Last edited by a moderator:
Science Global warming could be far worse than predicted, new study suggests
- Thread starter Pickle Dick
- Start date
Basketball Jones
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2018
I think the thing that always makes me pause for thought with global warming is that Earth is huge and has been around for way longer than humans have walked it. It feels almost vain to say that we’ve had any significant impact because of industrialization. I’m willing to believe we can impact areas of the planet negatively(especially those with large volumes of people, traffic, and pollutants), but the entire planet seems like a stretch. Honestly, it could just be the way that the discussion is phrased that could put people off.
Like if someone explained it as: “What if the planet is just reacting to humans activity and pollution the same way a human body reacts to a virus? As in global warming is happening as the planet’s way of adapting to deal with a population of over 8 billion humans and the effect of greenhouse gasses on the atmosphere. So all of these gradual changes are happening because the planet is immunizing itself against the chemicals we output.” I think people would have an easier time digesting their points for the discussion wasn’t immediately led into with trying to guilt the listener.
If you want something interesting to skim through on a smoke break or while taking a shit, I recommend these:
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detailed_logarithmic_timeline
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
Like if someone explained it as: “What if the planet is just reacting to humans activity and pollution the same way a human body reacts to a virus? As in global warming is happening as the planet’s way of adapting to deal with a population of over 8 billion humans and the effect of greenhouse gasses on the atmosphere. So all of these gradual changes are happening because the planet is immunizing itself against the chemicals we output.” I think people would have an easier time digesting their points for the discussion wasn’t immediately led into with trying to guilt the listener.
If you want something interesting to skim through on a smoke break or while taking a shit, I recommend these:
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detailed_logarithmic_timeline
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
Corbin Dallas Multipass
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2018
I mean... there have been volumes written on the subject, it's not as if the theory doesn't explain why it would be a worldwide phenomenon. The line about viruses sounds like something out of the matrix, no that's not how anyone claims global warming works...
AGW is pretty straightforward. The theory is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, to some degree. (This isn't proven, and they don't even know how much CO2 it would take to raise the temperature 1 degree, but that's beside the point).
The basic premise to this theory is that as we humans release additional CO2 into the air (Or really even if we had nothing to do with it, it's all about the CO2) we cause the temperature to rise a little bit on average as more heat energy gets trapped in the atmosphere (That's the greenhouse part).
The reason this becomes a doomsday scenario is that it leads to a chain reaction. Our small bit of warming gets some permafrost melting, then the frozen vegetation rots and releases more CO2. Meanwhile the icecaps shrink. Less ice means less sunlight reflected off the surface, means more heat for the earth. More heat means even more melting permafrost, more rot, and more CO2.
What the proponents have done so far is shown a correlation between increased CO2 levels and increased temperatures by digging out old ice cores from millenia ago and determining the atmospheric makeup at the time. More recent observations have shown the CO2 levels lagging the temperature levels by about 800 years.
So as much as people like to talk about consensus, the theory is awfully thin. In fact, the lag between CO2 and temperature shows that increased CO2 was not the cause of the increased temperatures. But the increased temperatures could well have been the cause of the increased CO2 (But even that's not proven, as correlation does not imply causation).
We also know the earth has been both hotter and cooler in the past.
None of this means AGW is wrong, but what it means is it's not nearly as proven as people would have you believe.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2013
Not just a war, but they need their own holocausts.
Yes, the one back then was horrible, but we can't just let India and China doom us all with their pointlessly large populations.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2016
Typically these doomsday predictions say it's 40 t0 60 years down the line. When it all goes to shit I'll be dead by then, so I don't give a fuck. I really don't care about the world or human history or anything about future generations. Death is the ultimate fuck you, got mine there is.
Q
QU 734
Guest
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2017
We're already fucked because permafrost is melting, driving Priuses and using CFLs is just post-facto self flagellation. Methane released from permafrost will continue to warm the planet even if we drop human emissions to zero. So start spending money on impact mitigation instead.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2018
Liar. Dem Affycans dindu nuffin. Dey all kings an' shit.
CIA Nigger
Not a fed, just a random object on the street.
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 15, 2017
It's funny because the waste from Li-Ion/NiMH batteries and the mercury from CFLs is hazardous waste that pollutes too.
With high population and poor hygiene habits common in especially the former, there will be millions of deaths at some point or another from disease.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2013
That they're still alive right now despite their shit hygienic habits and poor conditions is a mystery to mankind.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2017
I've been told my entire life the world is ending 2-10 years from now, can they just stop? I understand admitting "we don't really know shit and we were wrong lol" would shake science, politics and journalism to it's core but the longer they put it off the worse it will be.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2017
They have become immune to germs the only thing that can kill them now is soap.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2018
>Reduce carbon footprint
>Don't roll back modern technology and luxuries
Pick one
>Don't roll back modern technology and luxuries
Pick one
BScCollateral
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 28, 2018
I might be misremembering, but I'm pretty sure the first Northern Ice Cap Melt-by date I can recall was 1995 or so.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2013
This, combined with the constant Rapture/Nibiru bullshit I keep seeing on various tabloid sites makes me wonder if any of these people (scientists, religious nutbags, conspiracy freaks, journalists, take your pick) don't get off to telling people they're all going to die soon, unaware that we won't. At least not for a while.
I mean, don't get me wrong, this shit is a serious issue. The problem is that the sensationalizing is making it seem like it's worse than it is. Which also begs the question why this sensationalizing isn't illegal, or why more people don't call them out on their bullshit.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2014
Who is gonna tell all those volcanoes to stop polluting the air? They just can't stop being volcanoes.
Hold in your farts too and kill all the animals to stop them from farting. That will save us from Global Warming.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2017
China tried that already. A couple times actually if i recall.
Its just that with Mao's top score of what, 50-78mil? they still Weren't able to put a real dent in it.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
If all the coastal cities are flooded, wouldn't that drown all the troons?
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2017
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2018
There's some nifty genetically modified plants and microorganisms that can leech mercury out of the soil now. The solution for these things is always technology, not going back to the fucking stone age.
Q
QU 734
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Would it really shake science up all that much, though? Call me optimistic, but I thought the whole point was to build theories and models based on availavle data, and when that data changes, so do those theories and models.