What climate change is really about · 8:06pm Jan 27th, 2020
The mere few degrees temperature change in itself isn't that much of a deal. Sure, lots of catastrophes, but nothing we couldn't deal with one way or another.
But there's a problem. There's a methane thermo bomb hidden beneath the ocean. It sleeps. Undisturbed. Only a rise in temperature over 5 degrees could awaken it. However, if that happens, all hell breaks loose.
We know this because it happened before. When methane is released, the vicious cycle begins. The thing about methane is that it traps heat in the atmosphere. With more heat, more methane is released from the ocean. With more methane, more heat is trapped in the atmosphere. When the cycle starts, you can't stop it until all the methane is released. But by then, you may already find yourself extinct.
This is an excerpt from the Greta thread.
(... do not start another lengthy discussion with Bad Dragon ... do not start another lengthy discussion with Bad Dragon ... do not start another lengthy discussion with Bad Dragon ...
)
My... will... is... strong...
5193436 Don't resist. Give in. Make way for futility.
5193437
No! My will is strong! My will is... strong! MY... will... ... ... ... Oh, fuck it
OK, I have to disagree with you here and on that linked thread.
1. The messanger DO matter. I won't lie, I'm biased here, I don't like her. A child with Asperger's syndrome that is more paranoid than me starts crying out how we 'robbed her of her childhood
' and that the world is going to end soon. She shouts at your average Joes how dare they use cars, planes, and other things that pollute the planet, while completely ignoring the reality we live in.
She's a child that knows nothing of life. She lives with wealthy parents, in her own little paradise, and apparently thinks that's how ordinary people live (I know that a few times she said she understands she's one of the lucky ones, but her actions speak a different tone). She expects people to be saints... Well, it's easy to be a saint in paradise, in the real world? Not so much...
Because of that, using Miss Greta 'How Dare You
!' Thunberg to convince people to change, is like using shaking meth junkie to try to persuade people to legalize recreational drugs.
2. Her message itself is also a mixed bag. For years, I believed climate change experts unquestionably. But when I began reading the other side of the fence - the side also made out of scientists and people who spent their lives studying climate change - I started to have doubts. Not about climate change per se, but about how much our carbon footprint actually matters.
Now, I don't know who's right. The numbers would suggest that the majority of scientists believe in the carbon theory. However, the caveat is:
- those that don't and try to prove it, usually end up cut off from funding very quickly
- and if they continue independently, they end up ostracized by their former colleagues, and doubts they arose end up laughed at
That creates a 'you want grands, follow the herd' mentality, and that is not good
.
To be clear:
BUT the mentality surrounding the whole research stinks to high heavens. And if the above is true... then we're fucked. Because there is no way in hell, we're gonna cut the carbs as much as they want.
Unless something like WWIII happens and 50% of the population gets wiped out, I don't see that happening.
5193440
I'll adress this first. Have you seen this picture before?
https://xkcd.com/1732/
5193509
I have seen this, and I have seen others contradicting it, like, this one:
cei.org/sites/default/files/Figure%201.JPG
(Yes, I know you can find a dozen sites that contradicts the above, as well).
I also remember this:
And other predictions made during the last 50 years. Like the ones grouped here:
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
I know, I know it's a straw man... This is just some random internet site. And Gore is a politician, not a scientist, and those articles mentioned on the site were probably taken out of context... Or were they
?
See, I also remember the same scientist not so long ago, predicting ice age and 'winters of centuries.' That was 10-20 years ago! And now, they suddenly changed 180 degrees and are predicting the exact opposite...
Maybe the models they used improved so much that the predictions changed, but if that is the case, then WTF were they using in the past? And how can we be sure that current computation models - models that, as far as I know, are still EXTREMELY simplistic - are accurate?
During my studies, I had to make a presentation about mathematical weather prediction models. I still remember reading how difficult it is to create a universal model that is accurate because the number of possible variables (the type of terrain, elevation, amount of forests, water, and so on) differs greatly all over the world, and each one requires different algorithms. Our weather models still suck balls on the land, and we more often than not end up with different weather than predicted.
Yet, when it comes to global warming, we are to believe that that one model (or rather multiple models) is PERFECT and that NOW they got it right, even if the predictions are off by 20-50%? And again, why is everyone who question that shunned and ostracized?
Ordinarily, I would be all for the 'better safe than sorry' approach, but in this case, that means ruining the lives of millions (if not billions) of people. Unless someone proposes a viable solution and alternatives, I don't see how we can get close to achieving the goal.
5193829 Personally, I think global warming is real. But yeah, there are many doomsayers who jump the gun.
To be honest, though, I'm actually not on the 'let's stop the global warming' camp. We're not like the dinosaurs who died off when their ecosystem suffered. We make our own ecosystems. Ironically, these work better at higher temperatures.
I actually think global warming is positive in the long run. We could probably survive in some way even if the temperatures rose by 30 degrees.
With this blog, I just wanted to bring to the attention that a gradual rise in temperatures isn't the main problem. It's the thermo bomb in the ocean that is a problem if we trigger it. The latter is real, even if global warming itself is a complete lie.
5193880
To be clear:
- Do I believe that the climate is changing/shifting? Yes! You would have to blind to deny it.
- Do I believe that the climate is warming up? All the recent signs shows that it is.
- But do I believe that there is sufficient evidence that CO2 is the sole and only culprit responsible for climate change? Hmm... Let's say I have my doubts.
Again, I'm not saying that global warming is fake, and going by the numbers, it should be pretty much a sure deal. But once you start analyzing how the 'system' works, how the money flow, and how people who raised any doubts had their careers pretty much destroyed - it's hard not to see some red flags...
But even if for the sake of argument we assume that it is the case, then what? This is Greta's 'solution' from the recent Davos' forum:
I ask you. Even assuming the worst case scenario... How the hell, are we suppose to cut the emissions, not to net zero, but to real zero and do it 'NOW!'? The only thing that comes to my mind is by reducing the Earth's population from current 7.5 billion to... 1 or 2 billion tops, and for the remaining people, go with the all-electrical approach and most moder technologies. That would allow us to cut the carbs dramatically.
Hmm... Maybe Greta should start a campaing! 'Kill yourself, to stop global warming! Our planet needs YOU!'
5194235 I'm not sure that would even be enough. Most of the electricity we have isn't clean.
I do agree with Greta that if avoiding global warming is our main goal, all these things and more need to be done yesterday. I don't agree with the underlying premise, though. I don't even think global warming is bad in the long run.
I also find it kind of ironic: Let's produce a global economic and financial disaster with 100% certainty in order to lower the chance of a global disaster via global warming by a few percents. The math doesn't pan out unless you include an actual chance of human extinction due to global warming. I've seen plenty of headlines, but I've yet to see an actual simulation of the future where human life isn't possible on Earth due to global warming.
The latter is the missing piece that's missing from the global warming camp that would get me on board with their extremist ideas. If they could show with enough certainty that human extinction is an actual threat with a high enough probability, I'd even go as far as support the 'go kill yourself' campaign.
Human species is the main key in my Universal agenda. I need them alive.
5194297
Yeah, but by reducing the population to 20%, we would only need 20% of power, so in theory, we could shut down the dirtiest power plants. Then again, I heard that even nuclear power is dirty because you have to mine for uranium/plutonium/whatever, and that produces CO2. I guess all those 'clean' windmills are constructed in orbit using sun rays and beamed down to Earth...
But we can't, that's the problem. To fight global warming, we need technologies that don't exist or are impractical. I always say, don't give problems, give viable solutions. I've yet to hear something that would work on a larger scale.
Electric cars, for example, are great in theory, but in practice? I've checked up the price of Nissan Leaf. The cheapest one (with about 250 Km real range) costs 120 000 zł. That's a price of a 1/3 or even 1/2 of a flat over here! Most people around here drive 10+ years old cars, not because they want to, but because they can't afford anything better. So, 'dump your car, then!' If you live in a city, that may work, but 50% of the population lives outside cities - they need to get to work somehow, and public transportation is often not an option.
This is just one of many examples where real-world solutions are needed first, and no one of the global warming movement seems to give a crap...
Honestly, I don't think anyone in his/her right mind is taking Greta's words seriously, precisely because they know it would destroy the economy. Sure, they will pat her on the back and say they support her, but their decisions speak a different tune.
Although I must admit, it would be morbidly funny to see the people who currently shout for the change, going after Greta and her followers, once the economy crashes. It would be like the French revolution all over again
Why? Is your name Kane
?
5194351
That would actually increase global warming. The Sun is the main reason here. You want to beam sun rays away from Earth, not on it.
If we were facing almost certain extinction, every little bit more effort could be the difference between survival and death. Impractical would be a fair price to pay if it means getting a chance to live on.
If times were desperate, we could just have them live at work. No transportation needed.
I think there's a high chance that that actually happens in the future. Fighting global warming doesn't come without a price to pay. And when the payment is due, people will look for a scapegoat. Greta will be the obvious choice.
I predict Greta will die of suicide in the next 50 years.
There are processes that nature cannot accomplish. Technology is needed. And for that, you need intelligence. Of all the species, humans are the prime candidates to find solutions to the Universal problems like entropy.
But human activity is responsible for less than 1% of all climate change that occurs, sun activity and volcanic eruptions cause a great majority of it. Besides, Earth is actually cooling right now, so if we could add more carbon it would improve things. Trees especially would benefit because the more carbon they have, the less water they need to grow, and they grow faster. And since trees cool the planet by turning desserts back into forests, the planet would cool. I use Ecosia instead of Google and the ad revenue goes to planting trees (like one tree per 14 ads) also Trump launched the Trillion Lrees thing, which is good and leaves Mr. Beasts Team Trees in the dust (but Beast might have inspired Trump?) The real reason that the U.N. and politicians talk about carbon emmisions all the time is becaues they recognise how much humans output carbon and the want to tax us for it. Trees need carbon or they cannot live, they build themselves out of carbon, all plants do, and the fact that the Sahara was once green but now lies a (pretty much) barren dessert is proof that trees plants aren't growing as easily as they use to. Humans once farmed cows in the Sahara when it was green, and it's possible human activity actually delayed the desertification of the region by a few hundred years just by the carbon output we caused. Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, if one of these no longer is in the air, life collapses but in a way far worse than nuclear winter would, because at least after a nuclear winter the survivors could grow new crops with seeds from The Doomsday Vault. NOAA lies about their numbers anyways, compare them to NASAs numbers and they're completely different. If you want to believe NOAA instead of NASA, you're just choosing sides without any actual scientific data. The Weather Channels own founder disavowed global warming and then The Weather Channel disavowed him. Also all attempts to prove global warming is melting the ice caps has been a total failure. Remember when John Kerry tried going down to Antarctica to witness the effects of global warming himself? There was too much ice to get to the mainland. More recently a bunch of students tried to travel by boat through the arctic a route that had previously been walked. Too much ice. Remember when Al Gore was saying that the Polar ice caps would be melted by 2012 and all the polar bears were drowning? Didn't happen. North pole is still frozen, as Top Gear clearly demonstrated when they DROVE TO THE NORTH POLE in one of their episodes. Also polar bears are excellent swimmers(they hunt narwalls for Pete's sake) and the polar bear population has multiplied itself times 5 in recent years. There's so many polar bears it's becoming a serious problem for the people up north. The U.N. said in 1970 we have to stop carbon emissions by 1980 or everything would go to sh!t. They said in 1980 we have untill the year 2000. Then they said another year and another year and now it's another 10 year deadline their telling us. If all it takes is 5 degrees to pop that methane bubble the sun could cause that easy. Look at the massive super volcano under Yellowstone that could erupt at any moment and we have no control over, are we really in charge of whether this planet gets screwed up or not, no. a meteor the size of Australia could hit us before we even see it coming. But assuming nothing from space kills us, Let's keep focusing on our survival until we colonise Mars or something so one single global catastrophe doesn't render our species extinct. We need to heat our planet up more if Nasa is right about the sun entering a 10 year hibernation and being dimmer during that time. But carbon would't actually heat the planet up, go look up the year without a summer and how a massive volcanic eruption cooled the planet during the summer months and blocked sunlight from reaching the crops causing a global famine. Stop getting your news from propaganda outlets like CNN and New York Times and diversify your sources of knowledge, because at this point believing in global warming is like believing the Earth is flat, They are beliefs that are not backed by actual data, but people believe them anyway.
5219381 Thanks for this. It was very educational.