Why do we treat this climate change as "the end of the world"? Aren't we humans a migratory species? A species with incredible adaptable skills? We live in icy cold places and hot dry places - all though we should be living in tropical places.
I have a feeling the debate is a bit one sided. Models predict uninhabitable places if concentration of carbon dioxide increases and the temperatures goes up. Models state that this is the highest it has been in 600k years and therefore we are fast moving towards doom.
I know this is anecdotal - but I have lived through a 100 ppm increase in CO2 in my lifetime and stuff is growing everywhere, even where it is not supposed to. Nearly all roofs in my neighbourhood sport some sort of growth, even my roof - even though it is coated with stuff that should make it impossible. As an owner of property I feel nature is winning our battle for dominance, I feel control is slipping as moss, grass and weird plants is encroaching on my habitat. CO2 is plant fertilizer and increasing amounts will encourage plants to grow faster and fuller. Those who grow plants professionally knows this - and it’s why they increase CO2 levels in greenhouses to make the crops grow faster and bigger. There is a sweet spot between 800 and 1200 ppm where the growth curve is nearly vertical - more and it flattens, less it also flattens. Plants die at 150 ppm and it is why we have tree lines (speaking of altitude) as CO2 concentration decreases the higher you get. We know some of the mountains around us had no trees (due to their naming) but today they sport full pine growth.
On Spitsbergen, islands under Norwegian domain near the North Pole, sported at some point palm-trees and crocodiles. The same is true for Antarctica in an era, if you use today's models, that should sport deserts in most of Africa and South America, but shows the same temperatures and climate... an equable climate problem (so called) sporting a homogeneous climate with 700-900 ppm CO2 concentrations.
*throws petroleum on the bonfire... humming "The Battle" by Hans Zimmer*
10-11-2018, 09:26
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Climate change is of all times, it is simply out of our control we can't arrange planets to our will. Climate-freaks are flaggalants who want humanity tp be guilty of an apacolypse. Pays really well.for people that know that they are deeply religious diots. Screw them jusr fix polution
10-11-2018, 09:50
Pannonian
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Why do we treat this climate change as "the end of the world"? Aren't we humans a migratory species? A species with incredible adaptable skills? We live in icy cold places and hot dry places - all though we should be living in tropical places.
I have a feeling the debate is a bit one sided. Models predict uninhabitable places if concentration of carbon dioxide increases and the temperatures goes up. Models state that this is the highest it has been in 600k years and therefore we are fast moving towards doom.
I know this is anecdotal - but I have lived through a 100 ppm increase in CO2 in my lifetime and stuff is growing everywhere, even where it is not supposed to. Nearly all roofs in my neighbourhood sport some sort of growth, even my roof - even though it is coated with stuff that should make it impossible. As an owner of property I feel nature is winning our battle for dominance, I feel control is slipping as moss, grass and weird plants is encroaching on my habitat. CO2 is plant fertilizer and increasing amounts will encourage plants to grow faster and fuller. Those who grow plants professionally knows this - and it’s why they increase CO2 levels in greenhouses to make the crops grow faster and bigger. There is a sweet spot between 800 and 1200 ppm where the growth curve is nearly vertical - more and it flattens, less it also flattens. Plants die at 150 ppm and it is why we have tree lines (speaking of altitude) as CO2 concentration decreases the higher you get. We know some of the mountains around us had no trees (due to their naming) but today they sport full pine growth.
On Spitsbergen, islands under Norwegian domain near the North Pole, sported at some point palm-trees and crocodiles. The same is true for Antarctica in an era, if you use today's models, that should sport deserts in most of Africa and South America, but shows the same temperatures and climate... an equable climate problem (so called) sporting a homogeneous climate with 700-900 ppm CO2 concentrations.
*throws petroleum on the bonfire... humming "The Battle" by Hans Zimmer*
Currently colder climes may become more pleasant, although there are questions over how the gulf stream phenomenon will react. However, the salient point is that the planet is already extremely densely populated with humans. If the colder climes become more mild, the hotter climes at the edge of human tolerance will correspondingly become more hostile. Add to that new meteorological phenomena where humans have acclimatised for generations, with infrastructure to match. Humans may be migratory, but not in such numbers, and their infrastructure is not migratory. If life becomes more pleasant for around 20m people around the polar regions, allowing greater cultivation than ever, but life correspondingly becomes intolerable for 400m people around the tropics, how do you deal with the latter? If coastal cities and their decades of infrastructure become uninhabitable because of new meteorological phenomena, how do you distribute their millions of people to regions which do not suffer from such phenomena, but which equally do not have the infrastructure to support these extra people?
10-11-2018, 09:55
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Let nature do it's work, people die
10-11-2018, 13:43
Sigurd
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If the colder climes become more mild, the hotter climes at the edge of human tolerance will correspondingly become more hostile. ... If life becomes more pleasant for around 20m people around the polar regions, allowing greater cultivation than ever, but life correspondingly becomes intolerable for 400m people around the tropics, how do you deal with the latter?
The fact that we still have frozen polar caps is geo-scientifically speaking still an ice-age. And global-history suggest it is not the norm. Do we move towards an era of no ice? History suggest it. All previous ice-ages has been followed by a longer era of warm climate. Are we accelerating it by our way of life - Yes, no doubt. Are we going to stop it by changing our way of life - Not a chance. We might slow it down - but ice-free polar caps is inevitable. We should focus on how to adapt - not how to stop nature.
I am not sure ecologists agree on the premise of milder colder areas = hostile equatorial areas. Rather: More warmth and more CO2 = wetter and greener overall. Today's deserts will bloom and greenify (yeah... I listened to Wicked last week) according to them. Today's tree lines will move upward, making more land hospitable. Yes, some of today's land will flood - and we should plan for it. We'll all drink to the memory of @Andres as he and his countrymen sinks into the sea. I'll make some shit up like Atlantis to honour his memory.
I think we should do what we can – but is a complete braking from the climate trend even possible? Even if we stopped burning fuel or other shit completely, would the ice-caps still melt? Need teaches the naked widow to spin – Maybe we are too comfortable in our temperate houses and made up societies. Nation states and sociology hinder our unchecked migration, but people still move away from hostile environments and has done so since the dawn of man. If it really gets bad, do you think people will stay to die?
10-11-2018, 13:46
Pannonian
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
The fact that we still have frozen polar caps is geo-scientifically speaking still an ice-age. And global-history suggest it is not the norm. Do we move towards an era of no ice? History suggest it. All previous ice-ages has been followed by a longer era of warm climate. Are we accelerating it by our way of life - Yes, no doubt. Are we going to stop it by changing our way of life - Not a chance. We might slow it down - but ice-free polar caps is inevitable. We should focus on how to adapt - not how to stop nature.
I am not sure ecologists agree on the premise of milder colder areas = hostile equatorial areas. Rather: More warmth and more CO2 = wetter and greener overall. Today's deserts will bloom and greenify (yeah... I listened to Wicked last week) according to them. Today's tree lines will move upward, making more land hospitable. Yes, some of today's land will flood - and we should plan for it. We'll all drink to the memory of @AndresAndres as he and his countrymen sinks into the sea. I'll make some shit up like Atlantis to honour his memory.
I think we should do what we can – but is a complete braking from the climate trend even possible? Even if we stopped burning fuel or other shit completely, would the ice-caps still melt? Need teaches the naked widow to spin – Maybe we are too comfortable in our temperate houses and made up societies. Nation states and sociology hinder our unchecked migration, but people still move away from hostile environments and has done so since the dawn of man. If it really gets bad, do you think people will stay to die?
There are things we can do though that have other beneficial effects too. The west should increase fuel efficiency and cut down on fuel usage, partly to reduce carbon emission, partly to reduce our dependence on the toxic countries where the oil and gas is.
10-11-2018, 19:04
Beskar
Re: Climate Change Thread
It isn't just humans, the but the plants and animals that will be wiped out. Predictions include coral reefs dying out, severely reducing aquatic life habitation. There are more severe weather patterns with hurricanes and tornados. Last winter, the Gulf Stream failed temporarily as it was overpowered by the Eastern Siberian weather, plunging snow across Europe. Areas will be flooded and others experiencing severe droughts leading to desertification.
Humans as a species won't be wiped out, but a couple of degrees has a massive impact across the planet.
10-11-2018, 21:01
Pannonian
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It isn't just humans, the but the plants and animals that will be wiped out. Predictions include coral reefs dying out, severely reducing aquatic life habitation. There are more severe weather patterns with hurricanes and tornados. Last winter, the Gulf Stream failed temporarily as it was overpowered by the Eastern Siberian weather, plunging snow across Europe. Areas will be flooded and others experiencing severe droughts leading to desertification.
Humans as a species won't be wiped out, but a couple of degrees has a massive impact across the planet.
With the fragmenting of natural habitats, humans may be the only large land animal that can be migratory. Well, they and their dependents. All others will go extinct as soon as their current habitat becomes unviable.
10-11-2018, 21:31
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Hundreds of millions of climate refugees spells the end of civilization in its current form.
The primary debate is over 'breakthrough by intensification' or 'mitigation by retrenchment', but one way or another adapting means totally changing our economies and lifestyles.
10-15-2018, 11:27
Sigurd
Re: Climate Change Thread
Thread temperature need to rise...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
... the plants and animals that will be wiped out. Predictions include coral reefs dying out, severely reducing aquatic life habitation... a couple of degrees has a massive impact across the planet.
I believe this might be propaganda. We live in the Cenozoic Era, the mammal era. There has only been one ice-age in this era and we are still living in it. The current ice-age accounts for 3,8% time-wise (about 2,5 mill years out of 66 mill) The CO2 levels and temperatures has been much higher in about 90% of this time-period. When our globe experienced the so named equable and homogeneous climate which stretched jungles all across our globe from pole to pole the CO2 levels were from 20 times to double of what they are today and temperatures 20 to 3 degrees (Celsius) higher (though homogeneous throughout the planet = hotter in the arctic and more similar in the tropics to today’s levels).
I am not sure the science on “coral death” or coral resilience is complete. Coral reefs who “died” in 2003 because of warmer water are springing back to life today and the scientist are not sure why, because the water is even warmer compared to 2003 levels. Former conclusions regarding warming and coral death is about to undergo revisions.
10-15-2018, 15:04
Strike For The South
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Let nature do it's work, people die
Pithy remarks like these always have an underlying assumption that the person making them will make it through.
10-16-2018, 08:39
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Pithy remarks like these always have an underlying assumption that the person making them will make it through.
Whatever is going to get me, it won't be CO2. What makes you think I am alive in the first place, I already died because of acid rain
10-16-2018, 10:34
Gilrandir
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Whatever is going to get me, it won't be CO2. What makes you think I am alive in the first place, I already died because of acid rain
Like when you left the Org? So now we are talking to a zombie?
10-16-2018, 11:29
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Like when you left the Org? So now we are talking to a zombie?
Who knows, at least I am more real than Al Gore's and IPCC climate hoax, and I am free I don'r cost anything
10-16-2018, 11:40
Husar
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Whatever is going to get me, it won't be CO2. What makes you think I am alive in the first place, I already died because of acid rain
Yeah, or like how you died because of all the dangerous "rapefugees", lolol.
10-16-2018, 17:21
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yeah, or like how you died because of all the dangerous "rapefugees", lolol.
Just haunting the place don't mind me, the spectacular rise of female abuse is Merkel's problem, well not her's she is ugly
10-18-2018, 01:59
Tuuvi
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Whatever is going to get me, it won't be CO2. What makes you think I am alive in the first place, I already died because of acid rain
Could it be that environmental regulations helped prevent further damage from acid rain? No, that couldn't be it. There's no way pumping industrial chemicals into the atmosphere could have acidified the rain. The environmentalists must have lied. That's the only logical explanation.
10-18-2018, 07:01
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
It never existed
10-18-2018, 08:59
Sigurd
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
Could it be that environmental regulations helped prevent further damage from acid rain? No, that couldn't be it. There's no way pumping industrial chemicals into the atmosphere could have acidified the rain. The environmentalists must have lied. That's the only logical explanation.
Acidic rain is necessary to produce calcium-rich clay by erosion which runs into the ocean via rivers and makes e.g. the important building blocks for shell-fish, housing for snails and least but not last coral. The calcium depended creatures eventually die and make limestone which is in fact trapped CO2 in the ocean. The cliffs of Dover is a great example of this - once an ocean bed. Environmental regulation will never stop acidic rain, if it did - it would destroy important ecological circuits.
10-18-2018, 13:45
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Acidic rain is necessary to produce calcium-rich clay by erosion which runs into the ocean via rivers and makes e.g. the important building blocks for shell-fish, housing for snails and least but not last coral. The calcium depended creatures eventually die and make limestone which is in fact trapped CO2 in the ocean. The cliffs of Dover is a great example of this - once an ocean bed. Environmental regulation will never stop acidic rain, if it did - it would destroy important ecological circuits.
Are you deliberately equivocating? Normal rain is lightly acidic at pH 5.5 or 6 (like milk or coffee) due to condensation around the cloud nucleus and reaction with atmospheric carbon dioxide.
More acidic rain than that will disrupt the cycle you mention and contribute to aquatic osteoporosis.
10-18-2018, 23:12
Beskar
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Whatever is going to get me, it won't be CO2. What makes you think I am alive in the first place, I already died because of acid rain
In 1965, coal was replaced by gas as the main fuel source and stricter standards for sulfur which caused significant improvements. There was a serious threat to your Hemony Carillon Bells as it was corroding the Bronze they were made out of, causing them to thin and change the pitch.
Now don't be silly because we solved the issue of acid rain, you now think that it didn't exist as a serious threat.
10-19-2018, 08:08
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
In 1965, coal was replaced by gas as the main fuel source and stricter standards for sulfur which caused significant improvements. There was a serious threat to your Hemony Carillon Bells as it was corroding the Bronze they were made out of, causing them to thin and change the pitch.
Now don't be silly because we solved the issue of acid rain, you now think that it didn't exist as a serious threat.
I didn't exist in 1965, of course there was horrible pollution since the dawn of the industrial revolution and it got better, the famous letter written with the letter written with the water of the Thames was a brilliant statement. Pollution really needs to be adressed, but that's pragmatism and shouldn't be religious activism/business model. $$$$
10-23-2018, 13:25
Sigurd
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Are you deliberately equivocating? Normal rain is lightly acidic at pH 5.5 or 6 (like milk or coffee) due to condensation around the cloud nucleus and reaction with atmospheric carbon dioxide.
More acidic rain than that will disrupt the cycle you mention and contribute to aquatic osteoporosis.
Well done Erasmus. Just trying to bring the focus back on carbon emission and global warming.
10-23-2018, 13:39
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Well done Erasmus. Just trying to bring the focus back on carbon emission and global warming.
We'll all drink to the memory of @Andres as he and his countrymen sinks into the sea. I'll make some shit up like Atlantis to honour his memory.
According to the latest predictions, only half of my country will be flooded. My house will be situated at the beach, with sea view. Given the fact that the climate will be way better, we're talking about a house on the beach, with sea view, a fantastic climate an in the vicinity of the capital of Europe. The value of our home will skyrocket. So excuse me while I jump back into my car to go speeding on the highway in order to speed up the process of climate change.
10-25-2018, 06:24
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Belgium is above sea-level. Al Gore could be in trouble though if the seas rise (they won't, a very simple calculation destroys the whole idea) as he build his huge, very energy-consuming, house at the beach, one meter above sea level. The prophet doesn't even believe in it himself
10-25-2018, 11:48
Husar
Re: Climate Change Thread
I just hope we close the border when the filthy refugees from the land down under come for their free handouts.
10-26-2018, 06:55
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Which regugees, there are no regugees from safe countries, are migrants. Closing borders, excellent idea, a big fat fence. Real refugees should be helped of course but leave when things got better
There are just too many people, we can't go on living like this. All from a safe country. I know a family that has been living in a trailer 8 years, 2 children no toilet. Social housing is called getting a house for low incommes (husband works, wife has problems), the waiting list for native Dutch can be 10 years, for migrants it's 3 months max, so every new migrant gets a house that was meant for someone else. Government robs almost all your money, being out of it isn't a choice, but oh oh oh those populists who bring it up, how dare they can we please stay in our comfortable idyllic
Fuck them, hard deep and unsafe
10-26-2018, 13:00
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Which regugees, there are no regugees from safe countries, are migrants. Closing borders, excellent idea, a big fat fence. Real refugees should be helped of course but leave when things got better
There are just too many people, we can't go on living like this. All from a safe country. I know a family that has been living in a trailer 8 years, 2 children no toilet. Social housing is called getting a house for low incommes (husband works, wife has problems), the waiting list for native Dutch can be 10 years, for migrants it's 3 months max, so every new migrant gets a house that was meant for someone else. Government robs almost all your money, being out of it isn't a choice, but oh oh oh those populists who bring it up, how dare they can we please stay in our comfortable idyllic
Fuck them, hard deep and unsafe
Stop getting your news from "populist" media. They're not populist, just racist.
10-26-2018, 15:38
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Stop getting your news from "populist" media. They're not populist, just racist.
No, quite the contrary, racism will get you a permaban at once there. It's no newssite it is a blog and you get away with more.
What I said about immigrants getting priority is true, feel free to find someone saying otherwise. They also get money to furnice the place, washing machines, everything. We don't, we have to wait 10 years sometimes. It is not an issue for me myself becauce I bought my place, but you can be shafted pretty badly even if you have a job, immigrants get priority, wait a little longer kthxbye
We (well not me) did not build a wellfare system for this. I am not as harsh as you think I have sheltered many just because I have a spare room. I wonder how many gutmensch did that
There's also a change in housing policy in the Netherlands, where social housing is replaced with "the market" fixing everything, if I understand that correctly.
It's similar here in Germany, social housing projects have been cancelled, rents go up and up and "experts" keep saying that the market will fix the problem we never had before as soon as we allow rents to go up into regions where half the population cannot afford a roof over its head anymore. :rolleyes:
It's nothing but neoliberal problem solving, but of course it's the fault of all the immigrants and leftists because neoliberalism was neutralized by chemtrails long ago.
10-26-2018, 17:19
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Low budget people do not have acces to the market, they will just have to wait because immigrants get priority. Guilt of leftists, yeah, absolutily. Neoliberation exists in the higher echelons, making it nigh impossible to buy a house. I got mine in time but it is really hard now to do, prices are insane. Simply put, working and middle class are abandoned in favour of immigration
10-26-2018, 17:35
Husar
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Low budget people do not have acces to the market, they will just have to wait because immigrants get priority.
Well, market logic would say that if you cannot exist on the market, you're obviously not worth existing.
That has nothing to do with leftism, it's just that the market always knows best.
10-26-2018, 19:11
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
No, quite the contrary, racism will get you a permaban at once there. It's no newssite it is a blog and you get away with more.
What I said about immigrants getting priority is true, feel free to find someone saying otherwise. They also get money to furnice the place, washing machines, everything. We don't, we have to wait 10 years sometimes. It is not an issue for me myself becauce I bought my place, but you can be shafted pretty badly even if you have a job, immigrants get priority, wait a little longer kthxbye
We (well not me) did not build a wellfare system for this. I am not as harsh as you think I have sheltered many just because I have a spare room. I wonder how many gutmensch did that
Uh-huh. Do you have any other blogs you like?
Fragony, let's assume it's true that immigrants are overwhelmingly prioritized in social programs (and I don't buy that they are). You are of the opinion that the government is failing to discharge its duties on behalf of the population. So, between the obvious responses you could have -
1. The government should be compelled to fulfill its responsibilities.
2. :daisy: immigrants.
why are you so attracted to the latter?
10-26-2018, 20:28
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
I help immigrants, they can live in my house, they can use my bathroom, use my kitchen, I don't mind, I got an extra room so why deny them that. That isn't something these politically correct mongrols do. Most tragic was a Syrian gay christian who was absolutily terrified to live in the asssylum-centre because he kept finding knives in his bed, so he could stay here np. Nice guy, lost contact.
I don't hate them, the brother of the captain of the Marrocan-team is a buddy of mine(hooaguy met him here I don't know if he knows, the guy runned a lot of nightclubs my natural habitate), I know everybody here, I dispise the multicultural left thatś all
What I say is true by the way, if you do not believe me you are free to ask someone else, 3 months max for immigrants, sometimes 10 years for Dutch natives. So unfair
10-27-2018, 00:04
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I help immigrants, they can live in my house, they can use my bathroom, use my kitchen, I don't mind, I got an extra room so why deny them that. That isn't something these politically correct mongrols do. Most tragic was a Syrian gay christian who was absolutily terrified to live in the asssylum-centre because he kept finding knives in his bed, so he could stay here np. Nice guy, lost contact.
I don't hate them, the brother of the captain of the Marrocan-team is a buddy of mine(hooaguy met him here I don't know if he knows, the guy runned a lot of nightclubs my natural habitate), I know everybody here, I dispise the multicultural left thatś all
What I say is true by the way, if you do not believe me you are free to ask someone else, 3 months max for immigrants, sometimes 10 years for Dutch natives. So unfair
How do you know the politically correct mongrels aren't also sheltering refugees? Maybe if you got together you could organize and shelter even more.
Anyway, you believe that natives face long waiting times for social programs, while non-European immigrants are made to wait comparatively short times. Is the unfair part that natives face long waiting times, or is the unfair part that immigrants face short times? If the former, then the solution would involve reducing wait times for natives. If the latter, the solution to the latter would be to increase waiting times for non-natives, or otherwise restrict them; i.e. everyone suffers.
10-27-2018, 00:34
Pannonian
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I help immigrants, they can live in my house, they can use my bathroom, use my kitchen, I don't mind, I got an extra room so why deny them that. That isn't something these politically correct mongrols do. Most tragic was a Syrian gay christian who was absolutily terrified to live in the asssylum-centre because he kept finding knives in his bed, so he could stay here np. Nice guy, lost contact.
I don't hate them, the brother of the captain of the Marrocan-team is a buddy of mine(hooaguy met him here I don't know if he knows, the guy runned a lot of nightclubs my natural habitate), I know everybody here, I dispise the multicultural left thatś all
What I say is true by the way, if you do not believe me you are free to ask someone else, 3 months max for immigrants, sometimes 10 years for Dutch natives. So unfair
What evidence do you have supporting this general assertion of yours? We've already seen from your Brexit assertions that you're prone to spouting a load of bullcrap, none of which is substantiated, on the trust that your unproven assertions are right and the overwhelming body of evidence is wrong.
10-27-2018, 06:58
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
You can ask other Dutch people. Not just housing, also free healthcare, it is policy. The latter I don't really mind as they have hardly any acces to the market and healthcare is a bargain here anyway, but the priority with housing I do mind, it is so unfair
I am glad I could just buy a house and pay it, none of this nonsense affects me, but it seriously affects some, another year heythx, sorry it has gone to someone else, maybe next year, and the next the next the next
10-27-2018, 12:51
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
You can ask other Dutch people. Not just housing, also free healthcare, it is policy. The latter I don't really mind as they have hardly any acces to the market and healthcare is a bargain here anyway, but the priority with housing I do mind, it is so unfair
I am glad I could just buy a house and pay it, none of this nonsense affects me, but it seriously affects some, another year heythx, sorry it has gone to someone else, maybe next year, and the next the next the next
In your opinion what steps should the government take to remedy the unfairness?
Closing the borders obviously, no more immigrants, there are already simplty too many we cannor cope with it. What I do myself is what I choose to do, I just will not not help someone when I can but it shouldn't be policy
Pim Forruin (RIP) had the great idea to have a general pardon for everyone, but seal the place after it
10-27-2018, 23:17
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Closing the borders obviously, no more immigrants, there are already simplty too many we cannor cope with it. What I do myself is what I choose to do, I just will not not help someone when I can but it shouldn't be policy
Pim Forruin (RIP) had the great idea to have a general pardon for everyone, but seal the place after it
What happens if, after you leave the EU, close your borders, and mobilize your security forces to fortify the country, the condition of the poorer Dutch-folk has not improved and the wait times are just as long? What do you propose then?
10-28-2018, 04:56
Gilrandir
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What happens if, after you leave the EU, close your borders, and mobilize your security forces to fortify the country, the condition of the poorer Dutch-folk has not improved and the wait times are just as long? What do you propose then?
Change the time calculation. When one "old" day equals one "new" hour, the time of waiting will be significantly lower.
10-28-2018, 08:25
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Nothing, just not makinng it worse is all that can be done. It is a nice country and there really are not any serious problems but some issues should be adressed, and shouldn't be a problem to talk about, only talking. Leaving the EU, absolutily but that is not realistic with the current club they all want to go there it's a bit of a kartel in politics here, an open mind must also be sustainable and they make that really hard, I do not want to be turned into a hateful person but eventually I will become one. Mayve I am one already I fucking hate the EU and the multicultural left I am not calling an ambulance for them if they are bleeding out
(@Monty)
10-28-2018, 21:00
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Nothing, just not makinng it worse is all that can be done. It is a nice country and there really are not any serious problems but some issues should be adressed, and shouldn't be a problem to talk about, only talking. Leaving the EU, absolutily but that is not realistic with the current club they all want to go there it's a bit of a kartel in politics here, an open mind must also be sustainable and they make that really hard, I do not want to be turned into a hateful person but eventually I will become one. Mayve I am one already I fucking hate the EU and the multicultural left I am not calling an ambulance for them if they are bleeding out
(@Monty)
You seem to have identified foreigners as the chief problem your country experiences, and while you may be right it's possible you have misidentified the 'who' and 'what'. Rather than foreigners inside Dutchland, you should consider the effect of billions of foreigners outside Dutchland on your politics and the social welfare programs' implementation. If the existence of foreigners around the world is an operating environment for increasingly-fragmented sovereignty alongside integrated market chains under centralized direction, then you have the wrong scapegoat in immigrants to your country, and the symptoms you perceive can only be addressed by a muscular international consensus and agenda rather than aspirational paranoid reclusion.
Just a thought.
10-28-2018, 22:36
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
I do not blame them, I blame the multiculrral left. I have nothing against immigrants
It's really disconcerting that anti-environmentalists like Trump and Bolsonaro are coming to power right at the moment when we really need to start taking action to curb climate change.
It's really disconcerting that anti-environmentalists like Trump and Bolsonaro are coming to power right at the moment when we really need to start taking action to curb climate change.
Ha did you get to Current Affairs from one of my links here, or independently?
It's really disconcerting that anti-environmentalists like Trump and Bolsonaro are coming to power right at the moment when we really need to start taking action to curb climate change.
Climate isn't going to listen, it's natural, as sharp as a Rolex look at timelines you will see this happening over and over again. What we can do is polute less
11-10-2018, 20:13
Tuuvi
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Ha did you get to Current Affairs from one of my links here, or independently?
Independently, I'm subscribed to a lot of lefty subs on Reddit so that's how I first heard of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Climate isn't going to listen, it's natural, as sharp as a Rolex look at timelines you will see this happening over and over again. What we can do is polute less
Sure climate change is natural and the climate fluctuates throughout time, but that doesn't mean it happens randomly for no reason. The first oxygen-producing microorganisms changed the composition of the atmosphere and caused Earth's first ice age, why wouldn't human activity cause climate change as well?
11-11-2018, 08:27
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
It certainly does not happen randomly, our planet sometimes gets pulled out of orbit, nobody will deny that. That doesn't mean that we should become more cleaner and do our best to stress our ieviroment less, but manmade climate-change is a farce, a very lucrative one. WE should just pay more attention, we are in no need for more religions, we should just pollute less
A leftie himself, he had the nerve to let sceptic scientists speak as well. The reactions he recieved inspired him to make his next docu 'paradogma'. He had to endure outright hostility from leftist NGO's
(some knowledge of languages required)
11-20-2018, 16:05
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It certainly does not happen randomly, our planet sometimes gets pulled out of orbit, nobody will deny that. That doesn't mean that we should become more cleaner and do our best to stress our ieviroment less, but manmade climate-change is a farce, a very lucrative one. WE should just pay more attention, we are in no need for more religions, we should just pollute less
You would do Rush Limbaugh proud with this stance.
I have been a skeptic regarding the anthropomorphic character of this current global warming period. I have yet to see good modeling for how we humans can be linked causally to this (may exist, but I cannot get a proper research piece to read for all of the babble that kills any google search on the subject -- if one of you lot has a link to a real research report and not someone's summary or babbling about consensus I would appreciate it. I want to read the data and manipulation thereof myself), but the correlation between human use of fossil fuels, population growth, and global temperature increases since 1850 is clear. Correlation is not causation, but that IS where start the research to see if there is a causal link, you do not just dismiss it.
Moreover, for all the socialist inclinations of many of the climate change crowd, their theme is actually a positive one. If global warming is anthropomorphic, then it suggests that we CAN do something to mitigate or reverse it. If it is not, then lots of land in the Pacific basin will be lost, massive public works projects will be required for our coastal population centers, and the nature of agriculture (food being the ultimate resource) will shift worldwide -- and there will be many who see violence as their means of adjusting to the changes. The geopolitical threats from global warming are of concern regardless of its cause. So, however skeptical you are of their agendas, remember that the climate change folks are actually being pretty positive here -- they think that something CAN be done to make things better.
11-20-2018, 18:51
Pannonian
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You would do Rush Limbaugh proud with this stance.
I have been a skeptic regarding the anthropomorphic character of this current global warming period. I have yet to see good modeling for how we humans can be linked causally to this (may exist, but I cannot get a proper research piece to read for all of the babble that kills any google search on the subject -- if one of you lot has a link to a real research report and not someone's summary or babbling about consensus I would appreciate it. I want to read the data and manipulation thereof myself), but the correlation between human use of fossil fuels, population growth, and global temperature increases since 1850 is clear. Correlation is not causation, but that IS where start the research to see if there is a causal link, you do not just dismiss it.
Moreover, for all the socialist inclinations of many of the climate change crowd, their theme is actually a positive one. If global warming is anthropomorphic, then it suggests that we CAN do something to mitigate or reverse it. If it is not, then lots of land in the Pacific basin will be lost, massive public works projects will be required for our coastal population centers, and the nature of agriculture (food being the ultimate resource) will shift worldwide -- and there will be many who see violence as their means of adjusting to the changes. The geopolitical threats from global warming are of concern regardless of its cause. So, however skeptical you are of their agendas, remember that the climate change folks are actually being pretty positive here -- they think that something CAN be done to make things better.
I'd have thought the right wing prepping community would be pretty much in favour of all the energy and resource efficient measures the Greens advocate, whether or not they want to accept the climate change arguments. And any right minded person would support reducing our reliance on the oil rich countries. Approached from a number of perspectives, green measures are still sensible; do it now, find your preferred argument for it later.
11-20-2018, 21:59
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I'd have thought the right wing prepping community would be pretty much in favour of all the energy and resource efficient measures the Greens advocate, whether or not they want to accept the climate change arguments. And any right minded person would support reducing our reliance on the oil rich countries. Approached from a number of perspectives, green measures are still sensible; do it now, find your preferred argument for it later.
Reducing the relevance of the Middle East sounds fine with me. Think investments in nuclear and geo-thermal power need to be increased. Not a prepper myself, though I have known a couple who thought gold was a waste of time and were stocking .228 ammo and unhybridized seeds. Would love to see solar enhanced, but the efficiency score at the bottom of this atmosphere is not great.
11-20-2018, 22:57
Pannonian
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Reducing the relevance of the Middle East sounds fine with me. Think investments in nuclear and geo-thermal power need to be increased. Not a prepper myself, though I have known a couple who thought gold was a waste of time and were stocking .228 ammo and unhybridized seeds. Would love to see solar enhanced, but the efficiency score at the bottom of this atmosphere is not great.
Reducing food miles, increasing insulation and other energy-efficient environment changers, increasing recycling. All of that would reduce energy use, and should be the kind of stuff that right wing self reliant types should be promoting. Does it matter whether you do it because you want to avert climate change, or for other reasons? We should do it, think of better ways to do it further, and not bother ourselves with micro-arguments over why we're doing it. There are just so many good reasons for doing so.
11-21-2018, 03:32
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You would do Rush Limbaugh proud with this stance.
I have been a skeptic regarding the anthropomorphic character of this current global warming period. I have yet to see good modeling for how we humans can be linked causally to this (may exist, but I cannot get a proper research piece to read for all of the babble that kills any google search on the subject -- if one of you lot has a link to a real research report and not someone's summary or babbling about consensus I would appreciate it. I want to read the data and manipulation thereof myself), but the correlation between human use of fossil fuels, population growth, and global temperature increases since 1850 is clear. Correlation is not causation, but that IS where start the research to see if there is a causal link, you do not just dismiss it.
Moreover, for all the socialist inclinations of many of the climate change crowd, their theme is actually a positive one. If global warming is anthropomorphic, then it suggests that we CAN do something to mitigate or reverse it. If it is not, then lots of land in the Pacific basin will be lost, massive public works projects will be required for our coastal population centers, and the nature of agriculture (food being the ultimate resource) will shift worldwide -- and there will be many who see violence as their means of adjusting to the changes. The geopolitical threats from global warming are of concern regardless of its cause. So, however skeptical you are of their agendas, remember that the climate change folks are actually being pretty positive here -- they think that something CAN be done to make things better.
The hardcore skeptics are sure that scientists have a corrupt agenda but can't seem to make a connection between the financial incentives of the modern economy and trillion-dollar industries like agribusiness and petrochemicals. Because scientists = multicultural globalist left, you see, and who do they even think they are, claiming to know things? Such arrogance to believe humans could know things I don't know.
Chapter 4, "Determining Humanity's Influence", from the pamphlet What We Know about Climate Change (Kerry Emanuel, 2018):
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
How do we tell the difference between natural climate variations—
both free and forced—and those that are caused by our
own activities?
One way to tell the difference is to make use of the fact that
the increase in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols dates back
only to the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century:
before that, the human influence is probably small. If we can
estimate how climate changed before this time, we will have
some idea of how the system varies naturally. Unfortunately,
detailed measurements of climate did not themselves begin in
earnest until the nineteenth century, but there are “proxies”
for certain climate variables such as temperature. These proxies
include the width and density of tree rings, the chemical composition
of ocean and lake plankton, and the abundance and
type of pollen.
Plotting the global mean temperature derived from actual
measurements and from proxies going back a thousand years
or more reveals that the recent upturn in global temperature is
truly unprecedented: the graph of temperature with time shows
a characteristic hockey-stick shape, with the business end of the
stick representing the upswing of the last 50 years or so. The
proxies are imperfect, however, and have large margins of error,
so any hockey-stick trends of the past may be masked, but the
recent upturn in global temperature still stands above even a
liberal estimate of such errors.
Another way to tell the difference is to simulate the climate of
the last hundred years or so using computer models. Computer
modeling of global climate is perhaps the most complex endeavor
ever undertaken by humankind. A typical climate model consists
of millions of lines of computer instructions designed to
simulate an enormous range of physical phenomena, including
the flow of the atmosphere and oceans; condensation and precipitation
of water inside clouds; the transport of heat, water,
and atmospheric constituents by turbulent convection currents;
the transfer of solar and terrestrial radiation through the atmosphere,
including its partial absorption and reflection by the
surface, clouds, and the atmosphere itself; and vast numbers of
other processes. There are by now a few dozen such models, but
they are not entirely independent of one another, often sharing
common pieces of computer code and common ancestors.
Although the equations representing the physical and chemical
processes in the climate system are well known, they cannot
be solved exactly. It is computationally impossible to keep track
of every molecule of air and ocean, so to make the task viable,
the two fluids must be divided up into manageable chunks. The
smaller and more numerous these chunks, the more accurate
the result, but with today’s computers the smallest we can make
these chunks in the atmosphere is around 50 miles in the horizontal
and a few hundred yards in the vertical. We model the
ocean using somewhat smaller chunks. The problem here is
that many important processes happen at much smaller scales.
For example, cumulus clouds in the atmosphere are critical for
transferring heat and water upward and downward, but they are
typically only a few miles across and so cannot be simulated by
the climate models. Instead, their effects must be represented
in terms of quantities such as wind speed, humidity, and air
temperature that are averaged over the whole computational
chunk in question. The representation of these important but
unresolved processes is an art form known by the awkward term
parameterization, and it involves numbers, or parameters, that
must be tuned to get the parameterizations to work in an optimal
way. Because of the need for such artifices, a typical climate
model has many tunable parameters that one might think of as
knobs on a large, highly complicated machine. This is one of
many reasons that such models provide only approximations
to reality. Changing the values of the parameters or the way the
various processes are parameterized can change not only the
climate simulated by the model, but also the sensitivity of the
model’s climate to, say, greenhouse gas increases.
How, then, can we go about tuning the parameters of a climate
model so that it serves as a reasonable facsimile of reality?
Here important lessons can be learned from our experience
with those close cousins of climate models, weather-prediction
models. These are almost as complicated and must also parameterize
key physical processes, but because the atmosphere is
measured in many places and quite frequently, we can test the
model against reality several times per day and keep adjusting its
parameters (that is, tuning it) until it performs as well as it can.
In the process we come to understand the inherent accuracy of
the model. But in the case of climate models, there are precious
few tests. One obvious test is whether the model can replicate
the current climate, including key aspects of its variability, such
as weather systems and El Niño. It must also be able to simulate
the seasons in a reasonable way: summers must not be too hot
or winters too cold, for example.
Beyond a few simple checks such as these, however, there
are not many ways to assess the models, and so projections of
future climates must be regarded as uncertain. The amount of
uncertainty in such projections can be estimated to some extent
by comparing forecasts made by many different models, given
their different parameterizations (and, very likely, different sets
of coding errors). We operate under the expectation that the
real climate will fall among the projections made with the various
models—that the truth, in other words, will lie somewhere
between the higher and lower estimates generated by the models.
It is not inconceivable, though, that the actual solution will
fall outside these limits.
While it is easy to stand on the sidelines and take shots at
these models, they represent science’s best effort to project the
earth’s climate over the next century or so. At the same time, the
large range of possible outcomes is an objective quantification of
the uncertainty that remains in this enterprise. Still, those who
proclaim that the models are wrong or useless usually are taking
advantage of science’s imperfections to promote their own
prejudices. Uncertainty is an intrinsic feature of prediction, and
it works in both directions.
Figure 2 shows the results of two sets of computer simulations
of the global average surface temperature during the
twentieth century, using a particular climate model. In the first
set, denoted by the dotted line and lighter shade of gray, only
natural, time-varying forcings are applied. These consist of variable
solar output and “dimming” owing to aerosols produced
by known volcanic eruptions. The second set (dashed line and
darker shade of gray) incorporates human influence on sulfate
aerosols and greenhouse gases. Each set of simulations is run
four times beginning with slightly different initial states, and the
range of outcomes produced is denoted by the shading in the
figure. This range reflects the random fluctuations of the climate
produced by this model, while the bold curves show the average
of the four ensemble members. The observed global average surface
temperature is depicted by the black curve. The two sets of
simulations diverge during the 1970s and have no overlap at all
today. The observed global temperature also starts to fall outside
the envelope of the all-natural simulations in the 1970s.
This exercise has been repeated using many different climate
models, with the same qualitative result: one cannot accurately
simulate the evolution of the climate over the last 30 years
without accounting for the human input of sulfate aerosols and
greenhouse gases. This is one (but by no means the only) important
reason that almost all climate scientists today believe that
man’s influence on climate has emerged from the background
noise of natural variability. But the main reason remains the
elementary physics that Arrhenius used to predict the global
response to increasing greenhouse gases, long before the computer
age.
TLDR see the discrepancy between observations and proxies of the pre-industrial climate, what we might predict for the modern climate on the basis of those trends, and the discrepancy between that retroactive extrapolation and actual modern observed climate trends.
Quote:
[...]one cannot accurately
simulate the evolution of the climate over the last 30 years
without accounting for the human input of sulfate aerosols and
greenhouse gases. This is one (but by no means the only) important
reason that almost all climate scientists today believe that
man’s influence on climate has emerged from the background
noise of natural variability. But the main reason remains the
elementary physics that Arrhenius used to predict the global
response to increasing greenhouse gases, long before the computer
age.
Also,
Quote:
Uncertainty is an intrinsic feature of prediction, and
it works in both directions.
If climate change is anthropogenic, we need to rewrite civilization. If it's not anthropogenic, we need to rewrite civilization. Starting yesterday. Some have raised the necessity of a mobilization on the scale of the United States in WW2. I think this analogy falls short. A better one would be to the mobilization of the Soviet Union: out of complacency and sunk costs it will begin too late to prevent the deaths of millions, it will involve extensive international cooperation, it will be highly traumatic, and we will suffer under totalitarianism in the name of either nationalism or socialism.
Pannonian, all those policies are nice in their own right but they are infinitesimal in the face of industrially-driven emissions in the case of anthropogenic warming - see the estimate that 70% of all indsutrial emissions since 1988 have been attributable to the activities of just 100 corporations, and over 50% to just 25*. Industries like mining, agribusiness, aeroplane, shipping, and especially energy, and especially petrochemicals, will then follow the logic of capitalism and manufacture controversy (even as internal communications reveal the absence of controversy) surrounding any phenomenon whose logical consequences require the curtailing of or direct public control over industrial activities. Because these would interfere with cash flow to shareholders and stakeholders. Stakeholders here referring to the rich and powerful, because our economic system necessarily concentrates negative externalities among the least economically efficient or valuable actors. Crime always pays.
More bluntly, an amoral organization MUST commit crimes, both statutory and against humanity.
*To be fair, many of these are state or hybrid entities.
11-21-2018, 08:02
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
doublepost scuzy
11-21-2018, 08:02
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You would do Rush Limbaugh proud with this stance.
I have been a skeptic regarding the anthropomorphic character of this current global warming period. I have yet to see good modeling for how we humans can be linked causally to this (may exist, but I cannot get a proper research piece to read for all of the babble that kills any google search on the subject -- if one of you lot has a link to a real research report and not someone's summary or babbling about consensus I would appreciate it. I want to read the data and manipulation thereof myself), but the correlation between human use of fossil fuels, population growth, and global temperature increases since 1850 is clear. Correlation is not causation, but that IS where start the research to see if there is a causal link, you do not just dismiss it.
Moreover, for all the socialist inclinations of many of the climate change crowd, their theme is actually a positive one. If global warming is anthropomorphic, then it suggests that we CAN do something to mitigate or reverse it. If it is not, then lots of land in the Pacific basin will be lost, massive public works projects will be required for our coastal population centers, and the nature of agriculture (food being the ultimate resource) will shift worldwide -- and there will be many who see violence as their means of adjusting to the changes. The geopolitical threats from global warming are of concern regardless of its cause. So, however skeptical you are of their agendas, remember that the climate change folks are actually being pretty positive here -- they think that something CAN be done to make things better.
I'd have thought the right wing prepping community would be pretty much in favour of all the energy and resource efficient measures the Greens advocate, whether or not they want to accept the climate change arguments. And any right minded person would support reducing our reliance on the oil rich countries. Approached from a number of perspectives, green measures are still sensible; do it now, find your preferred argument for it later.
Has nothing to do with left or right, everybody likes a clean enviroment. In the west at least we have gotten very far, remember ths letter that was written with the water from the Thames, it is displayed at Londonś national museum it's insane.
This is what is good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQSwQLDIK8 It is fee, healthy and fast. Cycling an hour to get somewhere is normal for me. What if all these people used a car, everything would be jammed and everybody would be cursing. I know it is not realistic that everybody just take a bike to get around but it would help. This is very much normal here
Look at the end of the graph.
The carbon dioxide explodes and the temperature doesn't go down as it did before, it heavily fluctuates at the highest level.
The impact is pretty obvious.
11-22-2018, 00:45
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Look at the end of the graph.
The carbon dioxide explodes and the temperature doesn't go down as it did before, it heavily fluctuates at the highest level.
The impact is pretty obvious.
Indeed, the correlation is obvious. What is interesting to me is that the CO2 does not appear to be dragging the temperature up fast enough to match the correspondence noted in the rest of the chart.
11-22-2018, 10:48
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Look at the end of the graph.
The carbon dioxide explodes and the temperature doesn't go down as it did before, it heavily fluctuates at the highest level.
The impact is pretty obvious.
It is obviously not unless we had several industrial ages. Ever heard of the medieval warmth, it was warmer then than it is now, Greenland is called greenland for a reason. It is an ice-age that is comming and there is nothing we can do to stop it
11-24-2018, 00:08
Husar
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Indeed, the correlation is obvious. What is interesting to me is that the CO2 does not appear to be dragging the temperature up fast enough to match the correspondence noted in the rest of the chart.
There could be mitigating factors. E.g. there was a study that showed chem...ehm...contrails reduce temperatures on the ground quite a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It is an ice-age that is comming and there is nothing we can do to stop it
And/Or...we are already stopping that ice age from happening...
11-24-2018, 02:49
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Can't, just buy a good coat
11-24-2018, 21:56
Husar
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Can't, just buy a good coat
Well, since you probably understand the language of your masters, you might understand this:
I doubt it will convince you, but the evidence is against you anyway.
11-25-2018, 06:56
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
He takes a very short period, nothing can be said about it for either side. He seems pretty neutral though I like that. Look at the graph I posted earlier, you will see the same thing happening over and over again Also posted a good docu, there is some Dutch in it but that shouldn't be hard for you, you Germans somethimes accidently end up here and do fine. Tanks aren't fun though what is wrong with a car
11-25-2018, 13:34
Husar
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
He takes a very short period, nothing can be said about it for either side. He seems pretty neutral though I like that. Look at the graph I posted earlier, you will see the same thing happening over and over again.
The problem with your graph is that one can't really see what exactly is happening today because everything is cramped too close together. Noone doubts these cycles, but they cannot explain why the planet is heating up now when it should be cooling down as you say yourself. In the video he shows how solar activity has been going down since the 1980s and yet the planet became warmer since then. That's not supposed to happen in a natural cycle.
11-25-2018, 13:54
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The problem with your graph is that one can't really see what exactly is happening today because everything is cramped too close together. Noone doubts these cycles, but they cannot explain why the planet is heating up now when it should be cooling down as you say yourself. In the video he shows how solar activity has been going down since the 1980s and yet the planet became warmer since then. That's not supposed to happen in a natural cycle.
But yet it does, it is just that we have nothing to do with it, yet we are still stuck with the idea that we are, something that 'has settled'. It isn't. The only thing that has settled is a global CO2 emmision trade that some people get really rich with, it is basicly blackmail, the whole idea is hurting us, taxes are raised, our limits of transportation are compromised, and that won't stop untill we just call bull. We should just make things cleaner, starting with cleaning up the oceans from that plastic mess (thx China) and not become flaggalants. In western-Europe at least enviroments are realy clean, wildlife is doing great, even wolves and lynches are back (got a lynch here myself, half of it at least)
11-25-2018, 20:22
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
But yet it does, it is just that we have nothing to do with it, yet we are still stuck with the idea that we are, something that 'has settled'. It isn't. The only thing that has settled is a global CO2 emmision trade that some people get really rich with, it is basicly blackmail, the whole idea is hurting us, taxes are raised, our limits of transportation are compromised, and that won't stop untill we just call bull. We should just make things cleaner, starting with cleaning up the oceans from that plastic mess (thx China) and not become flaggalants. In western-Europe at least enviroments are realy clean, wildlife is doing great, even wolves and lynches are back (got a lynch here myself, half of it at least)
Side Note: I am pretty sure you mean Lynx when you wrote lynch. Lynch has VERY negative connotations to us yanks and is not a pretty part of our history.
As to the main theme, you seem to be conflating those who are using Global Warming as a tool to enact their preferred vision of a corporation-less global quasi-communism with scientists warning and calling for significant change in the face of global warming. Certainly there are those on the political left (USA definition) who would use any tool to advance their agenda.
In and of itself, however, their trumpeting of the need to change to cope with global warming does NOT automatically mean that the scientific data regarding Global Warming is somehow invalid. Meet the political argument with a political argument. Scientific data and theories derived therefrom must also be met in kind.
11-25-2018, 20:38
Husar
Re: Climate Change Thread
First of all, emissions trade is a terrible idea and doesn't do anything to further global communism or even help a lot with emission reduction.
Secondly, for someone who seems to be 100% sure about his argument, there is also very little to back that argument up. The graph that was linked doesn't show why temperature is going up when we should be headed into an ice age. That's a contradiction that needs to be explained.
And thirdly, the platic pollution isn't just China's fault, it's our fault. China is just where we outsourced most of our production and the point about our environments being "really clean" is wrong as well. They may be cleaner than in other countries, but "really clean" is something else. And for many years we (Germans and probably others) actually exported our waste to China. China stopped that by the way, but I guess we'll just export our waste elsewhere now instead of dealing with it ourselves.
11-25-2018, 20:39
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Side Note: I am pretty sure you mean Lynx when you wrote lynch. Lynch has VERY negative connotations to us yanks and is not a pretty part of our history.
As to the main theme, you seem to be conflating those who are using Global Warming as a tool to enact their preferred vision of a corporation-less global quasi-communism with scientists warning and calling for significant change in the face of global warming. Certainly there are those on the political left (USA definition) who would use any tool to advance their agenda.
In and of itself, however, their trumpeting of the need to change to cope with global warming does NOT automatically mean that the scientific data regarding Global Warming is somehow invalid. Meet the political argument with a political argument. Scientific data and theories derived therefrom must also be met in kind.
Yes I meant Linx, sorry my bad I didn't mean any harm, I sometimes make mistakes in English, clumsy mistake
As for subject, the science is not settled at all
11-26-2018, 13:40
Montmorency
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
As for subject, the science is not settled at all
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Deceptive usage of the words "science" and "settled"
Neither is it settled that Netherlands is #2 food exporter in world. Maybe they're #5 or #100, who knows? I heard that once they were the top food producer in the galaxy, but that was centuries ago, things changed. Netherlands just needs to reclaim more land from the sea, which everyone thinks will recede or freeze soon. Netherlands is good at that. Once Uk is out of EUSSR they can help Netherlands into agriculture.
11-26-2018, 14:40
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Deceptive usage of the words "science" and "settled"
Neither is it settled that Netherlands is #2 food exporter in world. Maybe they're #5 or #100, who knows? I heard that once they were the top food producer in the galaxy, but that was centuries ago, things changed. Netherlands just needs to reclaim more land from the sea, which everyone thinks will recede or freeze soon. Netherlands is good at that. Once Uk is out of EUSSR they can help Netherlands into agriculture.
You will find it easily, if the EU (read France) didn't hold the Neds back in gen-tech and pulsh-fishery (very enviroment friendly compared to how they do it) we could easily be just be the largest food producers in the world. France protects it't outdated ways and it holds us down, every innovation the Netherlands gets their hands on is used, I realy dislike it that Dutch aren't allowed to because others don't innovate
11-27-2018, 01:15
CrossLOPER
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Look at the end of the graph.
The carbon dioxide explodes and the temperature doesn't go down as it did before, it heavily fluctuates at the highest level.
The impact is pretty obvious.
You are arguing with a drop of sunshine that thought acid rain was a scam, despite living on a continent covered in ancient stone and concrete work damaged by the condition.
11-27-2018, 10:59
Beskar
Re: Climate Change Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
You are arguing with a drop of sunshine that thought acid rain was a scam, despite living on a continent covered in ancient stone and concrete work damaged by the condition.
His own town had a crisis with it's bells which lasted from the 17th century started to thin the metal due to the acidity in the rain, changing their pitch. But this affected Amsterdam a lot more due to higher pollution levels whilst he lives in a more beautiful area so it was milder.
11-27-2018, 11:25
Fragony
Re: Climate Change Thread
I lived in Amsterdam when I was still at university, absolutily nothing. They found out why trees where having trouble, water levels where lowered, acid rain is also a hoax. I do live in a beautifull place though although Amsterdam is also very pleasing but I like Amersfoort much better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdBlYgJFc1w&t=907s
I got 20 restaurants in my street but there are much more, nice peacefull. You should visit it someday
01-14-2019, 17:00
Shaka_Khan
Re: Climate Change Thread
The pastures don't have enough grass. Many Mongolians are leaving the countryside and moving into the city. They burn coal, which is affordable for them.
