bugs all the time but now it's a rare treat to see a moth or caterpillar, it's an event that makes my day.

My biggest issue is that they've offloaded the responsibility to consumers. I'm constantly told shit's more expensive or scarcer because muh climate or I should spend more because muh ecosystems. Meanwhile rich people emit and consume more in a day than I do in a decade.

We could achieve net zero with better climate conscious city designs and a move to 100% nuclear. We'd have to give up the Just In Time industry approach and instant everything, though, along with mega yachts and private jets. So it's never going to happen.

@Meriasek
That's a really good point. You can watch the heat island in effect in real time on you local weather radar. Cities and concrete are a huge influence on local climate.


----------



## CreamyHerman’s (Jul 26, 2022)

TurdFondler said:


> I used to see lots of different bugs all the time but now it's a rare treat to see a moth or caterpillar, it's an event that makes my day.


I don't know where you live but they're still around. Go to any park where the grass hasn't been cut yet or any wildlife reserve and you can find them easy


----------



## TurdFondler (Jul 26, 2022)

They're not totally gone but I remember there being way more of them, and different kinds too.


----------



## Penis Drager (Jul 26, 2022)

TurdFondler said:


> They're not totally gone but I remember there being way more of them, and different kinds too.


Back then you were probably a kid who flipped over rocks and shit. Do the same sort of shit you did as a kid and you'll most likely find all the same shit.


----------



## TurdFondler (Jul 26, 2022)

I've been actively looking for bugs the last few years and insect population decline is real.

There used to be hordes of moths around every light at night, different species too. I haven't seen a butterfly in ages. Same with ladybugs and aphids. Beetles? Forget it. Nightcrawlers used to come out and coat the sidewalks after the rain but they're nowhere to be found now. I haven't seen cocoons in ages, and one dragonfly in the past 2 years. 

Shit's fucked.


----------



## teriyakiburns (Jul 26, 2022)

TurdFondler said:


> I've been actively looking for bugs the last few years and insect population decline is real.
> 
> There used to be hordes of moths around every light at night, different species too. I haven't seen a butterfly in ages. Same with ladybugs and aphids. Beetles? Forget it. Nightcrawlers used to come out and coat the sidewalks after the rain but they're nowhere to be found now. I haven't seen cocoons in ages, and one dragonfly in the past 2 years.
> 
> Shit's fucked.


These things go in cycles. I've seen years with fewer insects, followed by years with insane numbers of them, several times over my life.


----------



## SpergioLeonne (Jul 26, 2022)

Just a random observation, but someone check me on this. 

Photovoltaic panels do the same thing we’re worried about greenhouse gases doing. They trap more solar radiation within our system rather than reflecting it back out into space.


----------



## Penis Drager (Jul 26, 2022)

SpergioLeonne said:


> Just a random observation, but someone check me on this.
> 
> Photovoltaic panels do the same thing we’re worried about greenhouse gases doing. They trap more solar radiation within our system rather than reflecting it back out into space.


I'm assuming this is a shitpost, but in case it's not:
The energy captured by solar cells gets used to do work. The fact that the work is being done means the waste heat is smaller than the direct heating that would otherwise be cause by the solar radiation itself. What you're saying is like implying trees heat the earth because they capture solar radiation. .
And that's not even to mention the fact that CO2 doesn't even remotely work on the same principle.


----------



## SpergioLeonne (Jul 26, 2022)

Penis Drager said:


> I'm assuming this is a shitpost, but in case it's not:
> The energy captured by solar cells gets used to do work. The fact that the work is being done means the waste heat is smaller than the direct heating that would otherwise be cause by the solar radiation itself. What you're saying is like implying trees heat the earth because they capture solar radiation. .
> And that's not even to mention the fact that CO2 doesn't even remotely work on the same principle.


How does the principle affect the outcome, more heat? And Conservation of Energy under thermodynamics applies. Using it to do work converts the energy back to heat through friction.

Albedo is the most pertinent governing factor about how much solar radiation stays on earth or is reflected back into space. Photovoltaic panels, though individually small, distinctly decrease the planets albedo. I’d consider green to be more neutral than black.


----------



## Penis Drager (Jul 26, 2022)

SpergioLeonne said:


> How does the principle affect the outcome, more heat? And Conservation of Energy under thermodynamics applies. Using it to do work converts the energy back to heat through friction.


Friction is wasted energy. The energy actually used to spin a motor is used to, well, spin the motor. The heat generated is waste.
To follow up on conservation of energy: every bit of energy not directly used to produce heat is energy not converted to heat. Again: think chlorophyll.

As far as greenhouse gasses are concerned: the basic idea is that some of the higher energy light is converted to lower energy _infrared _light due to light's interaction with various gasses. Infrared is so notorious for its association with heat that we literally attempt to measure temperature based on it so either thermal cameras are bullshit or the principal applies.


----------



## SpergioLeonne (Jul 26, 2022)

Penis Drager said:


> Friction is wasted energy. The energy actually used to spin a motor is used to, well, spin the motor. The heat generated is waste.
> To follow up on conservation of energy: every bit of energy not directly used to produce heat is energy not converted to heat. Again: think chlorophyll.
> 
> As far as greenhouse gasses are concerned: the basic idea is that some of the higher energy light is converted to lower energy _infrared _light due to light's interaction with various gasses. Infrared is so notorious for its association with heat that we literally attempt to measure temperature based on it so either thermal cameras are bullshit or the principal applies.


Right, matter can be a store of energy under thermodynamics. So what is the physical matter byproduct from photovoltaics? Do they leak some kind of sludge that I’m not aware of?

Chlorophyll is pretty unique for its ability to convert energy. I don’t think silicates do the same.


----------



## Penis Drager (Jul 26, 2022)

SpergioLeonne said:


> Right, matter can be a store of energy under thermodynamics. So what is the physical matter byproduct from photovoltaics? Do they leak some kind of sludge that I’m not aware of?
> 
> Chlorophyll is pretty unique for its ability to convert energy. I don’t think silicates do the same.


Holy fuck.
First off: energy to matter conversion can be as simple as the fact that a compressed spring weighs slightly more than a relaxed one. But that's beside the point. Anything the photocell does that doesn't directly result in heat necessarily does something other than produce heat. I don't even like solar as a solution for the most part but the arguments you're presenting are trash.


----------



## SpergioLeonne (Jul 26, 2022)

Penis Drager said:


> Holy fuck.
> First off: energy to matter conversion can be as simple as the fact that a compressed spring weighs slightly more than a relaxed one. But that's beside the point. Anything the photocell does that doesn't directly result in heat necessarily does something other than produce heat. I don't even like solar as a solution for the most part but the arguments you're presenting are trash.


If they’re trash, why answer so obliquely? The compressed spring weighing more is a relativistic theory and not something we have the instrumentation to actually observe. 

I’m definitely not pretending to disprove Einstein, but that’s obviously not going to be satisfying as a catch-all since I’m not even aware of a case where we could check that against the background fact of a compressed spring being possibly slightly more dense than an uncompressed one, where a difference in weight could be explained by microscopically less atmospheric displacement. Does the mass change?

Seems even if the answer was “yes”, that would be orders of magnitude too inefficient to to counter the very real and observable addition of energy to our planet from intentionally harvesting it with photovoltaics. 

At the end of the day, we’re not going to be able to prove or disprove this in a few comments on an internet drama forum. But I think it’s a question worth asking and I’ve never seen anything about it being addressed.


----------



## Penis Drager (Jul 26, 2022)

SpergioLeonne said:


> Seems even if the answer was “yes”, that would be orders of magnitude too inefficient to to counter the very real and observable addition of energy to our planet from intentionally harvesting it with photovoltaics.


This is light that would be hitting the Earth regardless. 
Not even going to bother with the rest of this post because either the energy is going to be stored by electromechanical systems that use the energy for various means or it will be stored by the soil directly as heat.


----------



## The Last Stand (Jul 26, 2022)

Optimistically speaking, I think we're the cleanest nation in the world. Limiting selections and resources isn't going to help the climate.


----------



## SpergioLeonne (Jul 26, 2022)

Penis Drager said:


> This is light that would be hitting the Earth regardless.
> Not even going to bother with the rest of this post because either the energy is going to be stored by electromechanical systems that use the energy for various means or it will be stored by the soil directly as heat.


Albedo means a certain percentage of the light hitting earth would be reflected back immediately. Lowering the albedo in a given area, like a bank of solar panels, means less light is reflected back and more is kept.

Notwithstanding Relativity describing the amelioration of some tiny, immeasurable amount of that energy via its hypothetical storage as mass, what you instantly notice is that the panels themselves are hot. Downstream from that is heat generated from resistance along the conductors that transport the energy to a useful destination, then the heat generated from conductor resistance within appliances and then heat from mechanical friction from any moving parts. Those are all observable, and you’re claiming they’re mitigated by a theoretical but unobservable phenomenon.

I’m sorry, dude, but no. The only way to clarify that photovoltaics are a net benefit over fossil fuels is to make a comparison between the greenhouse effect and the extra heat capture from photovoltaic panels.

There is definitely a point where photovoltaics exceed the greenhouse effect in terms of heating the planet, and the only way to answer this question would be to determine what area of photovoltaics would do that. How many square miles or kilometers or whatever.


----------



## Penis Drager (Jul 26, 2022)

SpergioLeonne said:


> Albedo means a certain percentage of the light hitting earth would be reflected back immediately. Lowering the albedo in a given area, like a bank of solar panels, means less light is reflected back and more is kept.
> 
> Notwithstanding Relativity describing the amelioration of some tiny, immeasurable amount of that energy via its hypothetical storage as mass, what you instantly notice is that the panels themselves are hot. Downstream from that is heat generated from resistance along the conductors that transport the energy to a useful destination, then the heat generated from conductor resistance within appliances and then heat from mechanical friction from any moving parts. Those are all observable, and you’re claiming they’re mitigated by a theoretical but unobservable phenomenon.
> 
> ...


I'll actually accept your premise for a moment. Photovoltaics result in heating of the earth. Fine.
Does that heat surpass the heat generated from literally burning shit? Sure, that chemical energy was already on earth, but it was sequestered in a non burning form.
To say PV cells are bad is to imply that they not only offset greenhouse emissions via their intrinsic properties, but also the literal burning of hydrocarbons.
How much heat do you think these things actually put out compared to something as insignificant as lighting a match?


----------



## SpergioLeonne (Jul 26, 2022)

Penis Drager said:


> I'll actually accept your premise for a moment. Photovoltaics result in heating of the earth. Fine.
> Does that heat surpass the heat generated from literally burning shit? Sure, that chemical energy was already on earth, but it was sequestered in a non burning form.
> To say PV cells are bad is to imply that they not only offset greenhouse emissions via their intrinsic properties, but also the literal burning of hydrocarbons.
> How much heat do you think these things actually put out compared to something as insignificant as lighting a match?


That’s a good point. And thank you for mentioning that it was here but sequestered for the sake of accuracy. And I agree that considering the actual heat released from burning hydrocarbons makes it a lot more iffy to say, but what happens if we make the comparison to solar panels be something other than fossil fuels? 

What if we compare hydro to solar, or nuclear?


----------



## Penis Drager (Jul 26, 2022)

SpergioLeonne said:


> That’s a good point. And thank you for mentioning that it was here but sequestered for the sake of accuracy. And I agree that considering the actual heat released from burning hydrocarbons makes it a lot more iffy to say, but what happens if we make the comparison to solar panels be something other than fossil fuels?
> 
> What if we compare hydro to solar, or nuclear?


Hydro is a different animal altogether. The problem with that is you're flooding a vast area and directly destroying an ecosystem.
Nuclear is ostensibly in the "burning shit" category if you know how the shit actually works. Though at least there's no greenhouse emissions.

Nuclear is my first choice for base load production.


----------



## SpergioLeonne (Jul 26, 2022)

Penis Drager said:


> Hydro is a different animal altogether. The problem with that is you're flooding a vast area and directly destroying an ecosystem.
> Nuclear is ostensibly in the "burning shit" category if you know how the shit actually works. Though at least there's no greenhouse emissions.
> 
> Nuclear is my first choice for base load production.


I think some of nuclear’s “burning shit” effect is offset in that all radioactive material emits radiation, and fuel rods are a largish scale hyper-concentration of it. 

The heat it creates is also controlled to a useful amount, where with coal, it burns if you burn it and the temps can’t go below a certain floor. 

For hydro, something I’ve thought about was if you could translate it to the ocean. Probably be bad to disrupt currents, but what if you could chunk out a piece of coast to create an artificial bay, then sluice it off and try to capture the tidal flow?


----------



## Penis Drager (Jul 26, 2022)

SpergioLeonne said:


> I think some of nuclear’s “burning shit” effect is offset in that all radioactive material emits radiation, and fuel rods are a largish scale hyper-concentration of it.
> 
> The heat it creates is also controlled to a useful amount, where with coal, it burns if you burn it and the temps can’t go below a certain floor.
> 
> For hydro, something I’ve thought about was if you could translate it to the ocean. Probably be bad to disrupt currents, but what if you could chunk out a piece of coast to create an artificial bay, then sluice it off and try to capture the tidal flow?


The whole point of nuclear is to amass a bunch of fissile material together so it heats up enough to boil water. 
It's not much different from coal in that respect.


----------



## SpergioLeonne (Jul 26, 2022)

Penis Drager said:


> The whole point of nuclear is to amass a bunch of fissile material together so it heats up enough to boil water.
> It's not much different from coal in that respect.


I’ve come to believe in a vision of the future where all usable electricity comes from bicycle style generators. 

Gamers will be renowned for their athleticism


----------



## Merried Senior Comic (Jul 26, 2022)

Climate alarmism is the Rapture for atheists.


----------



## Puff (Jul 26, 2022)

All electricity is made by spinning things other than solar. Come up with innovative ways to spin things if you want to help with energy production.

RE: the greenhouse effect. Someone explain to me how increasing the refractivity of our atmosphere doesn't turn away as much or more light than it traps. 



TurdFondler said:


> I've been actively looking for bugs the last few years and insect population decline is real.
> 
> There used to be hordes of moths around every light at night, different species too. I haven't seen a butterfly in ages. Same with ladybugs and aphids. Beetles? Forget it. Nightcrawlers used to come out and coat the sidewalks after the rain but they're nowhere to be found now. I haven't seen cocoons in ages, and one dragonfly in the past 2 years.
> 
> Shit's fucked.


Bruh, there's no shortage of ladybugs. They cover my house and didn't previously.
If it's not just in your head, it's likely local changes in pesticide usage causing it.


----------



## TurdFondler (Jul 26, 2022)

Are you sure they're not the invasive chink knockoff?


----------



## Puff (Jul 26, 2022)

TurdFondler said:


> Are you sure they're not the invasive chink knockoff?


Yes. My brother has a bug-related degree.


----------



## Meriasek (Aug 16, 2022)

Penis Drager said:


> I'll actually accept your premise for a moment. Photovoltaics result in heating of the earth. Fine.
> Does that heat surpass the heat generated from literally burning shit? Sure, that chemical energy was already on earth, but it was sequestered in a non burning form.
> To say PV cells are bad is to imply that they not only offset greenhouse emissions via their intrinsic properties, but also the literal burning of hydrocarbons.
> How much heat do you think these things actually put out compared to something as insignificant as lighting a match?


The warming effect from PV is likely less than literally burning stuff or the potential warming effect from released greenhouse gases, but I think it needs to be considered that mass PV in an urban environment would significantly contribute to the urban heat island effect. Solar cells have an albedo comparable to freshly tarred black streets, and they get really hot, and it will have a noticable negative impact on the local climate if not offset by enough plant life.
Wind power also has an effect on the local climate via disrupting the airflow and potentially resulting in intermixing of air layers, which can result in locally higher temperatures on the ground. Depending on the conditions it can also lead to lower or higher relative humidity after the wind turbine, and that might also be significant.

To expand a bit on how albedo and greenhouse effects work, as far as I understand it, most of the solar radiation would be reflected back into space. Said solar radiation is made up of a wide spectrum of wavelengths from UV to far infrared. Some materials absorb or reflect some wavelengths better than others. Generally, anything dark will obviously absorb visible wavelengths, while white objects reflect visible wavelengths. Absorbing wavelengths basically turns the energy into heat in that object, warming it up, which will then warm up the surrounding air. This is what CO2 is doing in the atmosphere, except with far infrared wavelengths in the 10 µm range. These wavelengths wouldn't really be absorbed by the air or the ground, but CO2 absorbs them because it has some molecular kinetic states that are in that range (used by CO2 lasers, for example). When the CO2 in the air absorbs these wavelengths, the molecules move more, they get hot, and eventually pass that heat to other molecules in the air, raising the temperature. Dark objects on the ground do the same, so I would expect an area with lots of solar cells to be warmer than an area with something of lighter colour. These things easily go over 70°C in the sun, and that heat is going to the surrounding air. 
Of course, every powerplant, stove, electrical device or car is doing the same, heating up the surrounding air, so it's not like this is an unknown effect. Just the scale at which solar cells would be implemented could make it really noticable.


Spoiler: Disregard this, I basically wrote this rambling garbagepost last month already



What I'm a little concerned about is that ground sealing, buildings, drying of swampy areas and so on as well as wind and solar power all cause slight local warming, and all the climate change science is based around accumulating local temperature data and calculating some global average. But all these local effects, are they properly accounted for? Since the IPCC models basically only allow CO2 forcing as an influence on global temperatures, using data that has a lot of other influences might not yield accurate results, i.e. a massive overestimation of the level of CO2 forcing.
There are some more things that don't quite gel with me when it comes to manmade climate change. First, there's the Arctic-Antarctic temperature bipolar seesaw, which saw a maximum of antarctic temperatures and minimum of arctic temperatures around 1970, and is now at the opposite end with a maximum of arctic temperatures. Now, the temperature data shows an additional upwards trend in both temperatures, resulting in antarctic temperatures to be practically stagnant, while arctic temperatures rose much more than usual. This is never mentioned when there is another news blurb about "the arctic is warming much faster than anything else", and I find that a bit dishonest. Yes, it's warming much faster, but it's also likely going to stop warming this fast very soon, and likely remain stagnant or even cool off then.
Then there is the fact that we live near the end of an ice age, and the known fact that temperatures during ice ages can vary a lot more than during warm ages, but that's not really something that can be well accounted for, and thus makes global predictions much harder.

Anyway, rambling aside, the change of weather during my lifetime made it obvious that something is changing. I find it hard to believe that a comparatively small change in CO2 content would have such a large impact, but I'm not ruling it out. Still think other factors are severely understudied, though, and we might have some nasty surprises there waiting for us.


----------



## Penis Drager (Aug 16, 2022)

Meriasek said:


> The warming effect from PV is likely less than literally burning stuff or the potential warming effect from released greenhouse gases, but I think it needs to be considered that mass PV in an urban environment would significantly contribute to the urban heat island effect. Solar cells have an albedo comparable to freshly tarred black streets, and they get really hot, and it will have a noticable negative impact on the local climate if not offset by enough plant life.
> Wind power also has an effect on the local climate via disrupting the airflow and potentially resulting in intermixing of air layers, which can result in locally higher temperatures on the ground. Depending on the conditions it can also lead to lower or higher relative humidity after the wind turbine, and that might also be significant.
> What I'm a little concerned about is that ground sealing, buildings, drying of swampy areas and so on as well as wind and solar power all cause slight local warming, and all the climate change science is based around accumulating local temperature data and calculating some global average. But all these local effects, are they properly accounted for? Since the IPCC models basically only allow CO2 forcing as an influence on global temperatures, using data that has a lot of other influences might not yield accurate results, i.e. a massive overestimation of the level of CO2 forcing.
> There are some more things that don't quite gel with me when it comes to manmade climate change. First, there's the Arctic-Antarctic temperature bipolar seesaw, which saw a maximum of antarctic temperatures and minimum of arctic temperatures around 1970, and is now at the opposite end with a maximum of arctic temperatures. Now, the temperature data shows an additional upwards trend in both temperatures, resulting in antarctic temperatures to be practically stagnant, while arctic temperatures rose much more than usual. This is never mentioned when there is another news blurb about "the arctic is warming much faster than anything else", and I find that a bit dishonest. Yes, it's warming much faster, but it's also likely going to stop warming this fast very soon, and likely remain stagnant or even cool off then.
> ...


Okay. so that's a lot of wrods and I'm going to make my best attempt to address the relevant points before I immediately pass out:


Meriasek said:


> mass PV in an urban environment would significantly contribute to the urban heat island effect. Solar cells have an albedo comparable to freshly tarred black streets


The albedo of solar panels is actually comparable to the average roof. Yes, they are dark colored. But they're also quite shiny (long story sort: they're typically optimized to capture blue light and the rest is reflected. Also, the blue light that gets obsorbed also gets reflected at a lower energy state which is essentially red shift). So rooftop solar is as much a problem in that regard as the roofs they're placed on.


Meriasek said:


> Wind power also has an effect on the local climate via disrupting the airflow and potentially resulting in intermixing of air layers, which can result in locally higher temperatures on the ground. Depending on the conditions it can also lead to lower or higher relative humidity after the wind turbine, and that might also be significant.


This is true. Downstream wakes result in greater turbulent flow overall which has consequences. These effects, however, are minor and practically microscopic compared to other energy sources (not that I'm advocating for wind. It's not a great energy source for other reasons).


Meriasek said:


> Since the IPCC models basically only allow CO2 forcing as an influence on global temperatures


This is just flat wrong. The IPCC studies all known relevant parameters such as solar irradiance, Milankovitch cycles, atmospheric aerosols, and basically everything else which has either a warming or cooling effect on the global average temperature. These are people who know what they're talking about regardless of whether you believe them or not. Call them liars all you want. But you'd be a moron to call them stupid.


Meriasek said:


> Arctic-Antarctic temperature bipolar seesaw


When one pole warms, the other tends to cool. This is true. However, the general trend in temperature is upward. The average temps in both regions is increasing despite the various troughs between peaks.


Meriasek said:


> we live near the end of an ice age


Highly debatable. These "ages" aren't cyclical. Whenever there is a climactic shift, there is a cause for it. Lacking flood basalt events or increase in solar irradiance, the generally accepted causes for an ice age to end go out the window.
What we do see is people burning Carboniferous era fossils which are made of the carbon that, the initial sequestration of which, caused the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" due to a global cooling effect.


Meriasek said:


> a comparatively small change in CO2 content


Since the industrial revolution, CO2 composition in the atmosphere increased by about 50%. That's not fucking minor. 
"Oh, but I heard we only contribute about 2% to carbon flux!"
That's true. But carbon _flux _refers to the output vs input. We increased the global output of CO2 by about 2% and, absent new sequestration sources, the result is that excess carbon continues to pile up.


Meriasek said:


> Still think other factors are severely understudied


Like what? The common talking points regarding "what about the sun? What about the precession of the Earth? What about volcanism?" have all been addressed and studied extensively. These are factors that contribute, but none of them match the results as well as our burning of fossil fuels.


----------



## teriyakiburns (Aug 16, 2022)

@Penis Drager


> This is just flat wrong. The IPCC studies all known relevant parameters such as solar irradiance, Milankovitch cycles, atmospheric aerosols, and basically everything else which has either a warming or cooling effect on the global average temperature.


This is where you're wrong. None of the models used to produce the ensemble means, on which IPCC predictions are based, account for cloud effects. Not one. At best they parameterise it with a fixed effect, but they have no understanding - and thus no modelling - of how cloud effects change over time.

The various GCMs all predict the emergence of a tropospheric hotspot, which has never been observed in real life. Their models are unphysical.

All of them are currently running extremely hot compared to temperature observations, which are bumping along just below the lower error bound of the ensemble mean.

I'm sure they're smart, but the fact that they're operating with faulty data and a faulty assumption - that CO2 is the primary driver of climate, when all of its effect is swamped by water vapour - means that their outputs are also faulty.


----------



## Penis Drager (Aug 16, 2022)

teriyakiburns said:


> None of the models used to produce the ensemble means, on which IPCC predictions are based, account for cloud effects. Not one


You mean this?


			https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/clouds-and-aerosols/
		


Yeah, I know this is just a set of graphics from the IPCC report linked on the page. But the point still remains this is a thing they do take into account. Clouds, in general, have a cooling effect whereas uncondensed water vapor is a very potent greenhouse gas.




teriyakiburns said:


> they're operating with faulty data and a faulty assumption - that CO2 is the primary driver of climate, when all of its effect is swamped by water vapour


This "assumption" is the result of observational data showing that, on geologic time scales, periods with more CO2 tend to me warmer and warmer periods have more CO2. That and on a theoretical basis regarding the fact that a little warming from CO2 causes a positive feedback loop where other warming variables increase in turn. More CO2 means hotter air which can store more water vapor which heats things further. Melting ice means reduced albedo causing greater heating. Methane trapped in the ice... Ibid.
The models have been remarkably accurate, even before that infamous readjustment, despite the conservative rag talking points. And it's because they do, in fact take this shit into account.


----------



## teriyakiburns (Aug 16, 2022)

Penis Drager said:


> Yeah, I know this is just a set of graphics from the IPCC report linked on the page. But the point still remains this is a thing they do take into account.


They say they account for it, but the actual models don't. That's the key issue: the models themselves, which all of the reports are based on, don't account for the variable nature of cloud effects. A few of them parameterise it at a fixed value, but none of them model actual cloud behaviour. All of those graphics don't matter, if the _models themselves_ don't account for the effects.

And that still doesn't address the fact that model projections are running wildly hot.

There is no tropospheric hotspot, which is a key part of the model projections.

CO2 absorption wavelengths are swamped by water vapour.

And CO2 levels lag temperature in the historical record. If CO2 change lags temperature change, it cannot be a cause of the change.


----------



## Penis Drager (Aug 16, 2022)

teriyakiburns said:


> All of those graphics don't matter, if the _models themselves_ don't account for the effects.


Yes they do. Here is the IPCC third annual report, complete with citations, which discusses, in detail, how/why cloud cover is expected to increase and the effect this is expected to have on the global climate:


			https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf
		



teriyakiburns said:


> There is no tropospheric hotspot


Yes there is. The reason that particular claim is so common is because measuring temperature via satellites had a lot of hurdles to overcome. Many of these hurdles have since been overcome:


			https://atmos.uw.edu/~qfu/Publications/jtech.pochedley.2015.pdf
		



			https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007
		




teriyakiburns said:


> CO2 absorption wavelengths are swamped by water vapour.


This is absolutely true and I already addressed this:


Penis Drager said:


> CO2 causes a positive feedback loop where other warming variables increase in turn. More CO2 means hotter air which can store more water vapor which heats things further.





teriyakiburns said:


> And CO2 levels lag temperature in the historical record. If CO2 change lags temperature change, it cannot be a cause of the change.


This claim comes from ice core surveys. Obviously, these particular surveys can only account for the ice age we happen to live in right now and only apply to polar regions. Two easy explanations are as follows:

Milankovitch cycles (which have especially profound effects during ice ages and is the reason that famous graph of global temperatures over the last 100,000 years looks cyclical) caused the initial warming/cooling, the following CO2 changes were part of the positive feedback loop
Changes in polar CO2 concentrations lag global average CO2 concentrations by a considerable degree
A lot of column A and a little column B will give you a pretty clear picture of what happened. This does not mean adding more CO2 does not cause warming.


----------



## anti SJW (Dec 19, 2022)




----------



## Gender: Xenomorph (Dec 23, 2022)

TurdFondler said:


> I've been actively looking for bugs the last few years and insect population decline is real.
> 
> There used to be hordes of moths around every light at night, different species too. I haven't seen a butterfly in ages. Same with ladybugs and aphids. Beetles? Forget it. Nightcrawlers used to come out and coat the sidewalks after the rain but they're nowhere to be found now. I haven't seen cocoons in ages, and one dragonfly in the past 2 years.
> 
> Shit's fucked.


I noticed that too. I blame habitat destruction.

Nothing kills bug population more than covering a large area with solid concrete and cement. I noticed the bug population is basically extinct in cities. Women don't get to complain anymore but cities are virtually baren wastelands.

Where there's no cities, it's farmland. Farmers dump so many pesticides in the crops it kills everything above and under. Highways are also a nightmare for bugs, especially flying ones. Bugs can't fly high enough or fast enough to avoid incoming traffic, so pretty much anything that's flying or burrying gets exterminated.

I noticed the decline too; where there were flies and mosquitoes every day, now there's none. Night crawlers and beetles larger than a chickpea are basically gone. People don't miss them, they're basically proud they're goe, but I think it's a catastrophe. Fuck global warming.

The only thing that survives are snails (since they don't fly or borrow, they spend most of their time in one landspot) and any form of roaches (because they can basically crawl through walls).


----------

