jart
Extinction Rebellion Global
floydgump@ExtinctionR Yep humanity's extinction will happen because the solution for survival will not be profitable.
VagueScorpio@ExtinctionR The weather people can barely predict what is going to happen the next day. It gets even worse for the next week.
Why should I believe the same people on what the weather is going to be like 10 years from now? 20?
There is also much evidence to the contrary refuting and/or contradicting the "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" threat.
Scientists that want to eat and provide for a family though know where the money comes from. If you are out to prove that man-made climate is wrong and the temps are somewhat fixed you don't get grant money.
Therefore, everybody and their brother tries to develop a theory to continue receiving that green lifeblood.
The Tramp🇮🇹 🇬🇧 
@TheTramp @ExtinctionR Ok, for the sake of possibly learning something, what is the difference?
Weather is the state of the atmosphere, describing for example the degree to which it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy. Weather refers to day-to-day temperature, precipitation, and other atmospheric conditions, whereas climate is the term for the averaging of atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time.
@TheTramp @ExtinctionR Not exactly what I thought you would say, but in the ball park.
I still stand by my original statement. Day-to-day or averaging out long-term, doesn't change anything. Meteorologists, scientists, can't predict weather accurately more than a day, maybe two.
So why would I think that averaging the atmospheric conditions for long-term predictions would be any different?
The temperatures that are recorded in many areas to average, and test against other years are often taken from places that will give the results wanted. Like airport tarmac as an example.
In the 80s the exact same "warnings" and dire threats of future conditions were being made thay are made today.
Except, in the 80s it was because they said we were heading for a global cooling and heading for another ice age.
As I type this I can see that my tone might come across as angry, or asshole-ish. That's not my intent.
For me, I get so tired of hearing these warnings and dire threats of what's coming. Yet, any information at all that might contradict anything gets tossed to the side. And the scientist gets banned from presenting their findings in credible journals for "peer review."
I think so many people think they "know" everything that they can't accept any differing information.
@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR
While predicting the weather may be a challenge, the climate change is real: 2021 was the hottest year on record( not decades, centuries, but since recording began), 2022 was hotter still, 2023 was hotter again.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
This not a prediction, it’s a fact.
The Co2 concentration has never, ever been as high as now, not in a million years.
While predicting the weather may be a challenge, the climate change is real: 2021 was the hottest year on record( not decades, centuries, but since recording began), 2022 was hotter still, 2023 was hotter again.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
This not a prediction, it’s a fact.
The Co2 concentration has never, ever been as high as now, not in a million years.
Konstantin Weddige@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR if you are genuinely interested in real conversation and debate, try to read up on the history of climate models. While predicting the weather is a challenge, predicting the climate is way easier.
You can run a climate simulation for months, while the results of a weather simulation are already outdated after a few hours. Also a lot of weather fluctuations average out over time, even though they are relevant for weather predictions.
@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR we have global climate models since the 1970s that can predict the climate change. The models got more precise since then, but the newer models only confirmed the earlier results.
In the 1990s, weather models were still only about 70% accurate in predicting the next day's temperature. The fact that we can even try to predict the weather more than a few days in advance is a fairly recent development.
Climate prediction: relatively easy
Weather prediction: really hard
@weddige @ExtinctionR I can agree with what you are saying. I'll be the first to admit I'm not a scientist. I can only use my eyes, ears, and brain.
I see climate #agendas that constantly change trying to keep up and explain why previous predictions were wrong and why the current stuff is happening.
I see actual scientists that have just as many credentials, if not more than some, disagreeing with the current agenda. Yet, they are blacklisted.
I also DO think that the climate is changing. It has always changed for as long as Earth has been here. To say it's #man-made though I have my #doubts. I'm not opposed to changing my view if I see something that proves that point.
I do think man has fucked up our #oceans. #Plastic and #microplastics have destroyed ecosystems and #food supplies. I think we have over fished and over hunted. And I think man has done a lot of damage to our current way of sustaining life.
I don't think cow farts are our biggest threat.
Yet, for man-made #climate change, I remain skeptical.
Some of the most vocal people for climate activism haven't changed a damn thing in their own lives. They just expect me and everyone else to do so.
Dragofix@VagueScorpio @weddige @ExtinctionR It's not about only farts, it's about animal agriculture destructive effects on climate, nature, waters, animals, etc.
@Dragofix @weddige @ExtinctionR
That's true. The amount of water it takes to raise cattle, to grow the food to feed the cattle, etc. One of the big talking points people seem to use though is the methane argument.
That's why I threw it in there with an attempt at some subtle humor.
@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR You are touching on a couple of topics here that are too big for a simple online discussion. I'll try to add some thoughts of my own, but please understand if I don't answer everything (or anything).
1/
Climate agenda: The fact that climate scientists have an "agenda" is inherent in them being human - In the face of the greatest challenge to human existence in the last million years or so, I can't expect anyone not to be emotionally involved. It is a challenge to stay calm and objective, but one that the science community is IMHO handling remarkably well. Humanity as a whole, not so much.
2/
Blacklisted scientists: I think this comes from a different understanding of credibility. On the one hand there is formal education and titles, and on the other hand there is reputation among peers. For the general public, only the former is really accessible. Within the scientific community, the latter is more important. Often the two overlap, but when they don't, there is a dissonance: "Why doesn't anyone take this professor seriously?"
3/
It may not be immediately clear to someone outside the specific community why someone isn't being taken seriously, and ignoring someone goes against societal expectations. But refuting every conflicting study when there is already a broad consensus can cripple new research; this kind of dissent has been used to sow mistrust in the past (e.g. with the question of whether smoking is unhealthy), and there's really no good way to deal with it.
4/
Man-made climate change: We know about the greenhouse effect of CO2 since 1896 and in all the models CO2 is the main driver of warming. Modern models include more greenhouse gases, but CO2 is still the main factor.
Since 1750, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 50%. Using an isotope analysis similar to carbon dating, we can identify the source of this additional CO2, which is fossil fuels.
5/
CO2 levels have always changed, but over tens of thousands of years. For at least the last 800,000 years (probably longer) the CO2 concentration has never been higher than 300ppm. In the last 200 years we have managed to get it up to 420ppm.
Since I was born in 1987, the CO2 concentration has increased by over 20%, which means that no person born today will ever breathe as fresh air as I did as a child.
6/6
@weddige @ExtinctionR I will look this up. I don't expect you to try to disseminate all your knowledge, to me, and not through toots!
A question I have though is, why are the forests, plant life, etc, not absorbing the c02? I mean it's literally what they feed off to create oxygen.
@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR Part of the answer is scale. Coal and the other fossil fuels took 90 million years to form, while it has taken us 200 years to release a good part of it. Plants just can't compete with that.
Another part is that plants release the CO2 they absorb when they decompose. Most coal was formed in the Carboniferous period, before the evolution of white rot. Today, one of the last places where plants don't just rot is in bogs. But we are destroying them by draining them.
@weddige @ExtinctionR This is a somewhat dark way of looking at this, maybe.
The Earth has had changes for millennia. So, why in this case will the Earth not somehow right the wrong for itself?
Not sure if I asked that right.
I'm not saying that it won't cause massive upheaval, and massive death, maybe disease, famine. Eventually though, the Earth would right itself. And the small population would get the fun job of repopulating the planet, lol.
I think you get my meaning though, jokes aside.
@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR If we decide that the universe is better off without humanity, this is the way to go. Collective suicide by destroying the biosphere.
We are already witnessing the beginning of a mass extinction on a par with the 'Big Five'. The only difference is that (like climate change itself) it is happening with unprecedented speed. Normally these events take place over hundreds of thousands of years, not over the course of a few generations.
So I wouldn't bet on repopulating.
@weddige @ExtinctionR I will look up some things on climate models. I admit I'm not well versed in a lot of the details.
Do you have a site or 2 off the top of your head that might be beneficial to read or look through?
@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR from the top of my head this study comes to mind: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
It's a 2020 study, that looks at predictions, that were made 2000, and compares them to the measurements of the last 20 years.
While it is necessary for a good model to predict the past correctly, it's not sufficient. This study helps us to understand, how good they are at predicting the future.
@weddige @ExtinctionR Thank you. Bookmarked it for later. I will peruse and see what it has to say. Appreciate that.
cultdev@VagueScorpio @ExtinctionR i will be less polite than the other guy: you are an irredeemable dipshit
gmoke@ExtinctionR The biggest joke, of course, is that dealing honestly with climate (& most other environmental problems) is usually MORE profitable than the alternatives and BAU - just not in the next quarter.
Rob Thornton (“No Planet B”)
Janet Grootebroeder@ExtinctionR And 'the economy' is another word for 'rich people's yacht money'.
CurtAdams@ExtinctionR Not going to respond directly to denialists, but I find it amazing that some people still at least pretend to believe that dumping hundreds of billions of tons of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere will not - trap heat.
cslinuxboy@ExtinctionR Sad but very true...
chebra@ExtinctionR maybe that fire won't even be needed.
Mrs Cloudy@chebra @ExtinctionR yum raw rat. Everyone's favourite.
Martin@ExtinctionR Dit plaatje is wel erg passend deze week. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/03/back-into-caves-cop28-president-dismisses-phase-out-of-fossil-fuels En dan durft Sultan Al Jaber, de President van de #COP28 en ook de #CEO van de oliemaatschappij van de Arabische Emiraten, nog te zeggen, dat de #fossiele brandstoffen niet uitgefaseerd moeten en kunnen worden. Maar ja, dat past niet in zijn eigen plannen om de productie uit te breiden. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/15/cop28-host-uae-oil-plans-data
Marcos Kirsch@ExtinctionR @dangoodin great cartoon but feels somewhat familiar…
https://www.insidehook.com/culture/story-tom-toro-new-yorker-climate-cartoon
