Climate Change Thread

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*

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

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?

Let nature do it's work, people die

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

It never existed

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.

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.

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.

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. $$$$

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Well done Erasmus. Just trying to bring the focus back on carbon emission and global warming.

---

:cry:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://youtu.be/EwTZ2xpQwpA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

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.

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

I just hope we close the border when the filthy refugees from the land down under come for their free handouts.

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

edit hi US, meet your new neighbours https://www.geenstijl.nl/5144574/opr...#cid_246354156

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

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

edit hi US, meet your new neighbours https://www.geenstijl.nl/5144574/opr...#cid_246354156

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.

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