User Controls
World to hit temperature tipping point 10 years faster than forecast
-
2023-05-17 at 6:40 PM UTC
-
2023-05-17 at 6:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Doesn't leave much of a baseline, does it?
I’ve said this before, but it’s a relatively simple exercise to determine the effects of carbon on the atmosphere, even without a dataset to compare it too.
We know how much carbon we put in the atmosphere, we know how long it stays there, and we know the thermal properties of our sun and the chemical properties of carbon. It’s really not that hard to figure out that it will have a warming effect -
2023-05-17 at 6:54 PM UTC
-
2023-05-17 at 7:06 PM UTC
-
2023-05-17 at 7:07 PM UTC
-
2023-05-17 at 7:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Or you mean if it’s less than .02? Yeah no shit they use it to breathe. We’re talking about adding carbon not subtracting it. Wtf is your point
My point is, if the co2 in the atmosphere was just two hundredths of one percent lower, plant life would start to die, and yet the frauds are pushing for exactly that to happen, and you buy into it. -
2023-05-17 at 8:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ My point is, if the co2 in the atmosphere was just two hundredths of one percent lower, plant life would start to die, and yet the frauds are pushing for exactly that to happen, and you buy into it.
Do you think carbon didn’t exist before humans existed? They’re talking about us lowering human output of carbon, not deleting it from the atmosphere. You really are showing how little you know about this -
2023-05-17 at 9:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Do you think carbon didn’t exist before humans existed? They’re talking about us lowering human output of carbon, not deleting it from the atmosphere. You really are showing how little you know about this
Since the atmosphere only contains four hundredths of one percent c02, and the plants need it to survive, why on earth would you push to delete c02 from the atmosphere? Only a genuine nutjob would think that's a great idea. -
2023-05-17 at 9:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Since the atmosphere only contains four hundredths of one percent c02, and the plants need it to survive, why on earth would you push to delete c02 from the atmosphere? Only a genuine nutjob would think that's a great idea.
Nobody is talking about removing all carbon. You are an insane person. We’re talking about reducing the amount we keep putting into the atmosphere.
Objectively, the biosphere on earth thrives during warm carbon rich periods. I’m not disputing that. The earth will go on regardless of how much carbon there is. The problem is a lot of us may not survive the transition because it’s happening at such a rapid pace. If we keep going on this track there will likely be at least one year or a period of several years where a combination of droughts and famines plus worsening weather patterns will lead to food shortages and mass migrations, ultimately resulting in large scale starvations and civil unrest.
What do you think will happen when the grocery stores aren’t stocked for 2 weeks? It’s not going to be pretty. It almost happened during a relatively mild pandemic, what’s coming will be far worse.
But don’t worry you’ll be long dead by the time it happens because you’re a geriatric octogenarian living out your golden years in a mental asylum. You won’t be around for someone to say “I told you so” -
2023-05-17 at 9:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Nobody is talking about removing all carbon.
Why remove any carbon, when there's already only 0.04% of it in the entire atmosphere? Only a crazy person does that.
Originally posted by Fox The problem is a lot of us may not survive the transition because it’s happening at such a rapid pace. If we keep going on this track there will likely be at least one year or a period of several years where a combination of droughts and famines plus worsening weather patterns will lead to food shortages and mass migrations, ultimately resulting in large scale starvations and civil unrest.
Your sources for that claim are dubious, at best, with all of them taking large amounts of money to come up with the "correct" predictions. You know, that "settled science" we keep hearing about. There is no credible source out there proving this "rapid pace" to be true. Right now, it's more like a religion than an evidentiary-based exploration. The Climate Cult, if you will.
-
2023-05-17 at 9:55 PM UTCI think you fucked up your quote brackets
-
2023-05-17 at 9:56 PM UTCAlso I already debunked that infographic in an earlier post
-
2023-05-17 at 9:56 PM UTC
-
2023-05-17 at 10:15 PM UTCWell it looks like shit.
-
2023-05-17 at 10:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Every single one of those statements are out of context and not representative of the original statement's meaning. I'll just pick one at random, 1989 "nations will be wiped off the map by 2000"
This is referencing a statement made by Noel Brown, regional director of the UN Environmental Programme at the time (not a climate scientist himself), in 1989. The statement attributed in the cartoon is not accurate, what was said was "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."
Not that it would happen BY 2000. Whenever climate change deniers reference statements like this to debunk the science of climate change, they're failing to understand that these dates and time frames they're talking about aren't some kind of doomsday clock where the apocalypse happens when they expire. Carbon that gets trapped in the atmosphere can linger there for decades or centuries and migrate to different parts of the atmosphere over time so the effects are cumulative and it may take many years before the actual impacts are felt. But modeling those impacts is just simple chemistry and physics. You take the known thermal properties of carbon, the known amount of carbon we are putting out, and plug in the known qualities of our atmosphere and the energy input from the sun, and you get a model of climate change. Climate is complicated and these models aren't perfect but even when you look at a range from the most optimistic outcomes to the most alarmist possibilities, even the milder scenarios will be devastating for the world.
I don't believe even in the worst case that this is an existential threat to humanity but it will certainly cause trillions of dollars of damage to the economy and likely a very significant loss of life around the world. Prove me wrong using any kind of logic or evidence, not cartoons and memes. You can't.
Good post. -
2023-05-18 at 12:25 AM UTC
-
2023-05-18 at 1:14 AM UTCBut they’re objectively NOT what was “decreed”. They’re misquoted at best and intentionally slandered at worst. The source on the quotes can be looked up easily and the context requires nuance to understand which you are incapable of
-
2023-05-18 at 2:53 AM UTC
-
2023-05-18 at 2:58 AM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ It was global cooling for decades.
About That 1970s Global Cooling...Today, climate scientists tell us the Earth is warming. Some people deny that, and point out that in the 1970s, climate scientists said the Earth was cooling, perhaps headed into another ice age. Today's scientists counter that it wasn't climate scientists who said that, it was the media.
… the fundamental observation that dominates today's climate science — that global warming is happening and is driven by manmade carbon dioxide emissions — was as real then as it is today.
Originally posted by Obbe
-
2023-05-18 at 3:20 AM UTC
