'Global Warming's Terrifying New Math'

[demo]

Electric car + solar power combo

No more electricity bills and never pay for fuel again

[Hugh Mughnus]

2 minutes ago, demo said:

Electric car + solar power combo

No more electricity bills and never pay for fuel again

Do you disagree with the current criticisms RE solar power?

 

[demo]

2 minutes ago, Hugh Mughnus said:

Do you disagree with the current criticisms RE solar power?

 

I'm not sure what they would be, solar power all around seems like a good thing.

[J3FF3R00]

2 minutes ago, demo said:

Electric car + solar power combo

No more electricity bills and never pay for fuel again

Any tips on what to do you do when your car and solar-powered home are on fire?

I’m also curious if my house catches fire if I can get my insurance to pay off the reminder of the loans that I will need to make that dream a reality. Shit ain’t cheap y’all. 

[demo]

1 minute ago, J3FF3R00 said:

Any tips on what to do you do when your car and solar-powered home are on fire?

I’m also curious if my house catches fire if I can get my insurance to pay off the reminder of the loans that I will need to make that dream a reality. Shit ain’t cheap y’all. 

No it's not, and I really wish (especially electric cars) that they where commecially affordable

Edited September 7, 2020 by demo

[Hugh Mughnus]

Just now, demo said:

I'm not sure what they would be, solar power all around seems like a good thing.

Water loss, hazmats required for solar cells etc. Don’t get me wrong I think it’s going in the right direction however solar has negative impacts...

[ignatius]

9 minutes ago, Hugh Mughnus said:

Water loss, hazmats required for solar cells etc. Don’t get me wrong I think it’s going in the right direction however solar has negative impacts...

as does battery storage. 

i think all the relevant tech will get better but may be too late by then. 

We need that new nuclear tech that bill gates is all hard for to bridge the gap between now and new tech jesus

[prdctvsm]

"How SUVs conquered the world – at the expense of its climate", by Oliver Milman

[marf]

12 hours ago, azatoth said:

Long-term thinking isn't what shareholders want. It hall about the quarterly earnings. That's the only thing that matters in the world today. As long as number goes up on the stocks, fuck the environment.

They need to be pressured. By protesters. That has shown to make a difference. Look at the Redskins here in the usa. 

We'd have to use Nuclear energy in the short term. But its worth it

 

The "Adult" dismiss Thunberg. But she is the Joan of arc in this. She is the truth teller. 

 

The emerging countries using fossil fuel need capital to grow. They get it that capital from somewhere! The leading companies are as big as some nations. Also.  Amazon, Apple, Uber, Airlines, Trucking companies that use fossil fuel could make a change immediately to use green energy. They are too greedy for that short term pain to make a difference. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by marf

[marf]

We need leaders not "firm in their beliefs" but a presidents who are willing change course and not be stubborn enough to steer us into an iceberg. Pun intended

[Nebraska]

Quote

SHAVER LAKE, Calif. (AP) — Wildfires have burned more than 2 million acres in California this year, setting a state record even as crews battled dozens of growing blazes in sweltering temperatures Monday that strained the electrical grid and threatened power outages for millions.

https://apnews.com/a168491f2cb25810c9e2a40316fe43a7

salute to everyone that helped us make this milestone in environmental destruction- especially these guys that contributed to 7400 acres and of course, the wise leadership of big T who guaranteed us to win bigly.

can't wait for the next milestone 

[Zooluus]

this is why i've given up hope. the numbers show we're fucked, and any fragment of hope is trampled by the most out of touch humans our species has ever seen. it's over. the world will go on, but our species is on the way out, thank fucking god. we've peaked, and i'm happy to be a part of it, a beautiful experience to be a human, but also the saddest fucking thing too.

Edited September 8, 2020 by Zooluus

[ignatius]

every few centimeters in sea level rise is a million or so people displaced. there's no way to stop it now.  we can only slow things down.. delay the end result.. perhaps maybe make it less severe. barring some miracle of technology and rapid transition humanity is in for several decades of weather/fire/flood/heat/cold chaos. 

"may you live in interesting times" - some asshole, probably. 

miami beach is supposed to have 100+ days a year of sunny day floods by 2030. 

[Hi Guys]

http://m.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/science/zombie-fires-fuel-sky-high-carbon-emissions-in-the-arctic/article/577595

This faster than expected rate of everything changing is going to hit us like a ton of bricks here since most of us aren’t paying attention at all. Like, bleak isn’t even the word. 

 

[may be rude]

regarding US politics, which is a big piece of the equation...

the people who aren't onboard, aside from people like ted cruz who simply collect dump-trucks of cash from fossile fuel, are people who couldn't give a fuck if it was they're job. they're florida men and hillbillies. i'm sorry but it's wrong to take politeness so far that you pretend such specimens aren't a big chunk of the US, and the "national discussion." 

 when one of these creatures has wandered into the highway and is gumming up the works, you don't ask them their opinion. you tell them to get the fuck out of the way. that is how you talk to these people.

Edited September 8, 2020 by very honest

[dr lopez]

On 9/7/2020 at 1:24 AM, demo said:

I'm not sure what they would be, solar power all around seems like a good thing.

the embodied energy of PV arrays is fucking stratospheric. 

[ignatius]

http://m.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/science/zombie-fires-fuel-sky-high-carbon-emissions-in-the-arctic/article/577595
This faster than expected rate of everything changing is going to hit us like a ton of bricks here since most of us aren’t paying attention at all. Like, bleak isn’t even the word. 
 

What the actual fuck?

Zombie wildfires beneath the arctic surface?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nebraska]

23 hours ago, Nebraska said:

https://apnews.com/a168491f2cb25810c9e2a40316fe43a7

salute to everyone that helped us make this milestone in environmental destruction- especially these guys that contributed to 7400 acres and of course, the wise leadership of big T who guaranteed us to win bigly.

can't wait for the next milestone 

people need to get the hell out of the way so the forest fires can continue unencumbered. 

[ignatius]

caught the 2nd half of this today. . really interesting. basically, the last time the earth had this much CO2 in the atmosphere sea level was 60 ft higher.  the ice caps and ice sheets etc are just catching up to the warmer atmosphere and will eventually find equilibrium and se levels will once again be 60ft higher or so.. depending on how much warmer it gets. there's lot's of evidence given in the show to support that. 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/polar-extremes/

[chronical]

my roommate doesn't believe in global warming.. says humans can't cause that kind of damage, that's just a natural thing the earth does. what the fuck? what am I supposed to show him?

[Nebraska]

^^^ according to tucker carlson, the problem is that globalists don't explain how climate change caused the fires. just that: "global warming is like systemic racism in the sky. you can't see it, but rest assured it's everywhere". 

 

[whosebrian]

 

[diatoms]

On 9/13/2020 at 11:18 PM, chronical said:

my roommate doesn't believe in global warming.. says humans can't cause that kind of damage, that's just a natural thing the earth does. what the fuck? what am I supposed to show him?

 

[may be rude]

On 9/13/2020 at 6:18 PM, chronical said:

my roommate doesn't believe in global warming.. says humans can't cause that kind of damage, that's just a natural thing the earth does. what the fuck? what am I supposed to show him?

 

climate.nasa.gov is actually a really good resource. 

 

at least he presents an argument to you, and it's one that you know is faulty. engage with the argument, as though it were a logical debate. don't just talk about other things and leave his bad argument unaddressed. an argument is a conclusion supported by premises. you can address whether or not a conclusion is strongly supported by those premises. it's way too common for people to actually adopt poorly supported conclusions as beliefs. society just doesn't expect that much from people, they get away with horribly supported beliefs. 

 

if his argument is that mankind couldn't possibly alter global climate, that could be refuted with easy and undisputed facts and data. specifically: the greenhouse effect. check out some pages on that, even wiki, and find a nice section that addresses the amount of atmospheric concentration it takes to impact climate. combine that with a chart of rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and their levels. i think that should show him his error, if he is interested in being accurate.

 

if he is unwilling to scrutinize the logic of a belief, then he is not interested in accuracy, and now the subject of conversation is something different. in this case, you can, if you choose to, address why he is willing to spread ideas that he has not scrutinized, and which are disputed. spreading misrepresentations is a major problem in the world, right now. disinformation is SHARED more than it is SEEDED. it is morally lacking to assert information, with no qualifier, if you have not adequately questioned and confirmed it, yourself.

Edited September 17, 2020 by very honest

[chronical]

29 minutes ago, very honest said:

 

climate.nasa.gov is actually a really good resource. 

 

at least he presents an argument to you, and it's one that you know is faulty. engage with the argument, as though it were a logical debate. don't just talk about other things and leave his bad argument unaddressed. an argument is a conclusion supported by premises. you can address whether or not a conclusion is strongly supported by those premises. it's way too common for people to actually adopt poorly supported conclusions as beliefs. society just doesn't expect that much from people, they get away with horribly supported beliefs. 

 

if his argument is that mankind couldn't possibly alter global climate, that could be refuted with easy and undisputed facts and data. specifically: the greenhouse effect. check out some pages on that, even wiki, and find a nice section that addresses the amount of atmospheric concentration it takes to impact climate. combine that with a chart of rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and their levels. i think that should show him his error, if he is interested in being accurate.

 

if he is unwilling to scrutinize the logic of a belief, then he is not interested in accuracy, and now the subject of conversation is something different. in this case, you can, if you choose to, address why he is willing to spread ideas that he has not scrutinized, and which are disputed. spreading misrepresentations is a major problem in the world, right now. disinformation is SHARED more than it is SEEDED. it is morally lacking to assert information, with no qualifier, if you have not adequately questioned and confirmed it, yourself.

I've tried and I'll try again. I think he'd just discredit the "nasa" "government" website because they're "compromised" sources. Which doesn't help with looking at the actual data.