-
Hey Guest,
If you want to donate, we have a thread with updated donation options here at this link: About Donations
No, they're exaggerating it now so they can put the supposed mechanisms in place to control it, which also means controlling all of us, that they will own, which makes them ultra powerful and us irrelevant.
When you have absolute power you don't need money any more, money is meaningless - you take what you want, and make others get their scraps by obeying you through fear.
Gonjoolie
Student
- Feb 5, 2021
- 137
When I say massive problem I mean ecological disaster. Like, almost wiping out humanity bad.
262653
Cluesome
- Apr 5, 2018
- 1,733
No. It's underplayed in all official media and has been for a long time . In the US and many anglosphere media it's still portrayed as if there's some kind of debate as to whether it's even happening
The real agenda is it's happening faster than al gore would have you believe
Nice conspiracy theory. Try going to the pentagon and Exxon and telling them how easy it is to control everyone with no carbon footprint. No oil fired global supply lines and tankers , no Abrams tanks, no interstate highways.
reality works quite the opposite as many global warming conspiracy theorists contend
Last edited:
BornofDust
Student
- Dec 11, 2020
- 132
Based on the fact that Climate Change messes with the natural cycles of the Earth therefore guaranteeing that if Climate Change comes and dissipates, the Earth will have all sorts of problems in terms of the natural whether and nature cycles. We've already seen this with the vents of Texas, its only gonna get worst from then on if not much is done. There will be a lack of consistency throughout several locations instead of the usual cycle, so unlike previous cycles, where there was a natural progression from heat and cold throughout the Earth's history, the use of pollutants throughout the Earth is destroying the usual natural cycle, which requires the ecosystem to be somewhat functioning, with said ecosystem being currently destroyed by pollutants and other man-made damage to the Earth.
Because of this, certain things, such as Famines, may become permanent and never have anything emerge form it because of other deadly chemical property's. So based on all of this, the Earth will slowly die as it continues to become effected by these various things, even if it changes cycles, it wouldn't be a " normal " cycle in the slightest based on it being combined with man-made property's instead of the usual natural cycles in the past.
Climate change may bring big ecosystem changes – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
By 2100, climate change will modify plant communities covering almost half of the Earth's land, and will convert nearly 40 percent of land-based ecosystems from one type to another
The Future of the Carbon Cycle in a Changing Climate - Eos
Surface and space-based observations, field experiments, and models all contribute to our evolving understanding of the ways that Earth’s many systems absorb and release carbon.
eos.org
Last edited:
What do you think? No, of course not... not for certain anyways.
Who would know for sure with 100% certainty? Probably not even one person would have that kind of information, for sure, absolutely?
I do not have much news, be it good, or bad news, and I would not 100% trust it anyways, either.
I think I am confusing myself? . . Just disregard what I say.
fred farkle
Specialist
- Dec 17, 2020
- 346
maybe when the world goes post apocalyptic you can be the girlfriend of a mad max style road warrior! Do youhave a bikini ready to go??
Fragile
Broken
- Jul 7, 2019
- 1,496
Based on the fact that Climate Change messes with the natural cycles of the Earth therefore guaranteeing that if Climate Change comes and dissipates, the Earth will have all sorts of problems in terms of the natural whether and nature cycles. We've already seen this with the vents of Texas, its only gonna get worst from then on if not much is done. There will be a lack of consistency throughout several locations instead of the usual cycle, so unlike previous cycles, where there was a natural progression from heat and cold throughout the Earth's history, the use of pollutants throughout the Earth is destroying the usual natural cycle, which requires the ecosystem to be somewhat functioning, with said ecosystem being currently destroyed by pollutants and other man-made damage to the Earth.
Because of this, certain things, such as Famines, may become permanent and never have anything emerge form it because of other deadly chemical property's. So based on all of this, the Earth will slowly die as it continues to become effected by these various things, even if it changes cycles, it wouldn't be a " normal " cycle in the slightest based on it being combined with man-made property's instead of the usual natural cycles in the past.
Climate change may bring big ecosystem changes – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
By 2100, climate change will modify plant communities covering almost half of the Earth's land, and will convert nearly 40 percent of land-based ecosystems from one type to anotherclimate.nasa.gov
The Future of the Carbon Cycle in a Changing Climate - Eos
Surface and space-based observations, field experiments, and models all contribute to our evolving understanding of the ways that Earth’s many systems absorb and release carbon.
But like I told you before, none of that tells us that the earth will "not survive", it just means that many changes will happen, and that in a time long after we die (even of natural causes) the earth will be different, which regardless of human involvement will inevitably be true either way.
There have been many times where extreme extinction events have happened and fundamentally broke the natural cycle, yet, there's still life and humans have survived to this point. There's a theory that one of our evolutionary bottlenecks happened due to one of them, which crippled the human population to less than 5000 and was one of the reasons why we don't see megafauna around us anymore.
Besides, nasa is notorious for their many mistakes, alarmism and ""corrections"" when it comes to being plain wrong about climate change, and that model is only possible if things keep going the way they are, without taking into account the many ways in which some nations are doing their best to combat climate change.
Who's to say that they aren't wrong yet again?
the only thing that will make a substantial difference in the emission pathway for earth is negative emissions technology. As of now this is fantasy technology.
you are right about NASA being wrong on climate - they generally have underestimated it.
The negative climate feedback mechanisms work in similarly ways to the human body how it cools itself through the evaporation of sweat, which reduces the need for sweat.
I think, for climate change, if the major climate feedback mechanisms turn into runaway negative climate feedback mechanisms, then it is obvious what will happen.
In what time-frame is probably the real question?
I think, for climate change, if the major climate feedback mechanisms turn into runaway negative climate feedback mechanisms, then it is obvious what will happen.
In what time-frame is probably the real question?
All evidence to date points to the fact that positive feedback loops will overwhelm negative feedback loops. Multiple climate tipping points are speculated to trip which would require considerable energy to reverse. To what degree these phenomenon would impact humans is a topic of debate
Last edited:
What are some of the positive loops, rhetorically speaking, how do they balance, what are going to be their effects, and which is first (primarily)?
Should the negative loops be a larger concern now for with the climate change we can expect to see with global warming?
I have to leave it to the experts who devote their lives to climatology, and the global warming specialists.
I'm sorry, I'm speaking in strict terms and I think we are having a miscommunication-
by positive feedback loop I mean to say that these are feedback loops that result in more warming as earth warms on average. Not that the feedback loop will provide positive benefits to humans.
a negative feedback loop would be one that would tend to induce cooling as earth warms.
These feedback loops have existed for a long time and in certain climatic periods have balanced each other out to create a stable climate for humans. These days it's quite clear positive feedback loops are beating out the negative loops to result in increased temps. Climate scientists generally agree positive feedback loops will warm earth even if co2 was stopped overnight. Some call for rapid future warming due to the positive loops and others like Michael Mann seem to think if co2 is stopped positive feedback loops will warm us for decades / centuries until tapering off and we maybe return to Holocene style climate.
given all info available to me at the present time I find rapid warming scenarios to be more viable. Generally projections I have made along these lines have been accurate. I've always told people the IPCC are liars and their forecasts are too low and so far reality bore that out
Last edited:
I think we are talking about the exact same thing.
Negative like sweating cools us down when we are heating up.
Positive like the atmosphere, and the TROPOSPHERE (where we live), Stratosphere, and of course, to mention about The Tropopause being involved in all of that too, primarily it is, I think...
Interestingly though, to me, is how the Troposphere contains 99% of the atmospheric water vapor within-side of it, like how sweating controls our bodily heat levels to try and maintain homeostasis.
Negative like sweating cools us down when we are heating up.
Positive like the atmosphere, and the TROPOSPHERE (where we live), Stratosphere, and of course, to mention about The Tropopause being involved in all of that too, primarily it is, I think...
Interestingly though, to me, is how the Troposphere contains 99% of the atmospheric water vapor within-side of it, like how sweating controls our bodily heat levels to try and maintain homeostasis.
Last edited:
262653
Cluesome
- Apr 5, 2018
- 1,733
Should have played Disregard card at the beginning of your turn but it's too late now. And I would read your message anyway at least out of heightened curiosity. It's okay. I have no idea either. Chances are I'm much more clueless on the topic than you are... I think the absence of bad news is bad enough to put it on the bad news spectrum. If no one knows for certain and the info isn't guaranteedly trustworthy (when it is?) then we might be misleading to each other by talking about climate change. What's the point of communication, then? Probably not in bringing understanding. Sometimes I just feel like talking. It can be fun. You may or may not disregard whatever I said in this post. Whatever.
Similar threads
Discussion
Life and be beautiful
- Rubypie41
- Suicide Discussion
Suicide Discussion
Rubypie41
