Climate change sperging - That thing everyone likes to sperg about when there's nothing more pressing to sperg about

[Gender: Xenomorph]

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

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".

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!]

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]

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

 

[billyherrington]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Penis Drager]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.