User Controls
Scientists Predict There's 90% Chance Civilization Will Collapse Within 'Decades'
-
2020-08-03 at 1:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2020 IV: Intravenous Soyposting Tactical nihilism.
Next up is "how do you know that CO2 is even real?"
Then "how do you know that you know".
I don't currently own a CO2 meter, but I have used them in the past.
So in other words all you know is what people you don't know tell you. Tell me what gives such unshakable faith. -
2020-08-03 at 2:08 PM UTC
-
2020-08-03 at 2:22 PM UTC
-
2020-08-03 at 3:05 PM UTC
-
2020-08-03 at 3:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2020 IV: Intravenous Soyposting Except they're not "fluctuating" and you know it. They are increasing because almost our entire society is based on digging up fossil fuels and burning them.
Are you really unable to attribute smoke to a fire?
since you are well versed in research, look at the historical CO2 levels and then tell me there is anything unnatural about the current period.
better yet, look at the historical temperature record and look further back than 1880. its all i ask of you. take one quick glance at the global COOLING trend and then tell me there is a good reason to get hysterical over the CO2 hoax, or believe it at all for that matter.Are you really unable to attribute smoke to a fire?
are you really delusional enough to believe that we, a puny speck of existence are capable of competing with natures wildfires and volcanoes? the 1814 volcano emitted enough smoke into the atmosphere when it erupted that it turned 1815 summer into a winter, but by the end of the year it cleared up and life went back to normal.
can you recall us personally pulling anything like that off recently? you give us too much credit. we can pollute the ocean, we can destroy forests but to think that we can change the weather is delusional to a psychotic level. -
2020-08-03 at 3:51 PM UTCHah gay
-
2020-08-03 at 4:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kev since you are well versed in research, look at the historical CO2 levels and then tell me there is anything unnatural about the current period.
The current rise in CO2 is antropogenic - meaning man made, meaning it is artificial, meaning it is not natural.
a puny speck of existence are capable of competing with natures wildfires and volcanoes?
Its rare (or was rare) to look up into the sky and NOT see plane contrails. It's rare to be on a plane and not see roads, boats, etc.
We are not insignificant.to think that we can change the weather is delusional to a psychotic level.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/09/how-does-irrigation-affect-climates/
Irrigation affects local and non-local climate - water vapour is the #1 Greenhouse gas.
https://www.britannica.com/science/urban-climate
Cities change the climate inside and around them.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-08-03 at 5:03 PM UTC
-
2020-08-03 at 6:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2020 IV: Intravenous Soyposting The current rise in CO2 is antropogenic - meaning man made, meaning it is artificial, meaning it is not natural.
I dont see the huge spike represented on the graph, it appears just slightly lower than the previous peak. are you sure that big scary dotted spike isnt a forecast? (all of which have previously failed to conform to reality)Its rare (or was rare) to look up into the sky and NOT see plane contrails. It's rare to be on a plane and not see roads, boats, etc.
We are not insignificant.
so why have we not had another year without a summer since 1814? planes, roads and boats cannot compete with even one (small) volcano.https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/09/how-does-irrigation-affect-climates/
Irrigation affects local and non-local climate - water vapour is the #1 Greenhouse gas.
https://www.britannica.com/science/urban-climate
Cities change the climate inside and around them.
yes, water vapour (not CO2) is the #1 Greenhouse gas and where does it come from? you think anything we do can compete with the oceans which cover 2/3 of the planet?
this new age crap seems to be the new religion, elevating our race to such a pedestal that we believe we are greater than the planet, its oceans, its volcanoes, and all these things that will continue to exist long after we are extinct. people stop believing in god, now believe they are god.
stop that cringey shit.
the earth has mechanisms for dealing with increased CO2 or increased temperature. a scientist explains far better than i can:
" When greenhouse gases cause surface warming, a response occurs, a ‘feedback response’, in the form of changes in cloud and precipitation patterns. The CRU-related climate models all assume the feedback response is a positive one: any increment of greenhouse warming will be amplified by knock-on effects in the weather system. This assumption then leads to the predictions of ‘runaway global warming’.
Spencer set out to see what the feedback response actually is, by observing what happens in the cloud-precipitation system when surface warming is occurring. What he found, by targeting satellite sensors appropriately, is that the feedback response is negative rather than positive. In particular, he found that the formation of storm-related cirrus clouds is inhibited when surface temperatures are high. Cirrus clouds are themselves a powerful greenhouse gas, and this reduction in cirrus cloud formation compensates for the increase in the CO2 greenhouse effect." -
2020-08-03 at 6:34 PM UTCCitrus clouds
-
2020-08-03 at 7:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kev I dont see the huge spike represented on the graph, it appears just slightly lower than the previous peak. are you sure that big scary dotted spike isnt a forecast? (all of which have previously failed to conform to reality)
The axis is on the left hand side. Current ppm is 407, which is objectively high.
CO2 gets unpleasant at about 1000ppm.
We are literally going to gas ourselves. -
2020-08-03 at 7:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2020 IV: Intravenous Soyposting The axis is on the left hand side. Current ppm is 407, which is objectively high.
i know it says that but i dont see it anywhere near 407 on the graph, it appears just below 300. every historical CO2 graph i have seen, including the one you just posted, looked like that. current spike yet to beat the previous spike.CO2 gets unpleasant at about 1000ppm.
We are literally going to gas ourselves.
remember all the failed climate change predictions? you are about to make one. when is the 1000ppm supposed to happen based on current trends? -
2020-08-03 at 8:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra While I agree we should improve efficiency and reduce waste as much as possible, the reason I'm not totally sold on global warming or any other man-made climate change is that the oldest climate records we have are from ice cores roughly 200,000 years old.
Assuming we had 100% accurate and complete climate records from 200,000 years ago to now (we don't), how can we possibly model the baseline temperature levels for a planet that's 60 billion years old? That's literally trying to draw a statistical conclusion with 2 out of 60,000 datapoints. In no other field would that be taken seriously.
Planet is 4 billion years old fam. Not even the Universe is 60 billion years old yet.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-08-03 at 9:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kev i know it says that but i dont see it anywhere near 407 on the graph, it appears just below 300. every historical CO2 graph i have seen, including the one you just posted, looked like that. current spike yet to beat the previous spike.
Here is a graph without the scored line which seems to be confusing you. Other than that I really can't help you.remember all the failed climate change predictions? you are about to make one. when is the 1000ppm supposed to happen based on current trends?
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing at around 2.1ppm per year right now, so:
1000ppm - 407ppm = 593ppm
593ppm / 2.1ppm = 282.38 years
2020 + 282.38 = 2302
The year 2302. -
2020-08-03 at 10:13 PM UTC
-
2020-08-03 at 11:27 PM UTC
-
2020-08-03 at 11:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ The sun is going to burn out. Then what?
It's going to be a little more cool than that. And with cool i mean HOT. In a billion years or so The Sun is going to shine so brightly it will effectively boil all the water off the Earth, we'll look a little like Venus then. And then, it's going to get bigger, and with bigger i mean potentially all the way to the orbit of the Earth bigger, that'll take about 7 billion years. And then, gravity is going to lose it's grip on the outer layers of the sun. If we're lucky The Sun's magnetic field will have gone wonky and it will twist all this hot gas into neat little twirls and shapes. We'll look like a cool nebula from afar if that happens, and at the center of it will sit an ember, glowing still. But all it has is leftover heat, it doesn't have the mass to fuse stuff far beyond helium so it doesn't fuse anything. That said, it's going to take about a trillion years for the ember to cool off. Once it's cold enough, The Sun's light will go out forever. -
2020-08-03 at 11:51 PM UTC
-
2020-08-04 at 12:35 AM UTCBull. The study fails to take innovation into account. Same basic flaw Malthius made when he predicted the end of farm land and the collapse of society in the 1700s.
-
2020-08-04 at 5:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2020 IV: Intravenous Soyposting
Here is a graph without the scored line which seems to be confusing you. Other than that I really can't help you.
ok, let us take it at face value. why then are temperatures not correlating?
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing at around 2.1ppm per year right now, so:
1000ppm - 407ppm = 593ppm
593ppm / 2.1ppm = 282.38 years
2020 + 282.38 = 2302
The year 2302.
Great, so we and our grandchildren will never live to corroborate your prophecy? typical.
make a 10 year, 5 year, even 1 year prediction and see what happens. climate alarmists have been doing it for decades. in the 1970s they thought we would be in an ice age by 2000 based on the trends at the time, in 1990 they said snow would be a thing of the past by 2008, in 2000 they said the earth would be gone in 20 years. all sorts of scary hockey stick graphs that all ended up way off reality.
observing the climate and recording the data is a hard science. but predicting it, as we have seen so many times, is impossible.
