Climate Change is not real!

Just on as side note * and I really don't want to start shitfight this time* HHO is not a good solution to climate change.
Remnants of burning of HHO (water vapour) is actually one of the few heat generating gases. It is extreamly dangerous as most of it get's blocked by CO2 preventig it from going to higher portions of atmosphere where it would cooled off and return as rain, instead it functions as bazillions of tiny focusing lenses which concentrate sun rays and in consequence increase temperature. HHO could function as it should (water vapour, post burning, returning 100% as rain) only in situation where humanity reduces *significantly* CO2 % in the atmosphere, until then it can cause more damage than help.

As for planting more trees to prevent climate change, I think it is dumb, first of all i live in an urbanized area where we have around 20% green areas (trees grass etc,) of surface within city, and it doesn't help to lower the temp. On the contrary it get's hotter than in other areas of the country (with less green area% within city). Trees and grass besides photosynthesis breathe too, and while breathing they release shitload of water vapour, which in turn do what i described above. I personally think to solve CO2 problem Humans would need to turn their eyes onto sea algies, because:
1. sea surface is over 3 times the land surface.
2. green area on the land is I assume not more than 50% of it since there are rocky mountains, deserts, concrete etc. stuff that prevents from planting plants of any sort in the ground.
3. sun penetrates the water preety deep so the space for sea algies is quite big.
4. more sea algies = more plancton = more food for sea animals.
5. algies keep up by themselves, no need to do anything whatsoever for them to grow.

The only thing Humans would need to let go of, or watch out for, is polluting water with mined Oil from 1.Oil Rigs as after depleting a shaft, most of the time hole doesn't get covered and releases oil to the sea.
2. Junk-classs tankers that spill oil all over the Oceans and ocasionally their retarded drunken capitan decides to go head on with some rock or an iceberg and sinks that fucking tanker causing oil to spill into the oceans even more.
3. any other man made ecological disaster on the sea that will cause algies to massively die out.
4. reduce oil usage
5. reduce Human population, and heard stock population, to reduce CO2 emmision, methane emision, and oil usage (by simply not incentivizing to have a big family, this way we could reduce population within a generation and do it in humanitarian way the excess just dies out of old age)
6.... and anything else i missed out on

/3cents.

As for ppl who don't see what I mean or TL:DR

I do agree there is a climate problem, however I think not all of the standard/classic solutions to solve it my solve the issue.
 
It seems at this point that we're all fucked. Scientists say in a couple of years what you can call "The point of no return" will be passed and the damage to the eco systems will be irreversible. So there is that. And I just don't see how the necessary changes will happen any time soon.
 
Crni Vuk said:
It seems at this point that we're all fucked. Scientists say in a couple of years what you can call "The point of no return" will be passed and the damage to the eco systems will be irreversible. So there is that. And I just don't see how the necessary changes will happen any time soon.
Click to expand...
 
Why is this thread named "Climate change isn't real." Fucking weak letting the most ridiculous antithesis frame the argument for you. Weak ass liberals. It's why Trump is going to win in 2020 again.

Jesus Christ.
 
gustarballs1983 said:
5. reduce Human population
Click to expand...
Only a matter of time with many big cities all across the globe running out of water. Luckier ones with strong economy and access to oceans are fine, countries such as Israel started sea water desalination and purification years ago. Third world would be hit much harder though. Rich and well developed landlocked countries without underground water sources, Austria in Yurop for instance, are endangered too and started importing clean water for their big cities including Wienna from limited surface sources in remote regions long ago. Thankfully there are underground water deposits for 8-9 million people where I live along with almost 6 million countrymen, we've banned water export in our constitutional law though and there are still throngs of dimwits here thinking we are not overpopulated at all.
 
What a trash thread. You can argue that everybody is exaggerating the consequences of climate change but arguing that it’s a hoax based on this paltry snapshot is fucking ridiculous. Crops are growing in Greenland that have never been able to grow there before. The harvests of tomatoes and other vegetables are months early. This is a visible phenomenon and it’s not gonna be fun.
 
Romanophile said:
What a trash thread. You can argue that everybody is exaggerating the consequences of climate change but arguing that it’s a hoax based on this paltry snapshot is fucking ridiculous. Crops are growing in Greenland that have never been able to grow there before. The harvests of tomatoes and other vegetables are months early. This is a visible phenomenon and it’s not gonna be fun.
Click to expand...

I think he meant the title and OP in irony, like, "so much for climate change not being real" etc

Once again, Crni has failed at threads :V
 
I jest, Crni, this is a good thread, it´s both thought-provoking, as well as important!
 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
This is somewhat interesting. Combined with a recent paper on the influence of the geomagnetic field on cloud formation (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8) it's quite fascinating. However, the Nature paper studies stuff over millenia and the geomagnetic field change is rather slow, so the effect is probably not that noticable (although I vaguely remember that the Earth's field is supposed to switch rather soon? But that would lead to increased cloud formation and lower temperatures, so the influence on global climate doesn't seem to be very large atm).
I'm not too deeply familiar with the actual current climate models, but I'd be surprised if they didn't include cloud coverage. Gonna read up on the models used in AR5. It does say this right at the start of the chapter on evaluating climate models:
The simulation of clouds in climate models remains challeng-ing. There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity. However, the simulation of clouds in climate models has shown modest improve-ment relative to models available at the time of the AR4, and this has been aided by new evaluation techniques and new observations for clouds. Nevertheless, biases in cloud simulation lead to regional errors on cloud radiative effect of several tens of watts per square meter. {9.2.1, 9.4.1, 9.7.2, Figures 9.5, 9.43}
Click to expand...
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
All in all quite interesting. The science is not quite fixed on this topic yet, although that does not mean that we shouldn't try and stop burning fossile fuels and general environmental damage. Even if the anthropogenic influence on the climate is low it is in our best interest to shift towards sustainable infrastructures wherever possible. We all want a cleaner, healthier Earth, no matter if CO2 emissions change the climate or not.
 
Crni Vuk said:
It seems at this point that we're all fucked. Scientists say in a couple of years what you can call "The point of no return" will be passed and the damage to the eco systems will be irreversible. So there is that. And I just don't see how the necessary changes will happen any time soon.
Click to expand...

Could they even happen fast enough?
 
These changes would happen in a moment if there were real incentive, in terms of immeasurable profit. The profit would have to out-do everything in competition. Reducing emissions would have to make more bank than the fossil fuel industry of the world.
I´m going to hold my breath, untill that day comes - starting... now!
*huuuumph!*
 
BigGuyCIA said:
Could they even happen fast enough?
Click to expand...
Theoretically, yes. It would be at this point a very huge shift though. Not only in what technology we use and apply but also economically. A sort of national emergency could make it possible though. Like I said theoretically. In such cases certain changes even on a national level could be done relatively quickly. Just think about it how fast the United States made the transition from manufacturing ordinary goods to a war economy after Pearl Harbor where whole battle ships and thousands of tanks have been thrown out in merely months.

What we experience now is after all not a technical issue.

zegh8578 said:
These changes would happen in a moment if there were real incentive, in terms of immeasurable profit. The profit would have to out-do everything in competition. Reducing emissions would have to make more bank than the fossil fuel industry of the world.
I´m going to hold my breath, untill that day comes - starting... now!
*huuuumph!*
Click to expand...

Actually there is even profit. When you look at the investments you can clearly see that fossil fuel is gaining less of it particularly as it becomes more and more expensive to actually search for new deposits and mining them. Quite a lot of states realise slowly that oil will simply not stay such a steady income like it was for the last 70 years. We are not likely to run out of fossil fuel and rare minerals any time soon though since we literally only scratched the surface of the earths crust. Like 1% of it or something. You remember the movie where they tried to drill to the center of the earth to save the planet? In some scene had to move trough gigantic deposits of diamonds. Turns out that's maybe not so far from the truth. And there is for sure more stuff to find down there. But you can't just drill 10 km into the earths crust to mine it easily. We have also only just started to explore the deep sea in terms of resources. There are likely still billions of tons in minerals, oil and gas there. But according to the Club of Rome (The limits of Growth) which has researched the subject since the late 60s or something states that it will take more and more resources while also destroying larger areas of the enviroment to actually mine oil, gas and rare minerals. Like if you look at the first attempts to collect manganese nodules at the bottom of the sea and the severe damage it will do to the ocean floor.



When it comes to the profitability People often forget how much subsidies fossil fuels like Coal and Gasoline actually receive. Take Germany for example. Flying within German borders is very cheap one of the reasons is because the airlines pay no taxes on their fuel. It's not like in the 1980s where renewable energy was not competitive. They also often use economic arguments against renewable energies like how many jobs it costs to invest in them but even that makes very little sense. About 80.000 people working in the solar industry which at this point is almost dead in Germany lost their jobs to save 20.000 in the coal industry. Germany was once leading in the production and development of solar panels now those jobs have literally moved to China which like created millions of jobs here. And it seems the same is now repeating with wind turbines. We also often forget the actual human cost in all of this. Coal probably has directly harmed and killed more people than all of the nuclear accidents together or if you take the natural disasters, burning coal/gas deposits gigantic oil spills and so on. They cause a lot of economical costs as well destroying whole fishing industries for decades not to mention the human suffering in those areas. We have only just started to evaluate those costs on our societies. So the question of what's profitable is really not a simple one. In many areas renewable energy is competitive with fossil fuels in fact even cheaper. Granted not in all industries and areas and it will probably never replace it entirely as the petrochemical industry can not be just replaced like that since we're talking about technical issues here a lot of polymers that we use today can not be replaced by other substances. But as far as just the energy goes we could go without fossil fuels here with a few changes. And it could be achieved in the next 5 years with the right political decisions. A lot would already change if we removed ALL(!) direct and indirect subsidies spend on the fossil fuel industry and shifted them to renewables.​

As far as I can see it the markets are already shifting and they are shifting in the direction of renewable energy. Not everywhere at the same speed but it's happening. But this new industry is simply competing with branches in the economy which have been there for the last 150 years or so. So naturally their lobbyism is greater and they try everything to stay relevant.
​
 
Last edited:
Considering the OP of this thread, wasn't the record of Lingen somewhat criticised for being measured, uh, not very well? Which did get me thinking, how are those temperatures recorded, anyway? Especially more than 40 years ago, before weather satellites did it? Weather stations measure a local temperature, ideally in a standardized environment, but the surroundings of many weather stations changed in the past decades. Many swamp areas were dried up to use as farm land. More urbanisation and streets. Quite a few factors that heavily influence local temperatures by increasing heat retention. Local temperatures are not necessarily indicative of global climate change if such potent effects muddle them up.
Another thought: What is the effect of large scale wind farms on local climate? It is known that if you pack wind turbines too close they get less efficient, because, well, they use up energy from the wind. This should affect the surrounding areas as well, creating increased areas of lower wind strengths, wouldn't it? You'd also mix certain atmospheric layers and affect climate by that.
I'm concerned that we go about climate change the wrong way. Questionable measurements are used to generate panic about climate change among the public, and all the proposed solutions seem to be rather half-baked and more concerned with enforcing radical social change rather than fixing the issues of climate change.
 
We have accurate ways of measurement today at the very least. So even if the data they collected 150 years ago wouldn't be overly accurate we can make accurate statements today trough ice coring and analysing different layers of earth. For example in some areas you can now find plants which have been way to cold as a habitat in the past, glaciers and permafrost soil (it's in the name really) which have been frozen for thousands of years are now melting very rapidly.

So even if we ignore temperature completely we still have many other signs telling us that something is getting out of control here. like the ocean acidification, loos of biodiversity and so on.

And honestly it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to realize that we're fucking up this planet with our industries and pollution.
 
And I am saying we have other methods to measure temperature than just trough thermometers.
 
Crni Vuk said:
We have accurate ways of measurement today at the very least. So even if those wouldn't be overly accurate we can make accurate statements today trough ice coring and analysing different layers of earth. For example in some areas you can now find plants which have been to cold in the past. But even if we ignore temperature completely we still have the ocean acidification, loos of biodiversity and so on. I mean honestly it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to realize that we're fucking up this planet temperature or not.
Click to expand...
Everything you summed up did already occur in the past, due to natural phenomena. In the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, Britons grew their own wine grapes. Ocean acidification has occurred numerous times as a result of changes in the composition of Earth's atmosphere. And we all know the one where it goes that more than 99% of all species that have ever lived on Earth have gone extinct.
Just saying.
:roll:
 
Crni Vuk said:
And I am saying we have other methods to measure temperature than just trough thermometers.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Not questioning that. But methodology is more than just a better thermometer. Several weather stations had to be moved because their surroundings changed too much, is all that accounted for? What about those stations that were not moved and suddenly had many more streets around them? Or a dried out swamp close by? And those averages, how are they calculated? What is even the meaning of that? My point is that all these temperatures don't really say much. They are just sensationalism, not much of an actual indicator for climate change. Climate change is very likely real, and as I said before, cutting down on fossile fuel usage is always a good idea, but this sensationalism is doing nothing but prepping the populace for accepting all sorts of shit.
Currently planned or talked about fresh new taxes in Germany: additional tax on CO2 emission, increased VAT on meat, increased taxes on SUVs, extra tax on air travel... Did I forget anything? I'm sure there's more to come with the recession on its way. All the while we're still failing to meet our actual CO2 emission goals because we have to keep all the coal and gas plants running and ramping.
We need less fear, and more solutions. Actual solutions beyond just going into poverty, because we have those possibilities as well. But climate change is a political shitshow now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top