/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11925762]

First active methane leak from seabed to atmosphere discovered

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/22/first-active-leak-of-sea-bed-methane-discovered-in-antarctica

Jesus wept.

[Anonymous No.11925777]

>>11925762
Hearing about the environment is so fucking depressing. We're going to go extinct and people are still doing nothing. These oil magnates and mining company CEOs and the international bankers should be lined up against a wall.

[Anonymous No.11925790]

>>11925777
Noooooo that makes you an evil commie marxist buzzword boogeyman, my feelings don't care about your facts etc.

[Anonymous No.11925793]

>>11925762

Clathrate gun in my life?

It's gonna be a wild ride

[Anonymous No.11925847]

>>11925777
We will be fine.
In 1970 they were all saying it was going to be an ice age.

[Anonymous No.11925854]

>>11925777
Typical fucking rightoid, more concerned about DA JOOOOS than people starving in the fucking streets.

[Anonymous No.11925859]

>>11925854
how is saying we should put bankers up against the wall anti-poor people?

[Anonymous No.11925864]

>>11925847
nig Australia is burning more and more frequently and having less and less rain, this is just the start of what's going to spread across the rest of the world if the environment doesn't get unfucked soon

[Anonymous No.11925868]

>>11925790
>>11925854
even if ironic, these posts really some up how fucking retarded modern politics has become

[Anonymous No.11926069]

So am I understanding it correctly that if too much methane gets in the ocean, plankton will start to die and stop turning co2 into oxygen?

[Anonymous No.11926098]

>>11926069
Methane has something like 20x the greenhouse effect factor of CO2
Most of the world's methane is under polar permafrost

[Anonymous No.11926103]

>>11926069
Methane turns into CO2 after decaying in the high atmosphere

[Anonymous No.11926241]

>>11925847
Someone can be right after previously being wrong.

I'm not an alarmist by any means, but we might want to aim for better than "fine" if that is even the worst.

[Anonymous No.11926245]

>>11925777
>Hearing about the environment is so fucking depressing
this
half the environmental sciences department at my university are depressed as fuck about their research

[Anonymous No.11926801]

>>11925847
that was an active disinformation campaign by the oil companies

their internal studies showed global warming was real, and caused by them. They didn't think it'd happen this soon however.

[Anonymous No.11926805]

>>11926801
>global warming was real, and caused by them
Source?

[Anonymous No.11926815]

>>11925762
Just plug the leak then lmao

[Anonymous No.11926983]

>>11925762
I told you in another thread that Guy McPherson was right but you wouldn't listen.

[Anonymous No.11927021]

>>11926805
Google is your friend

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

>In July 1977, a senior scientist of Exxon James Black reported to the company's executives that there was a general scientific agreement at that time that the burning of fossil fuels was the most likely manner in which mankind was influencing global climate change.[6][7][8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

>Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, a strategy that has been compared to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by the tobacco industry, and often even carried out by the same individuals who previously spread the tobacco industry's denialist propaganda.[26][27][28]

[Anonymous No.11927038]

>>11925762
Thanks, trump. Money and greed killed the planet. Consumerism.

[Anonymous No.11927060]

>>11925762
Finally global warming propaganda will take a turn for the truth.

[Anonymous No.11927076]

>>11927038
If we can all agree that the true nature of the global warming conspiracy was that of a massive coverup, obfuscation, and disinformation campaign, then can we all move onto the next global conspiracy? That is Tesla's invented zero point energy, got shut down by greedy consumerism, and even now, TODAY even, we can reverse global warming if those bastards would just let the information out. Sure it'd be the death of every energy company on the planet. But at least the planet could be saved. Infinite free energy means you can capture infinite amounts of carbon. It also means emission free energy production. It'd be a simple matter to reverse global warming, but the energy companies have to be willing to sacrifice themselves to save the planet. We're all doomed.

[Anonymous No.11927631]

>>11927076
Why is it always Tesla with you perpetual motion wackos

[Anonymous No.11927675]

whats the chance we make it off planet onto mars and slowly die there

[Anonymous No.11927686]

>>11927076
They have the technology, they just want their oil money first. It's the old businessmen men like Rockefeller or JP Morgan that don't care about the environment. They want money and control. They will be dead before the consequences ever manifest.

[Anonymous No.11927688]

>>11927675
If we have the tech to get to Mars and live there, we almost certainly can reverse global warming.
>>11927021
These bastards need to get fucked off. Instead, pricks like Rex Tillerson run the country

[Anonymous No.11927698]

lol just contain it and burn it

[Anonymous No.11927708]

What solutions do you people propose, exactly? Maximum authoritarianism?

[Anonymous No.11927711]

>>11927675
0% with the current trajectory towards spigger globohomo

[Anonymous No.11927735]

>>11927698
[math] \displaystyle
CH_4 + 2 \, O_2 \; \rightarrow \; CO_2 + 2 \, H_2O
[/math]

[Anonymous No.11927771]

>>11927708
It's too late for solutions now, we will need to adapt to the changes or die

[Anonymous No.11927784]

>>11927708
>What solutions do you people propose, exactly?
why is this so fucking hard to figure out?
If I spill paint all over someones car, guess who had to pay for it? same fucking deal. You cause a mess, you pay for cleaning it up. It's called being responsible.

[Anonymous No.11927793]

>>11927771
>too late for solutions
It's never too late for solutions, it's just too late for the easy, cheap solutions.

[Anonymous No.11927799]

>>11927735
yes CO2 has a lower GWP, it would be better to burn it.

[Anonymous No.11927803]

>>11927784
anon, it's a natural leak. So your proposal is to let Nature take responsibility?

[Anonymous No.11927804]

>>11927784
This. Make them regret squeezing blood from the stone.

[Anonymous No.11927811]

>>11927803
Caused by the warming from fossil fuels. Try to keep up, huh?

[Anonymous No.11927884]

>>11927686
The most deadly words spoken in the past 100 years were Ayn Rand's "I don't die, the world dies" when she was asked about her views on death as an atheist in that one TV interview.

[Anonymous No.11927885]

>>11925864
Australia has natural drought flood cycles.

>>11926098
I find the to be absolute bullshit. Only makes sense if you're not factoring in water. Pic related. Look at water and methane. Not only that, methane decays in the atmosphere in just 10 years.

[Anonymous No.11927889]

>>11927708
Socialism or barbarism

[Anonymous No.11927911]

>>11927784
yeah so what fucking solutions do you propose?

[Anonymous No.11927919]

>>11927811
>The reason for the emergence of the new seep remains a mystery, but it is probably not global heating, as the Ross Sea where it was found has yet to warm significantly.

[Anonymous No.11927926]

>>11927885
Bruh, it's not a question of which is providing a larger forcing in the atmosphere, it's how much forcing is provided by an equal mass of a different gas.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

[Anonymous No.11927935]

>>11927919
>“We think that there is likely [to be] significant methane beneath the ice sheet,” she said
Remind me how ice sheets shrinking more every year is unrelated to the global average temperature

[Anonymous No.11927938]

>>11927885
>I find the to be absolute bullshit
Doesn't matter what you "find the to be". Methane has a higher extinctino coefficient and absorbs more energy per mole than CO2, that's why it has a higher global warming potential (GWP). It's a simple quantitative figure of merit for greenhouse gases that accounts for their lifetime in the atmosphere and their ability to absorb infrared radiation.
>Only makes sense if you're not factoring in water
The amount of water formed by the combustion of the methane is miniscule to the amount of water on the planet; it has a neglibile impact on the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere.
So, converting the CH4 to CO2 would reduce the impact of the gas leak. Assuming, of course, that you could capture and burn the methane efficiently.

[Anonymous No.11927950]

>>11926098
Why not tap it and use it as fuel, then?

[Anonymous No.11927952]

>>11927935
>Remind me how ice sheets shrinking more every year is unrelated to the global average temperature
I never said this.
But the fact remains that this leak was probably not caused by warming temperatures as the sea here hasn't increased in temperature. Unless you think "has yet to warm significantly" means "has warmed significantly".
My point was that this is probably a natural disaster, so asserting it has to be mitigated by those responsible is pointless and incoherent.
Besides, if it was caused by global warming per se, then who would be responsible and tasked with cleaning it up?

[Anonymous No.11927959]

>>11925762
How about
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6480/907

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with large natural sources, reservoirs, and sinks. Dyonisius et al. found that methane emissions from old, cold-region carbon reservoirs like permafrost and methane hydrates were minor during the last deglaciation (see the Perspective by Dean). They analyzed the carbon isotopic composition of atmospheric methane trapped in bubbles in Antarctic ice and found that methane emissions from those old carbon sources during the warming interval were small. They argue that this finding suggests that methane emissions in response to future warming likely will not be as large as some have suggested.

Abstract
Permafrost and methane hydrates are large, climate-sensitive old carbon reservoirs that have the potential to emit large quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, as the Earth continues to warm. We present ice core isotopic measurements of methane (Δ14C, δ13C, and δD) from the last deglaciation, which is a partial analog for modern warming. Our results show that methane emissions from old carbon reservoirs in response to deglacial warming were small (<19 teragrams of methane per year, 95% confidence interval) and argue against similar methane emissions in response to future warming. Our results also indicate that methane emissions from biomass burning in the pre-Industrial Holocene were 22 to 56 teragrams of methane per year (95% confidence interval), which is comparable to today.

It's almost if the science is not settled. Almost...

[Anonymous No.11927960]

>>11927926
If you look at the chart, methane absorbs the same wavelengths as water vapor. Methane is measured in parts per billion. I do not need to explain how much water vapor there is.

>>11927938
I'm not talking about water vapor released from methane. I'm talking about the amount of water vapor compared to the amount of methane considering that the radiation absorption of methane completely overlaps with water.

[Anonymous No.11927961]

>>11927784
Better get ready to pay up, you're pumping GHGs into our atmosphere with every useless breath, faggot.

[Anonymous No.11928013]

>>11927960
>I'm not talking about water vapor released from methane. I'm talking about the amount of water vapor compared to the amount of methane considering that the radiation absorption of methane completely overlaps with water.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
So your argument is that water is the most significant GHG? Is this even controversial?
The problem is that the change in methane concentration would have a greater effect than water because 1) it lasts longer in the atmosphere and 2) absorbs more energy than water per mole. So it is a major GHG that will cause the earth to warm.
Anyway, the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is relatively constant, or at least it is controlled by the global temperature. So other GHGs will feedback and reinforce the greenhouse effect of water vapour by increasing the vapour pressure of water on average across the globe.
But, again, I don't find any of this controversial. Was this your point in the first place?

You should source your data (https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/).). Despite the schizo look of the website, it has recently cited and reproduced in a peer-reviewed article in Heliyon (DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01145).
Fascinating idea, but it's kind of irrelevant because other environmental destruction from fossil fuel use (the main source of anthropogenic CO2) are more immediate than global warming problems (which seem to be inevitable).

[Anonymous No.11928021]

>>11927960
Are you retarded? You can measure the greenhouse gas potential of a gas in a lab. I gave you a whole Wikipedia page on the topic. Go learn something

>water vapor
The local concentration of water vapor is driven by the local temperature and it has a atmospheric lifetime of like a week.

[Anonymous No.11928025]

>>11927952
The leak was caused by the retreating ice sheet

[Anonymous No.11928029]

>>11925847
Nice lie.

[Anonymous No.11928046]

>>11925777
checked. It's amazing that people are still in denial about this. There's no point in arguing with skeptics at this point

[Anonymous No.11928050]

>>11928013
>So your argument is that water is the most significant GHG? Is this even controversial?
Not essentially, just that there is astronomically more water in the atmoshpere than methane, and that methane completely overlaps with water in radiation absorption. Water also absorbs much more ratiation in the atmosphere. Methane only lasts 20 years tops in the atmoshpere. Very very small time scale geologically.

>>11928021
Are you retarded? You can measure the greenhouse gas potential of a gas in a lab. I gave you a whole Wikipedia page on the topic. Go learn something
I literally just gave you a chart which laid out how much radiation green house gasses absorbed. Look at it. I don't trust wikepedia on political issues.

>The local concentration of water vapor is driven by the local temperature and it has a atmospheric lifetime of like a week.
I think you're forgetting geography but whatever.

[Anonymous No.11928059]

>>11926983
He's still wrong, retard.

[Anonymous No.11928062]

>>11928013
>https://ozonedepletiontheory.info
ok, this is the typical denier strategy? Just draw some lines on real data to make unsubstantiated claims like "warming stopped in 1998"?
If you follow his sources for temperature data (e.g., https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ann/6/1880-2020)) warming appears to still be happening. Or, at least, it's not clear that it has stopped...

[Anonymous No.11928063]

>>11925762
We could have avoided this if 50 years ago, you environmentalist cunts shilled for Nuclear Energy instead of demonizing it thus pushing for over reliance on oil.

It's all your fault, yet you still have the arrogance to not humbly ask for forgiveness.

[Anonymous No.11928066]

>>11927076
if Tesla invented free energy then why do his cars' batteries run out so quickly? Checkmate.

[Anonymous No.11928069]

>>11928066
Because electric cars are that bad

[Anonymous No.11928072]

>>11928050
>Not essentially, just that there is astronomically more water in the atmoshpere than methane, and that methane completely overlaps with water in radiation absorption. Water also absorbs much more ratiation in the atmosphere. Methane only lasts 20 years tops in the atmoshpere. Very very small time scale geologically.
Ok, what's your point? Methane is still a powerful GHG, its concentration is increasing, so the energy it absorbs is increasing so it's forcing the global temperature higher.
What is your point? That it's "negligible"?

[Anonymous No.11928076]

>>11926245
reminds me of a professor i knew who always said how sorry he felt for our generation. Aside from global warming, we've got freshwater depletion and topsoil loss to deal with

[Anonymous No.11928086]

>>11928063
>At the beginning of 2005, there were some 440 commercial nuclear power plants operating in 31 countries, with roughly 364 GWe of total capacity (WNA 2005). Hence, to produce 15 TW
(15,000 GWe) by 2050 would require roughly 14,636 new 1-GW nuclear power plants. Construction of this number of plants would require,[11] on average, the commissioning of a new
nuclear power plant somewhere in the world every day continuously for 40 years.
>Assuming the continued dominance of slow-neutron nuclear power technologies,[h] each 1 GW plant would require about 195 tU/yr (WNA 2001), so 15 TWe would consume about 2.9 MtU/yr.
[12] At this rate, the estimated global conventional uranium terrestrial resources (17.1 MtU) (NEA 2002) would be exhausted in less than 10 years.[13] Estimated amounts of U from unconventional resources (particularly seawater) are much larger (4,022 MtU) (NEA 2002), but would require a significant physical infrastructure to extract. At a uranium concentration in seawater (Garwin 2001, p. 210) of roughly 3.3 mgU/m3, extracting uranium at a rate of 2.9 MtU/yr would require treatment of water at a volume rate of 886,000 km3 /yr,[14] more than 4,000 times the volume rate of water (180 km3/yr) through the Niagara Falls,[15] and more than 30 times the volume rate of water (23,560 km3/yr) necessary to cool the nuclear power plants.[16]
>https://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf

[Anonymous No.11928095]

>>11928050
>I literally just gave you a chart which laid out how much radiation green house gasses absorbed.
Oh wow, you really are retarded. Go read that Wikipedia page so you can understand why that chart is meaningless in the context.

[Anonymous No.11928096]

>>11927961
Breathing is carbon neutral.

[Anonymous No.11928098]

>>11928072
>What is your point? That it's "negligible"?
That "20 times more than co2" is very misleading. Your graph says methane is about 2 parts per million. Water makes up about 1-2% of the atmoshpere.

>>11928095
use your head

[Anonymous No.11928104]

>>11928096
Your life certainly isn't. How much will you be paying to fix the climate emergency?

[Anonymous No.11928106]

>>11928050
>Not essentially, just that there is astronomically more water in the atmoshpere than methane, and that methane completely overlaps with water in radiation absorption. Water also absorbs much more ratiation in the atmosphere.
And? Please explain what's causing water vapor to increase.

>Methane only lasts 20 years tops in the atmoshpere.
And how long does water last? You have no idea what you're taking about, just spouting random junk.

[Anonymous No.11928111]

>>11928106
>And? Please explain what's causing water vapor to increase.
not methane

>And how long does water last?
others have said a week here so I'll go at that, but the point is that a momentary increase of methane is nothing on a geological scale.

[Anonymous No.11928117]

>>11928098
How is it misleading?
~2 ppm * 20 = ~40 ppm CO2, which is ~10% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. And any increase in methane is 20x more significant than the same increase in CO2.
The paper I cited above that used the figure you keep refering to (which is from a sketchy source as it is) and then showed that it is very difficult to quantify the GWP of water.
Besides, it is not controversial that water is the most significant GHG. No one is arguing that it has a higher concentration and absorbs more radiation.
But, global water vapour concentration would not increase on its own (why would it?), and if it increased due to heating, then it cannot possibly be the initial cause of the heating.
Now we are back at the conclusion that, well, GHGs that have been increasing in concentration at a steady rate since the industrial revolution are probably increasing the greenhouse effect, causing the earth to warm, causing all the other feedback loops that cause more warming to occur.
So, again, what is your point?

[Anonymous No.11928118]

>>11928086
Notice the word "over reliance". I'm not saying that we should only have nuclear energy, I'm saying that if relied on it much more in the past, we'd be in a much better spot right now, giving us the necessary time to find a technological solution.

[Anonymous No.11928123]

>>11928111
>momentary increase of methane is nothing on a geological scale
No one is talking about a geological scale. The earth's temperature has significantly increased over the last 100 years. 20 years is 20% of that time, clearly not neglibile. A week, however, is negligble (0.0052%, prescisely).

[Anonymous No.11928132]

>>11928062
It's much worse than that. He thinks greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere by absorbing heat ("heat capacity"). In reality they work by absorbing and immediately releasing heat. This means heat is redirected back to Earth instead of leaving the atmosphere. This is directly observed but he is completely ignorant of it.

[Anonymous No.11928141]

>>11928118
I'm not convinced in any way that uranium mining and refinement, nuclear waste, and global proliferation of nuclear weapons is at all preferable to our current predicament...
If we had gone the route of nuclear we'd have a whole other bag of worms to contend with.
And the heat released by fission would force the global temperature up by a similar amount to that of GHG emissions, anyway, so we would be overheating AND have an ungodly amount of nuclear waste to try and dispose of (and probably orders of magnitude more nuclear weapons around the world).
>https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036465

[Anonymous No.11928151]

>>11928117
>~2 ppm * 20 = ~40 ppm CO2, which is ~10% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. And any increase in methane is 20x more significant than the same increase in CO2.
that's not even how the green house gas theory works. The more green house gas there is the less of an effect it has. Say a doubling of co2 causes a 2 degree temperature increase (I don't know, just for arguments sake). You'd have to double it again to cause another 2 degree increase of temperature. To put this into perspective using todays numbers of co2 being at 400ppm, you'd have to have 800ppm to cause a 2 degree increase. After that you need 1600ppm. A very basic analogy explains this. You have a slightly clear paint, and you want to use it to completely cover up a picture on the wall. After one coat of paint you can see through, after a couple more it's opaque, after many coats you cannot see through it.
I've already said enough about water and methane. saying "methan is 20x" only makes sense if you're not accounting for water vapor since they absorb the same wavelengths.

[Anonymous No.11928152]

>>11928098
Use your eyes. It would take 30 seconds for you to read enough of that page to understand that you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.11928161]

>>11928151
>I've already said enough about water and methane. saying "methan is 20x" only makes sense if you're not accounting for water vapor since they absorb the same wavelengths.

[Anonymous No.11928167]

>>11928141
>And the heat released by fission would force the global temperature up by a similar amount to that of GHG emissions, anyway, so we would be overheating AND have an ungodly amount of nuclear waste to try and dispose of
the amount of heat given off by a reactor is insignificant to the amount of heat the sun gives us. The amount of nuclear waste generated is so small that it can be safely disposed of. Uranium is 1.6x denser than steel, if eddie hall were to have lifted uranium plates instead of steel, his deadlift would be 800kg. The only valid critique of nuclear energy is the accesibility of nuclear weapons in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.11928168]

>>11928086
>Construction of this number of plants would require,[11] on average, the commissioning of a new nuclear power plant somewhere in the world every day continuously for 40 years.
Doesn't explain why this replacement rate is unrealistic for multiple countries all around the world operating at the same time. Also ignores that modern reactors last longer than 50 years.

>At a uranium concentration in seawater (Garwin 2001, p. 210) of roughly 3.3 mgU/m3, extracting uranium at a rate of 2.9 MtU/yr would require treatment of water at a volume rate of 886,000 km3 /yr
This fails to evaluate modern passive extraction methods that don't require treatment of water at all.

[Anonymous No.11928171]

>>11928161
Ignoring my argument it seems. Your wikipedia source states it only considers co2. If they had also considered water vapor, methane's impact would be very low.

[Anonymous No.11928173]

>>11928151
Are you serious?
Your argument is just "I think this is how CO2 concentration is related to warming"?
The fact is that GWP is related to the amount of IR radiation a GHG absorbs relative to CO2 and how long it persists in the atmospher by a simple arithmetic relationship. There is no reference to "how many degrees of warming" it supposedly will cause, just how much infrared radiation it will absorb.
>I've already said enough about water and methane. saying "methan is 20x" only makes sense if you're not accounting for water vapor since they absorb the same wavelengths.
Again, what is your point with this? Who cares that they absorb the same wavelengths? Water vapour cannot cause global warming, but methane (and CO2, and N2O, and...) are increasing. This correlation has been deduced to be the cause of global warming.

[Anonymous No.11928182]

>>11928104
Oh my God you mean people would have to pay a tax???? This is unheard of and could never occur.

[Anonymous No.11928189]

>>11928111
>not methane
That's wrong retard. Methane emissions cause warming which increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

>others have said a week here so I'll go at that, but the point is that a momentary increase of methane is nothing on a geological scale.
Is a good thing you're a geological formation and not a human then.

[Anonymous No.11928191]

>>11928171
So you are completely retarded then. Water vapor does not drive global warming because of its extremely low atmospheric lifetime.

[Anonymous No.11928193]

>>11928167
>the amount of heat given off by a reactor is insignificant to the amount of heat the sun gives us.
Precisely my point. The earth can only radiate so much of the sun's energy away. As we use more and more energy, we will produce more and more waste heat, and then go over the energy budget of the atmosphere and heat the earth simply with waste heat.
I provided a citation with quantitative effects of this. Do you have anything to back up how the amount of heat released is insignificant?
>The amount of nuclear waste generated is so small that it can be safely disposed of.
Nuclear waste cannot be disposed of. It can only be hidden away. Convince me the methods we have available to us can effectively mitigate the risk of nuclear waste to the environment and us.
>Uranium is 1.6x denser than steel, if eddie hall were to have lifted uranium plates instead of steel, his deadlift would be 800kg.
Non-sequitur
>>11928168
>Doesn't explain why this replacement rate is unrealistic for multiple countries all around the world operating at the same time. Also ignores that modern reactors last longer than 50 years.
It should be self-evident that orchestrating the entire world to construct almost 15 000 nuclear reactors in 40 years will never happen.
>This fails to evaluate modern passive extraction methods that don't require treatment of water at all.
The source is from 2006.
What are these "modern passive extraction" methods that don't require water treatment? How can these possibly workaround the problem of getting that much uranium from such a low-concentration source?

[Anonymous No.11928197]

>>11928141
>And the heat released by fission would force the global temperature up by a similar amount to that of GHG emissions

[Anonymous No.11928200]

>>11928173
reading comprehension is low. The greenhouse gas theory logarithmic. He was using an argument which would make it linear, which is wrong.

>Again, what is your point with this? Who cares that they absorb the same wavelengths?
Two things. The more wavelengths that are absorbed, the less can be absorbed. The other is that if one molocule A absorbs all the radiation of molecule b, and then some, and that that there is approximately 14,000 more of molecule A, molecule B is not that important. Putting these two together makes methane a non issue.

>>11928189
haven't read my arguments

[Anonymous No.11928204]

>>11928193
>Do you have anything to back up how the amount of heat released is insignificant?
basic math.

>Nuclear waste cannot be disposed of. It can only be hidden away. Convince me the methods we have available to us can effectively mitigate the risk of nuclear waste to the environment and us.
dry cask storage and deep underground in locations with no water.

[Anonymous No.11928207]

>>11928182
If everyone is punished with a tax for emitting CO2, who is the non-emitting recipient?

[Anonymous No.11928209]

>>11928171
>Your wikipedia source states it only considers co2. If they had also considered water vapor, methane's impact would be very low.
Where does it say that? You seem to be confusing the spectroscopy graph with GWP. They are completely different things. Water vapor is not ignored, it cannot be a cause of global warming because its concentration is controlled by temperature. If you have no clue what you're taking about then stop posting.

[Anonymous No.11928215]

>>11928207
Who said a non-emitter receives the money? Do you unbranded how taxes work?

[Anonymous No.11928223]

>>11928200
>reading comprehension is low. The greenhouse gas theory logarithmic. He was using an argument which would make it linear, which is wrong.
What?
>The more wavelengths that are absorbed, the less can be absorbed
Excuse me?
>The other is that if one molocule A absorbs all the radiation of molecule b, and then some, and that that there is approximately 14,000 more of molecule A, molecule B is not that important.
Yes I already addressed this point over and over again.
Methane and other GHGs are significant for anthropogenic global warming, even though water absorbs the majority of the radiation. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
>>11928204
>basic math.
Yes, and? My conclusion is precisely the outcome of using basic math to show that, at current rates of electricity use and growth, waste heat will cause an increase in temperature as we will still be over the earth's energy budget.
No one is denying that the sun is what keeps the earth warm...
>dry cask storage
not proven to be effective for long enough
>deep underground in locations with no water.
like where? how do we get it there? who will put it all down there? What about when we run out of these special places?

[Anonymous No.11928239]

>>11925762

Reminder that Microsoft and Github just stored all the open source code from the internet into a doomsday vault next to the seed vault in Norway. Reminder that Elon Musk is pushing for a plan to get a human colony on Mars by 2050.

The writing is on the wall and the rich is preparing for the worst while you fucktards are still debating if climate change is real or not.

R.I.P. current crop of Humanity.

[Anonymous No.11928251]

>>11928239
Yes

[Anonymous No.11928262]

>>11928223
>logarithimic
It takes a doubling of a particular gas to cause a particular amount of warming. I already explained this >>11928151
The more water vapor absorbs the less there is for methane. There is about 14,000x the amount of water than methane. In order to get an significant warming from methane (since they absorb the same wavelengths) you'd way way more than 2ppm

>Yes, and?
what do you mean yes and? Just look at the amount of watts people use and compare it to how much the sun gives.

>like where?
they were going to do it in nevada, the perfect place, but nimbyism prevented it. I already illustrated how dense uranium is.

[Anonymous No.11928278]

>>11928193
>The earth can only radiate so much of the sun's energy away. As we use more and more energy, we will produce more and more waste heat, and then go over the energy budget of the atmosphere and heat the earth simply with waste heat.
That's wrong. The amount of waste heat produced by the entire human civilization is much much less than the gap between heat entering and leaving Earth before greenhouse gas emissions. It's about 1% of the direct warming effect. Without GHGs, the Earth would be cooling even if you multiplied waste heat by 20.

>I provided a citation with quantitative effects of this. Do you have anything to back up how the amount of heat released is insignificant?
Where? Here's actual published science directly refitting your claim: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/tss/ahf/

>It should be self-evident that orchestrating the entire world to construct almost 15 000 nuclear reactors in 40 years will never happen.
It's self-evident you have no argument so instead said "it's self-evident." Either prove your claim or it will be rejected.

>What are these "modern passive extraction" methods that don't require water treatment?
You should already know since you are oh so knowledgeable about nuclear power. You can place passive uranium collectors in the sea itself. This means that all the work of moving water over the collector is done by the sea. This method is already close to being economically competitive after several studies over the past 10 years.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=passive+uranium+extraction+from+seawater&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

[Anonymous No.11928284]

CLATHRATE MY SHIT UP FAMALAMADONG

[Anonymous No.11928286]

>>11928200
You can directly observe the warming contribution from each gas with radiative spectroscopy. Methane is a significant contributor to the warming. Your argument is empirically disproven.

>haven't read my arguments
I did. Methane emissions cause warming which increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. You are a human, so human timescales are highly significant to you.

[Anonymous No.11928288]

>>11927885
Guess what methane decays into

[Anonymous No.11928320]

>>11928215
Who gets the money?

[Anonymous No.11928326]

>>11928262
>It takes a doubling of a particular gas to cause a particular amount of warming.
Yes, that doesn't refute anything he said.

>The more water vapor absorbs the less there is for methane.
So water vapor has made methane cause no warming at all? Because that is the only way what you're saying could be relevant. Water vapor is not a radiative forcing. It is controlled by temperature, which is controlled by greenhouse gases, aerosols, albedo, the Sun, etc. So comparing their effects is pointless.

>In order to get an significant warming from methane (since they absorb the same wavelengths) you'd way way more than 2ppm
Doesn't follow.

>what do you mean yes and? Just look at the amount of watts people use and compare it to how much the sun gives.
And then compare that to how much sunlight and heat leaves Earth. It's about flux, not raw amounts of energy.

You're both retarded.

[Anonymous No.11928328]

>>11928320
If you're talking about the US budget then nobody. We just borrow slightly less money from China.

[Anonymous No.11928332]

>>11928320
It doesn't matter, as long as you disincentivize GHG emmitting activities. The money could go to nuclear and renewables, it could go to rebates for poor people, whatever.

[Anonymous No.11928336]

>>11925777
Let's get someone to nuke it so it releases even more.

[Anonymous No.11928349]

>>11928326
>So water vapor has made methane cause no warming at all?
almost all of the radiation absorbed by methane has alreadly been absorbed by water. I am talking specifically about methane and it's supposed "20x more than co2"

>>11928288
methane is 2ppm, water is 25000ppm

[Anonymous No.11928356]

>>11928332
Why not just legislate hard caps on GHG-producing activity like burning fuels or growing cattle?

[Anonymous No.11928358]

>>11928349
You are wrong. How many times and in how many ways do you need to be told this?

[Anonymous No.11928364]

>>11928356
What happens if you exceed those caps? Are you perhaps fined? Maybe by the government? Sounds like taxes.

[Anonymous No.11928366]

>>11928349
>almost all of the radiation absorbed by methane has alreadly been absorbed by water
Which is meaningless since methane still absorbs radiation, which makes it a radiative forcing, unlike water vapor.

> I am talking specifically about methane and it's supposed "20x more than co2"
Yes I know. You still don't understand what those numbers mean.

[Anonymous No.11928370]

>>11928356
Because the economic effects of hard caps are worse and they are more easily hijacked by lobbyists.

[Anonymous No.11928382]

nuclear power

IT'S THAT FUCKINGS SIMPLE YOU RETARDS

[Anonymous No.11928387]

Noooo bros don't summon the taxnigger...

[Anonymous No.11928394]

>>11928366
>Which is meaningless since methane still absorbs radiation
holy fuck how dumb are you. The effect that methane can have can only be small since water vapor absorbs all of the radiation methane does. After water gets done absorbing its radiation, there is very little for methane to absorb. The reason why co2 is important is because it does not overlap as much with water as much as other green house gases. You don't even have a minute understanding of this topic.

>>11928358
>You are wrong
only if you ignore water vapor.

>>11928358
but i am not wrong.

[Anonymous No.11928398]

>>11928394
Buddy, saying that you're right won't make you right. Why don't you go learn about global warming potential and water as a greenhouse gas and then come back, eh?

[Anonymous No.11928406]

>>11928364
Arrested and imprisoned.

>>11928370
Imagine a terrorist is threatening to blow up a building. Do you impose a tax on explosives to disincentivize this kind of behavior?

I'm told constantly that climate change is an imminent existential threat and that everyone is going to die, or wish they did. And yet when policy is proposed by these same people, suddenly economic concerns come into consideration. What a bizarre way to react to the idea that humans are on the verge of extinction.

[Anonymous No.11928409]

>>11928394
>The effect that methane can have can only be small since water vapor absorbs all of the radiation methane does.
But that's wrong, as I already explained. Are you ever going to respond to the fact that water vapor is controlled by temperature?

>The reason why co2 is important is because it does not overlap as much with water as much as other green house gases.
No it's because CO2 emissions are more than 20 times methane emissions.

>You don't even have a minute understanding of this topic.
LOL, says the guy in denial of fundamental climate science.

[Anonymous No.11928425]

>>11928406
>Arrested and imprisoned
I'd be happy with that or just shooting the fuckers, but it's not a workable solution. People would argue that the limits are unreasonable and need to be raised and that the penalty is too high and needs to be lowered, and then through lobbying and bribes the whole thing would be rendered ineffectual.

Much better to tax the dick off them so they pass those costs onto the consumers who then stop consuming fossil fuel based products in favor of cheaper alternatives.

[Anonymous No.11928431]

>>11928356
No point in arguing about how to stop climate change with someone who takes "economic growth" as an absolute certainty.

[Anonymous No.11928432]

>>11928406
>Do you impose a tax on explosives to disincentivize this kind of behavior?
Certainly you could, if terrorists only bought explosives in taxed transactions and all explosives were only bought by terrorists. But then there is no reason why you wouldn't just ban it entirely, unlike GHG emissions.

>I'm told constantly that climate change is an imminent existential threat and that everyone is going to die, or wish they did.
By whom? If they're not scientists then why would I care what you're told?

>And yet when policy is proposed by these same people, suddenly economic concerns come into consideration.
Which people? Certainly most rational people are concerned with both environmental and economic harm.

[Anonymous No.11928438]

>>11928356
Should read
>Why not legislate hard caps on GHG producing activity like oil/gas/coal mining/drilling.

You know why.

[Anonymous No.11928442]

>>11928409
>But that's wrong, as I already explained.
that's literally not wrong. It's basic physics. Water vapor leaves very little radiation left for methane to absorb. Methane would have a much much larger impact if it did not overlap with water. The point is that methane cannot cause a very big effect on temperature, therefor it cannot increase water vapor in the atmosphere much.

>No it's because CO2 emissions are more than 20 times methane emissions.
that's literally not the point, at all. co2 can actually absorb radiation because it does not overlap with water. Water does not steal all the radiation it can absorb.

>LOL, says the guy in denial of fundamental climate science.
this is incredibly basic climate science. You are being misled.

[Anonymous No.11928448]

>>11925762
How many centuries of production could we have had if we stayed at 1990 production levels (and this applies to pretty much every natural resources)?

The only reason the carbon tax is even on the table is because talking about "economic growth" is absolutely out of the question.

Growth mongers are calling the shots and they rely on "economic growth" moreso than any other segment of society. They absolutely will not even consider a world without "economic growth" because their bloated quality of life would be diminished (perhaps they might have to actually work for a living GASP).

[Anonymous No.11928458]

>>11928442
>Water vapor leaves very little radiation left for methane to absorb.
That doesn't make its effect small. It's effect is quite large as I already showed you. >>11928286

Your continuous denial of basic facts is rather pathetic.

>that's literally not the point, at all.
It is. It's the only reason why CO2 is the primary cause of global warming rather than methane.

>this is incredibly basic climate science.
Yes, unfortunately you don't understand what it means.

[Anonymous No.11928466]

>>11928442
Are you ever going to respond to the fact that water vapor is controlled by temperature? No? OK then, you lose.

[Anonymous No.11928483]

>>11928458
>That doesn't make its effect small. It's effect is quite large as I already showed you
those numbers are based on co2 and do not factor water vapor stealing the radiation methane can absorb. Basic physics. The more light that is absorbed, the less there is that can be absorbed. Water vapor by itself has already absorbed almost all of the radiation methane can, which severely limits its effect as a green house gas.

>It is. It's the only reason why CO2 is the primary cause of global warming rather than methane.
It's not. You do not understand the fact that water vapor being so abundant means that any molecule that overlaps in radiation absorption means its effect as a green house gas is limited by water. Extremely basic shit as I already said. I do not know how to make this any more simple.

>>11928466
doesn't matter if the subject in question is extremely ineffective at heating.

[Anonymous No.11928505]

>>11926245
Not nearly as depressed as marine biologists. Every single one of them I have met is staring an existential crisis in the face that 90% of the population doesn't even aknowledged.

"Oh yeah there is a giant garbage patch"
"lol you mean England right?"

[Anonymous No.11928536]

>>11926245
I don't blame them. It's a field of study dedicated to witnessing the slow-motion death of a sustainable environment, even excluding climate change.

>marine life will be outweighed by plastic in a few decades
>coral reefs are fucked
>biodiversity in all ecosystems is suffering
>current farming patterns are unsustainable and will likely lead to mass starvation
>fresh water sources are dwindling
>adoption of any mitigating action is atrociously slow or outright rejected

[Anonymous No.11928539]

>>11925777
What does anti-semitism have to do with science?

[Anonymous No.11928565]

>>11928448
>1990
more like 1900 if you want humanity last more than 25 years

[Anonymous No.11928653]

What exactly will happen in the future?

[Anonymous No.11928696]

>>11928483
>those numbers are based on co2 >and do not factor water vapor stealing the radiation methane can absorb.
???

No they are radiative forcing numbers in Watts per square meter. They are independent from CO2's effect and are based on the actual effect of each gas in the atmosphere. Do you really think lying is going to help you?

>You do not understand the fact that water vapor being so abundant means that any molecule that overlaps in radiation absorption means its effect as a green house gas is limited by water.
I do, this is irrelevant to everything I've said.

>doesn't matter if the subject in question is extremely ineffective at heating.
I already showed it's not ineffective. Being the forcing behind 25% of global warming is hardly ineffective.

[Anonymous No.11928704]

>>11928653

In all seriousness one out of the two things:

1. We wil all die in the most pathetic way possible: scientific and societal regression caused by our unchecked ignorant mistakes.
2. Some of us will fuck off in a rocket Interstellar style.

[Anonymous No.11928734]

>>11928704
The Jews will ascend to space to let the planet cool off for a while. The remaining sparse human populations will regress to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on the European savannah, becoming browner and more idiotic as the generations progress. The relatively short term spike in CO2 will get reabsorbed partially after a thousand years or two, animal populations will begin to stabilize and diversify around 2000 years, bacteria will begin to eat the plastic, ect. The Jews will remain in orbit, coming down occasionally for more resources, but will institute hyper-eugenics resulting in the speciation between terrestrial and spaceborn humans. Only after about 5000 years will the Jews come back to enslave the remaining populations and rule the Earth permanently.

[Anonymous No.11928779]

>>11928734
jews will become morlocks and feed on the hapless eloi

[Anonymous No.11929024]

>>11928448
>their bloated quality of life would be diminished (perhaps they might have to actually work for a living GASP)
It is amusing that you think only the quality of life of wealthy 0.01 percenters will be diminished if economic growth is halted. Why are climate fags always economically illiterate?

[Anonymous No.11929117]

It's the first """discovered""", probably not the only one. Shit could have been leaking for millenia. We don't know.

[Anonymous No.11929183]

>>11927708
Nothing. It's too late now honestly.

[Anonymous No.11929190]

>>11928086
>(15,000 GWe) by 2050 would require roughly 14,636 new 1-GW nuclear power plants. Construction of this number of plants would require,[11] on average, the commissioning of a new nuclear power plant somewhere in the world every day continuously for 40 years.

But that won't be a problem with solar and wind since that same exact 15,000 GWe of new capacity will be magically willed into existence because those wonderful, Christ-like hippies just love their Mother Earth so fucking much

This is just as bad as anti-nuke cultists whining about the fossil fuels used in constructing nuclear power plants while being fucking hypocrites and ignoring all of the fossil fuels burned to extract raw material, to manufacture and to transport the finished product from the factory to the wind/solar farm.

These Luddites cumguzzling are the reason why we're having this conversation right now. If not for their faggotry, coal power would be on its last legs and CO2 levels would much lower than they are now.

[Anonymous No.11929205]

>>11928086
>(15,000 GWe) by 2050 would require roughly 14,636 new 1-GW nuclear power plants. Construction of this number of plants would require,[11] on average, the commissioning of a new nuclear power plant somewhere in the world every day continuously for 40 years.

But that won't be a problem with solar and wind since that same exact 15,000 GWe of new capacity will be magically willed into existence because those wonderful, Christ-like hippies just love their Mother Earth so fucking much

This is just as bad as anti-nuke cultists whining about the fossil fuels used in constructing nuclear power plants while being fucking hypocrites and ignoring all of the fossil fuels burned to extract raw material, to manufacture and to transport the finished product from the factory to the wind/solar farm.

These Luddites cumguzzlers are the reason why we're having this conversation right now. If not for their faggotry, coal power would be on its last legs and CO2 levels would much lower than they are now.

[Anonymous No.11929217]

>>11929117
You don't know what the implications of this are, do you? Regardless of what caused it, its bad, and only going to get worse.

[Anonymous No.11929248]

>>11927631
Well this comes close
https://where-is-tesla-roadster.space/live

[Anonymous No.11929295]

>>11925762
>>11926241
These have always been methane leaks this is nothing new we are just discovering more of this stuff as we explore the Earth in greater and greater detail

[Anonymous No.11929297]

>>11929205
Sorry fag, the only way to stop this is to reduce energy consumption.

[Anonymous No.11929313]

>>11925762
poetic

[Anonymous No.11929314]

>>11929024
I think their quality of life will be diminished the most. Primarily because they consider flying around the world on their jets, hanging out on luxury boats and driving luxury cars are "quality of life". Fuck em. If it means the rest of us can afford one less pizza dinner per year then so be it.

Oh and fuck you for being such a whiny little bitch.

[Anonymous No.11929384]

>>11929297
You can start by getting off the fucking internet

And while you're at it, neck yourself so you don't use up all of the resources.

[Anonymous No.11929450]

>>11925864
>world enviornments changing =/= exctinction
The world has been changing for a very long time, life adapts, we will too.

[Anonymous No.11929478]

How do you all cope with your doom scenario?

[Anonymous No.11929494]

>>11929450
>He doesn't know about the Holocene extinction

Shits rough dude. Biodiversity all over the world is dropping like proverbial flies.

[Anonymous No.11929524]

>>11929494
Such is the natural order of things. Imagine how many times life got nearly wiped out on our rock yet it always came back.

[Anonymous No.11929533]

>>11929524
It's not a smart idea as the dominant species to remove biodiversity in the way we are doing. We get a lot of important medicines, chemicals, and products from our enviorments. Not to mention the massive amounts of tuning the global biosphere does for the cycling of nitrogen, carbon, water, and energy.

I have no doubt that life will survive. We could glass the surface of this planet and life would survive. But the problem is the life that develops in response to us is highly likely to be very hostile/inedible to humans as a function of survival.

My main point was just that that anon was missing the fact we are literally in the middle of a global extinction event.

[Anonymous No.11929578]

>>11929314
I can taste the envy and resentment from here. Seethe harder, poorfag.

[Anonymous No.11929803]

>>11929314
That's not how economic collapses work. Cars will be the first to go, then ambulances and fire trucks etc (the fuel-powered ones, this is). The last fossil-fuel-powered transport vehicle to run will be a private jet. The rich aren't hit hardest by these things, they're hit last and least- As the circle of what places remain untouched by the crisis shrinks, as in a PUBG match, they'll retreat into suburban fortresses of desperately trying to continue normality, hoarding consumer goods and guarded by G4S private security, mercenaries. Neofuedalism. The future is medieval.

[Anonymous No.11929806]

>>11929295
I think were more worried about the potentially apocalyptic chain reaction.

[Anonymous No.11929807]

>>11929478
https://youtu.be/sJO0n6kvPRU

[Anonymous No.11929810]

>>11929478
I take solace in the fact that all the deniers and their children will suffer the same consequences as the victims, because we all live on the same planet and we are shitting where we sleep.

[Anonymous No.11929817]

>>11925777
we're going to go extinct even if the environment magically stabilizes tomorrow

[Anonymous No.11929822]

>>11925868
american*

[Anonymous No.11929841]

>>11929810
Nope, see >>11929803

[Anonymous No.11929855]

>>11929841
Who do you think makes the rich people's food? Thats not how it works. They are outnumbered and the peasants have guns this time. This isn't a video game.

[Anonymous No.11929859]

>>11929855
People who get paid handsomely for their services, and are going to continue doing so in order to enjoy the benefits that your average wagie won't get.

I realize you're masturbating furiously at the idea of doing another Russia circa 1917, but your retarded Reign of Terror eat-the-rich uprising isn't going to happen.

[Anonymous No.11929952]

>>11925777
> he unironically wants humanity to survive
> noooo le evil oil magnates
kys

[Anonymous No.11929976]

>>11927885
I know Australia has natural drought flood cycles, I know a guy who's written like half of those papers in the past decade, and the evidence shows the space between those droughts is shrinking rapidly.

[Anonymous No.11929997]

>>11929952
100 companies have produced about 70% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions since 1988

[Anonymous No.11930013]

>>11925762
>>11925777
>>11929997
This question is pure satire and is in no way serious, but why hasn't anyone just started wasting these motherfuckers? They would be the most popular """psycho""" of all time.

[Anonymous No.11930027]

>>11930013
It might hurt the free market, and to the West that's basically stabbing God

[Anonymous No.11930071]

>>11930013
The main reason these people, who you seem to hate so much, became wealthy in the first place is because everyone liked what they were selling and kept buying their shit.

>Jeff Bezos shouldn't be so rich, he has enough money!
>*buys more Chinese garbage off Amazon, delivered right to his doorstep within 2 days*

[Anonymous No.11930074]

>>11930071
I'm talking about these guys like the Nestle CEO who tried to privatize water, the bankers who literally loan entire countries shit they know they can't repay so they can have them basically enslaved, and the oil companies who lied about destroying the planet for decades.
Don't pretend these fucks are just the same as your average local business.

[Anonymous No.11930078]

>>11925777
actually the bankers are doing a lot but not for the reasons you'd like

[Anonymous No.11930082]

>>11925864
Australia is burning more because the governement (pressured by activists) is forbiding seasonal burning which (even natives knew) helps prevent bigger forest fires.

[Anonymous No.11930087]

>>11930082
Right, and the average rainfall is going down while length of drought seasons is going up because of activists as well I suppose? And the fire chiefs who said the government wouldn't listen to any of their warnings which involved climate change were just liars too?

[Anonymous No.11930088]

>>11926098
Methane also disolves into CO2 and water vapor when it rises to the atmosphere so the "its even worse than CO2" is a tricky asumption ignorant people use as a boogeyman.

[Anonymous No.11930091]

>>11930087
>Changes the focus immediatly
Yeah theres less average rainfall, so letting seasonal burning have its way is even more necessary. Im not even a denier its just that most people miss the useful insight and go directly to panicking.

[Anonymous No.11930097]

>>11929533
>we are literally
dropped

[Anonymous No.11930101]

Why are these kind of threads redditnigger magnets?

[Anonymous No.11930103]

>>11930074
Those are hardly free market actors, m8. Megacorps are granted special privileges that regular firms do not enjoy. Banks are on a level beyond that.

[Anonymous No.11930123]

>>11925762
>Amp links
Don't let google destroy the Internet you retards

[Anonymous No.11930126]

>>11930123
We as users have no words in this game. See all niggerish internet laws around the world.

[Anonymous No.11930201]

>>11930103
I didn't say anything about the free market.

[Anonymous No.11930205]

>>11930091
I said more and more frequently though. I'm not talking about our last big bushfires. I'm talking about how the space between our big bushfires is getting smaller. Otherwise I'd agree with you.

[Anonymous No.11930297]

>>11928063
They’re going to do the exact same thing with fusion if it ever gets cracked, just fucking watch. Their excuses will be “muh tritium” and “muh initial cost.”
It’s not about actually saving the planet, it’s about taking up as much space as possible with solar panels and wind turbines, which I still don’t understand.

[Anonymous No.11930432]

>>11927959
No response? How come one study says this and the other says its the opposite

[Anonymous No.11930560]

>>11930432
>the other says its the opposite
Which study?

[Anonymous No.11930590]

>>11925777
people are doing things. the problems are the bankers and associates which prints money indefinitely which benefits them more (this is called the cantillon effect). this won't last.
those and marxists are of the same kinds.

[Anonymous No.11930592]

>>11927911
buy locally produced goods, stop throwing perfectly fine phones away, consume less trash in general, fly less often, recycle your shit, eat less meat/fish, don’t let the water running while brushing your teeth, don’t buy a fucking truck if you don’t need it, support renewable or nuclear energy generation for your contracts, use public transportation / car sharing,...
and hope this is enough to not have to cull half of the population.

[Anonymous No.11930602]

>>11930592
>eat less meat
eat less processed meat, don't eat less meat, eat local meat from your local butcher

[Anonymous No.11931195]

>>11927885
you are a retarded fucking romanian circumcised nigger.

[Anonymous No.11931221]

>>11930297
To them it is about saving the planet, it's just an ignorance for relative costs and damages from different energy sources.

We have bad faith dick heads like oil shills who actively suppress climate change knowledge and fund misinformation campaigns.
We have people who took the bait and think climate change is a hoax, earnestly, and think everyone who didn't take the Exxonpill is a shill for "big-green"
We have the people who want to help the environment but bit to hard into the feeling of self-satisfaction by making "greener choices" and refuse to learn more. They earnestly want to help but lack the information or willingness to change like the previous group.
Then we have a bunch of climate scientists, real activists, and green tech researchers who are crying because no one wants to fund their genuinely good ideas while their budgets get continually slashed. Then when they do get an EPA grant to make a lower emission power plant they get banned from working at the EPA because Trump decided that putting a coal lobbyist in charge of our environmental regulation was a good idea.

The first group has the power, the second group enables the first. The third tries to help but is too busy huffing their own farts to see the forest for the tress. The fourth are the ones genuinely doing the most but getting bare minimum support as their ideas aren't "economically positive actions" in the short term. Not to mention how they get shit on by the first group because status quo, and the second group who thinks they are the ones huffing their own farts.

[Anonymous No.11931479]

>>11928059
The gist of it is still right, which is all that matters considering what's as stake : feedback loops are triggered, humanity's going down soon, the reasoning and the mechanisms described as well as the timeline is correct. Only a retard like you would disagree.

[Anonymous No.11931498]

>>11930560
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6480/907

Permafrost and methane hydrates are large, climate-sensitive old carbon reservoirs that have the potential to emit large quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, as the Earth continues to warm. We present ice core isotopic measurements of methane (Δ14C, δ13C, and δD) from the last deglaciation, which is a partial analog for modern warming. Our results show that methane emissions from old carbon reservoirs in response to deglacial warming were small (<19 teragrams of methane per year, 95% confidence interval) and argue against similar methane emissions in response to future warming.

[Anonymous No.11931502]

>>11925777

Dont forget those greens who killed nuclear.

[Anonymous No.11931647]

anyone else happy that the world will end in our lifetime?

[Anonymous No.11931714]

What biggest effects of climate change will we likely see before 2100?

[Anonymous No.11931846]

>>11931647
>>11931479
This is why people don't take you idiots seriously.

[Anonymous No.11932012]

The main issue is we can't really sequester the carbon
The Earth was a lot fucking hotter during the carboniferous but had the same total mass of carbon but it got locked up in plants that became fossil fuels from then all the way through the mesozoic to now, so all that carbon is showing back up
Plus this shit is happening too fast while our civilization broke up and fragmented all the habitats so keystone species go extinct and the whole shit running away

[Anonymous No.11932069]

>>11931502
The price of nuclear killed nuclear

[Anonymous No.11932155]

>>11931714
More and larger hurricanes floods and fires
Venice sinking

[Anonymous No.11932167]

>>11932069
The price of nuclear isn't just the price of building a reactor, it's the price of meeting the billion regulations, permits, and standards that have to be completed before you can even stick a shovel in the ground.

[Anonymous No.11932182]

>>11931714
Say goodbye to coastal cities and hello to national agriculture and "refugees"

[Anonymous No.11932185]

>>11932182
Coastal cities will, at worst, lose some of their their beachfront areas. We already have subsidized agriculture, and refugees are flooding in regardless.

So basically, no real change.

[Anonymous No.11932205]

>>11927708
kek all these pessimists are idiots we have things that can zap a few square kilometers in an instant we just have to toss a few nukes at major cities.

[Anonymous No.11932307]

>>11932167
Those regulations are in place to make sure they aren't neglected to the point that they become dangerous. The only way nuclear would be cheaper without those regulations would be to cut corners either on maintenance or during the actual construction.

[Anonymous No.11932383]

Bros...Outside of alarmism and shit, are we even having a little bit of progress? All of this looks awful, I unironically imagine the future being Best case scenario: Elysium, worst case scenario: Mad Max Fury road.
I Just want the world to look like this https://www.pinterest.com.mx/pin/467178161324357791/ :(.

[Anonymous No.11932415]

>>11925777
99% of every species thats ever lived on earth has gone extinct. Its only a matter of time for humans.

[Anonymous No.11932424]

>>11932383
Direct air capture is becoming a thing. If you hadn't noticed, loads of companies are jumping on the electric car bandwagon too, and battery tech is slowly improving.

[Anonymous No.11932426]

>>11932415
Those species did not have the ability to create technology to significantly alter their environment or themselves.

[Anonymous No.11932434]

>>11932426
>Those species did not have the ability to create technology to significantly alter their environment or themselves
How would you know for certainty? If Humans disappeared overnight, all our history/tech/buildings/leftovers will be gone in few million years.

[Anonymous No.11932436]

>>11932424
I didn't knew about the direct air capture thing, thanks brah; I've also seen that Xi Jin is doing a shit ton of renewable energy infraestructure, maybe it's all just the news panicking people.

[Anonymous No.11932454]

>>11925762
Nuclear energy is our only hope

[Anonymous No.11932457]

>>11932424
I think it's safe to say that we have a better shot than the Atlanteans.

>>11932436
>maybe it's all just the news panicking people.
You didn't realize this already?

[Anonymous No.11932462]

Population growth is the real issue. There are too many people using too many resources. And I dont think there is anything we can do about it. Sustainability is a meme dream. I dont think humans as a species are at the end yet, but I expect a massive reset button on our population. By us, by a microorganism, but the effects of climate change, something will break and we will be changed.

[Anonymous No.11932472]

There is actually nothing wrong with putting carbon into our atmosphere. That is where it all came from in the first place. Also, isn’t that shit good for trees? And all of this would result in what? An average temperature increase of 2 degrees Fahrenheit? WhoaH hold the phone man. It’s my right as a free citizen to pollute. I decat all my cars. I dump oil in my backyard. And I bury my waste in the dirt

[Anonymous No.11932494]

>>11932462
This but nobody wants to stop reproducing. After all, if the intelligent people follow the rules, retards will flood everywhere

[Anonymous No.11932545]

>>11932494
According to some, the intelligent people are making a lot of money off of the population growth (primarily construction and banking industries) and using the money to finance luxury lifestyles and many spoiled children.

[Anonymous No.11932613]

>>11926245
>half the environmental sciences department at my university are depressed as fuck
Their worldview creates their "science". Their depression and instability is the causative agent.

[Anonymous No.11932640]

>>11932613
Have you ever considered the idea that you might be a genuine psychopath?

[Anonymous No.11932725]

>>11932462
>>11932494
You guys can always start by killing yourselves, reduce the numbers a bit.

[Anonymous No.11932753]

>>11932725
>he doesn't want to see if his genes and way of life will survive the oncoming cull

[Anonymous No.11932774]

>enviromentalism
More like doomsday cult. Even if it were true and we're all going to die anyway does it even matter if every country suddenly became an utopia overnight and stopped every industry and we all became vegetarians? Or are we too late to revert back to normal? Or is the only way to revert it is all that + mass genocide of humans and livestock?

[Anonymous No.11932780]

>>11932774
The difference is that a doomsday cult tries to speed up the end of the world.

If we as humans made a permanent like 25-50% emissions cut and then put a ceiling on growth most of the major world ending disasters would be curbed.

[Anonymous No.11932795]

>>11932424
>slowly improving
Slowly won't save us

[Anonymous No.11932801]

>>11932780
Honestly, until shit gets bad enough to cause state-level collapse and mass migration in the equatorial regions, you won't see the developed world seriously address climate change. The effects aren't immediate enough for democracies with term limits to attack the problem with sufficient resources.

[Anonymous No.11932806]

>>11932801
So how long do we have until the mexicans invade us en masse?

[Anonymous No.11932810]

>>11932806
The Republicans say that's happening now

[Anonymous No.11932822]

>>11932780
What's the current ETA for the doomsday? Also, I'm all for exterminating the majority of the world population that's not of my race and growing more forests around the world. Where do I sign up for the cult?

[Anonymous No.11932829]

>>11932822
It's hard to put an exact time on doomsday.

Like we could skate by on a stable human society and just turtle out even the worst things. Or we could destabilize after a year where a shit load of disasters happen one right after the other three years from now.

Radical ecoterrorist. Sounds dope, there are plenty of people down to do it. Just attend an oil pipeline protest or something and find the most extreme in the groups. Eventually you'll find the right crowd.

[Anonymous No.11932842]

>>11932829
I wonder why there aren't more of the neo-nazi type sticking with the environmentalism shtick. It's the perfect political tool that combines puppy eyed health and happy nature for all and also the eliminate a portion of the population for "stability".
Am I a genius? Should I run for office?

[Anonymous No.11932845]

>>11932842
Eco-facism follows that pretty heavily. The problem is most Eco hippies are liberals who despise Nazis while most Nazis fall under far right policies making them skeptical, at best, of climate change.

[Anonymous No.11932899]

>>11930013
Satirically speaking, killing individuals, even if they are company heads, isn't going to do much to limit pollution, you need to forcibly halt production to do that. A particularly satirical individual who had acquired the necessary knowledge and equipment as a joke might be able to do something like this:
>take a sample of COVID 19 from somewhere and store it for a while.
>wait until the global outbreak stabilises and economic activity (particularly international shipping) begins to pick up and then quietly release the virus again.
>a few months later, the outbreak takes off, everything is shut down again and the worlds biggest polluters suffer a complete breakdown in supply chains and massive financial loss all over again
>repeat as necessary until the big polluting companies are destroyed

[Anonymous No.11932913]

>>11932899
Wouldn't it be easier to just go around killing every livestock until extinction? Less livestock = mass famine = less consumers = less industry.

[Anonymous No.11932915]

>>11930071
no, the main reason rich people are rich is because their great-great-grandparents would bully out anyone else from joining them so that they could sell to a captive audience

[Anonymous No.11932937]

>>11930013
chill dude. its mainly the boomers and their money/greed that is driving all the retarded shit. once they start dying off things will change for the better.

[Anonymous No.11932950]

>>11932725
Only Africans, some latinosand indians are the problem

[Anonymous No.11932951]

>>11932950
You forgot the chinese.

[Anonymous No.11932963]

>>11932913
If meat gets more expensive people will just eat not-meat until it's cheap. Meat has always been a luxury good.

[Anonymous No.11932975]

>>11932913
there are millions of cows and sheep and chickens and whatnot all over the world, you would need an army to pull that off.
Re-releasing COVID 19, on the other hand, would take only one person and a crowded subway/shopping centre

[Anonymous No.11932980]

>>11932963
I dunno man, I don't think I can survive without eating pork ribs every weekend.

[Anonymous No.11933002]

>>11932980
Good riddance then mate
>>11932975
I worry that Rona is not fucking over multinationals, agribusiness, fast fashion, etc as hard as it is small businesses and min wage laborers. However if the meat packing industry got shit on further and people kept working remote, that would help a lot. Transportation is the #1 energy need we can't replace with renewable or nuclear fuels.

[Anonymous No.11933003]

>>11925777
throw in smartphone companies too while you are at it

[Anonymous No.11933021]

The end is coming!

[Anonymous No.11933039]

>>11928046
>There's no point in doing science at this point

[Anonymous No.11933100]

>>11932185
>What is Shanghai
>What is Bangladesh
>What is 1500 square km of the UK's agricultural land in the Fens
And so on, lots of places below sea level or les than a metre above it that will lead to mass displacement of people and loss of agriculture / economic damage even if it's a gradual process and not disaster movie stuff

[Anonymous No.11933119]

>>11932545
it's not that, the intelligent people are just superior so they end up having a better situation than most others on average

[Anonymous No.11933128]

>>11932899
Well, as I've said before on /lit/ in Ted Kaczynski threads, where he went wrong was he killed a bunch of randos and one minor timber lobbyist which was A) inconsequential in bringing down the system he hated and B) upset people who don't like murder so the general public were against him. The adversary we are talking about here is not a person(s), or a political party, or even a corporate entity, but a mindset, the greed and selfishness in the heart of man that any one of us can be prone to. I've said to socialists before that for this same reason it's not enough to "seize" wealth, you have to destroy it before it ends up in somebody else's hands who inevitably also ends up corrupted by it. Absolute corruption (human nature) corrupts power, to invert a popular phrase. So the solution is to reduce power. In the case of environmentalism, that means Kaczynski should have targeted the infrastructure of the system he hated, not people. Imagine how different the public image of him would have been (and the possible consequences) if he'd sabotaged factories and power stations and building sites without hurting anybody, or hired early script kiddies to try and pull a Fight Club on the mortgage debt industry. Even aside from the ethics it would have been more popular and more effective at achieving his ends. You wouldn't need to achieve 100% destruction, just make those industries economically unviable due to copycat vandalism. Similar strategy has recently worked in the UK against fracking, locals blocked the roads into the pilot site so often the cost of continuing to run the site became prohibitive.

[Anonymous No.11933146]

>>11933128
why people don't get that the issue by far is central banks of big countries with big armies which control money, allowing disproportionate power and inappropriate laws

[Anonymous No.11933230]

>>11933128
I take your point, but urge you to consider that the real potential in seeding pandemics lies not in the indiscriminate destruction, but rather how easy, anonymous and immediately effective it is, anyone with the right gear can do it, and there is nothing anyone can do to find out who they were or stop them

[Anonymous No.11933371]

>>11930087
>The August to October period is very likely to be wetter than average (greater than 80% chance) over most of NSW, southern-central Queensland and most of SA
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/rainfall/summary

Where did you get your information from? Just because someone firefighter said so, doesn't mean that their information trumps a meteorologist

[Anonymous No.11933398]

>>11929976
Over what time period? 1000 years? Because that's meaningless.

[Anonymous No.11933447]

>>11932725
Reproducing =/= being already alive, cuck boy

[Anonymous No.11933456]

>>11933447
>being alive doesn't consume resources and produce GHGs
Again, start with yourself.

[Anonymous No.11933626]

>>11931846
Nice to see there's still no adressing the facts !

[Anonymous No.11933835]

>>11930602
local meat still requires a shitload of farmland and energy compared to the same nutritional values from primary sources

[Anonymous No.11934006]

>>11933456
Not reproducing = 1 unit of human lifetime carbon in average
Reproducing = n units of human lifetime carbon in average, n being the number of children you have, and their children, and their children's children, and so on

[Anonymous No.11934020]

>>11934006
Right, so if you neck yourself we'll all be better off

[Anonymous No.11934030]

>>11934020
Mathematically speaking, it's the breeders with 10 children who deserve to neck themselves more. They're the ones exponentially increasing our carbon output. I guess it doesn't matter really, all our descendants are likely to die either brutal deaths in water wars, or wither away from agricultural collapse.

[Anonymous No.11934034]

>>11933835
>same nutritional values
good luck matching the value of a simple piece of meat with other foods that are natural and equally healthy in similar quantity

[Anonymous No.11934036]

>>11934020
God damn you're retarded nigga

[Anonymous No.11934063]

>>11934030
>>11934036
Then go on a spree killing before you eat a bullet, but nobody wants to hear you bitch about how everyone else should die to make you more comfortable.

Be the change you want to see. Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.11934088]

>>11934034
Learn about trophic levels. Herbavores take 10 times as much sunlight to raise as autotrophs do and all the same nutrients can be obtained from either diet. Personally (I'm not who you're responding to) I don't think giving up meat is essential. I prefer aquaponics as a solution to the future of agriculture because it eliminates ruminants, the fish provide better nutrition, and the efficiency in terms of protein/acre is several times higher.

[Anonymous No.11934142]

>>11934063
That'd be too easy. I'd rather dump hormones in the water and make you people sterile.

[Anonymous No.11934155]

>>11934142
Uh huh, enjoy those delusions of grandeur

[Anonymous No.11934187]

>>11934155
I mean, microplastics are pretty cheap.

[Anonymous No.11934194]

>>11934187
Not in the quantities needed to sterilize even one person. How big is your unemployment check?

[Anonymous No.11934208]

>>11934088
maybe, assuming the human population grows a lot in the future, personally I think that (natural) meat will become even more of a luxury food, as it should be

[Anonymous No.11934242]

>>11934034
Such as beans?

[Anonymous No.11934259]

>>11934242
>beans
enjoy your carbs and permanent flatulences

[Anonymous No.11934281]

>>11934194
I mean, I was thinking of turning your children gay and trans in the womb...

[Anonymous No.11934338]

>>11934208
>meat
>luxury
>as it should be
How much of a bitter vegan faggot are you?

[Anonymous No.11934386]

>>11934006
The breeders don't even know the are ironically the extinction of the human race. They're utterly retarded.

[Anonymous No.11934397]

>>11928050
>I don't trust wikepedia on political issues.
A while ago I was told that evolutionary biology is political, too. We don't have to tolerate this nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11934421]

>>11934281
>More delusions of grandeur
Why don't you suck off your shotgun instead of being a big internet tough guy? Oh right, because you're a coward.

[Anonymous No.11934422]

>>11934338
Having meat every day may well be an anomaly. We got to this point thanks to intensive agriculture that relies on cheap fossil fuels. Without this advantage, meat would be a luxury food. I don't agree with the earlier anon that it should be, because market conditions will set the price regardless.

[Anonymous No.11934426]

>>11934338
I eat meat everyday and tell everyone to do so

[Anonymous No.11934466]

>>11934422
And what will be the next "luxury" good to go to enable your precious economic/population growth?

[Anonymous No.11934479]

>>11934466
We'll all be eating mosquito cakes in the near future and you'll enjoy it

[Anonymous No.11934490]

>>11934466
Oh, I'm not advocating for anything here. It's plainly obvious that perpetual growth is impossible. Just pointing out that we can have cheap meat because fossil fuels are still pretty cheap.

[Anonymous No.11934495]

>>11934479
Neat strawman, breh

[Anonymous No.11934496]

>>11928086
Fusion reactors. Or solar power collector stations beaming power to Earth from orbit.

[Anonymous No.11934515]

>>11934495
Thanks bro

[Anonymous No.11934545]

>>11934386
Would it be safe to say that you're at no risk of joining that particular group?

[Anonymous No.11934560]

>>11934490
Fair enough. I only ever advocate for lower levels of consumption because the less consumption the longer the human race lasts. That's pretty simple math that seems beyond far too many people.

[Anonymous No.11934565]

>>11934545
Would it be safe to say that you've got lots of children and live a luxuriant bloated lifestyle?

[Anonymous No.11934692]

>>11934565
I wish. Squarely middle class, and I haven't reproduced to replacement levels yet. The next family car will be a gas guzzler just 4 u tho.

[Anonymous No.11934719]

>>11932383
There was some serious progress made in research for fusion reactors. Those scientists need more funding and manpower.

[Anonymous No.11934743]

>>11934719
where? by who? how?

[Anonymous No.11934750]

>>11933230
>cause a global pandemic
ISHYGDDI.
Whatever message or goal you want to achieve will be invalidated on the first death and all dogs will be hanged on the perpetrator.
The best solution is to network, find an effective alternative and then LOBBY so fucking hard that it becomes impossible for corporate bastards and sellout politicians to astroturf or falseflag or counter-lobby. That however requires a very strong organisation, self-discipline, commitment and resolve. But believe me, nothing is better than seeing the villains getting jailed or proverbialy crusified and thrown out of politics.

[Anonymous No.11934759]

>>11934743
Dont remember, need to find the article on phys.org
Was published couple of months ago.

[Anonymous No.11934772]

>>11934743
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-discovery-edge-fusion-plasma-power.html
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-proven-method-stabilizing-efforts-fusion.html
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-scientists-tool-fusion-devices.html

[Anonymous No.11934794]

>>11932462
>Population growth is the real issue.
Well

[Anonymous No.11934798]

>>11934750
>the goal you want to achieve will be invalidated on the first death
Not if death is the goal

[Anonymous No.11934801]

>>11926983

Never trust a cunt named McPherson

[Anonymous No.11934808]

fusion is literally the only hope, without we will eventually slide back into effective middle ages

[Anonymous No.11934812]

>>11925762
fuck it
the strong will survive
if it's humanity then good, if not, then fuck em

[Anonymous No.11934840]

>>11934812
It would be great if we could be strong by restraining our consumption and being ecologically clever rather than individually going grug-mode as our arable land gets more and more trashed?

[Anonymous No.11934966]

>>11934794
I agree that it will stabilize but we are already past the point of no return. Each of these new individuals will require food, water, and energy for anywhere from 40 to 80 years. Realistically, at average consumption needs, I believe the Earth can hold around 1 billion individuals spaced and concious if its to still be sustainable.

[Anonymous No.11935062]

>>11934692
>I wish.
So given the opportunity, you wouldn't give a rats ass about sustainability or humanity's long term interests. Essentially you're just like every psychotic bloated fuck except you fail even at being a psychotic bloated fuck.

[Anonymous No.11935070]

>>11935062
I wish every nigger and chink would just die already desu

[Anonymous No.11935209]

>>11935062
Your poorfag tears are delicious.

[Anonymous No.11936241]

>>11934034
1) it’s really not hard. I eat meat because I love it, but claiming it’s necessary is mental gymnastics to justify gluttony. Especially the amounts people eat on average.
2) You misunderstand me. I mean the energy required to produce 1kJ worth of food is much higher in animals than in plants. No one can seriously claim that farming onions beans to feed pigs and eating them is more efficient than just eating onions beans.

[Anonymous No.11936246]

>>11934560
cutting down on meat intake is a very easy way to lower consumption

[Anonymous No.11936259]

>>11936246
Yes, but its a cope to avoid dealing with population growth.

[Anonymous No.11936260]

>>11925762

Literally nobody in this thread actually read the article or understood it.

>The reason for the emergence of the new seep remains a mystery, but it is probably not global heating, as the Ross Sea where it was found has yet to warm significantly.

They talk at length about the potential risks and causes of methane leaks, but they go out of their way to point out that the cause of this particular leak, in this location seems unlikely to be related to manmade climate change.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not denying climate change but it seems like a weird fucking article to panic about.

[Anonymous No.11936263]

>>11934772
Fusion has been 20 years away since 1950

[Anonymous No.11936267]

>>11933398
The late 20th century

[Anonymous No.11936270]

>>11935070
in reality, whites are dying out... tough luck, ey?

[Anonymous No.11936272]

>>11932842
>I wonder why there aren't more of the neo-nazi type sticking with the environmentalism shtick
There are actually a lot of them. Environmentalism has always been heavily tied in to Nazism.

[Anonymous No.11936277]

or is it nazism heavily tied to environmentalism?

[Anonymous No.11936279]

>>11936272
>>11936277

[Anonymous No.11936280]

>>11925762
why don't we just burn the methane to begin with then, Fuck it might as well use the energy for something useful and avoid the 10 years it superheats the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11936283]

>>11936259
population growth is declining already. Besides going WW-tier culling, there is not much we can do about that.
Maybe stopping to spread propaganda in subsaharan africa about how condoms are sent by the devil might help, but I doubt this is significant.

We can only really hope for technological advancements to bail us out, and not consuming like retarded monkeys will give us more time.

[Anonymous No.11936287]

>>11936272
>There are actually a lot of them.
Not really. Most blue collar types could give a flying fuck about the environment. They're the ones who work for the big corporations who also couldn't give a flying fuck about the environment. Makes sense that ceo's would try and paint enviros as nazis, even though the real nazis are actually working for them.

[Anonymous No.11936289]

>>11936283
>population growth is declining already.
not where I live. i bet not where you live either. i bet not where anyone lives.

I honestly don't know how anyone can actually believe that meme.

[Anonymous No.11936292]

>>11936280
if you find a cheap/viable way to capture it, go ahead. you’d probably become a very rich person.

[Anonymous No.11936294]

>>11936289
just to make sure, you understand what I mean with population growth, right? It’s not population, which is also declining where I live.

[Anonymous No.11936295]

>>11936280
to expand on this idea, we could set up massive server farms next to antartica that need basically no cooling, and run off burnt permafrost methane. You could use them to crunch massive protein folding calculations and the like and actually use the energy for social betterment or even to look for ways solve the FUCKING problem.

[Anonymous No.11936305]

>>11936294
ya. you mean the 2nd derivative of population. you're betting the farm that a generation that isn't even born yet will decide to have fewer children. sorry, not buying it.
>population is declining where I live
oh wow please inform me as to which country you live in that does not have an increasing population. i wasn't aware that there were any.

[Anonymous No.11936308]

>>11936295
sadly, thermondynamics is too fucking slow to cool processors reliably. Besides, that shit is expensive and requires transportation, which is also expensive and infrastructure, which is even more expensive. And there is no way to capture relatively low concentrations of methane in large areas.

[Anonymous No.11936311]

oooooh noooooooo not the metharenooooos!!
nooooo kill all dah coooowwwsss!!!
wow, it's literally nothing. If anything, climate change fanaticism is an experiment in media produced radicalization and mental retardation. Fun fact: The earth has self correcting cycles and a little bit of ground juice and cow farts isn't going to destabilize the Earth.

[Anonymous No.11936312]

>>11936305
you're right. We need to stop feeding niggers because they just keep spreading and breeding and expanding and consuming. 90% of pollution is the result of niggersumption.

[Anonymous No.11936320]

>>11936305
I’m betting that trends that govern literally every population holds for humans, yes. There is no reason to assume that the whole of humanity starts breeding like rabbits again for no reason to revert current declines in growth.

>where?
basically all of europe, japan and korea.
I don’t know about north america and australia, but I’m pretty sure there is no increase in population growth at least.

[Anonymous No.11936337]

>>11925777
I would unironically be willing to sign up for the depopulation force, so long as my elderly dad is spared and I get a cute Persian gf. Reach out to me, Illuminati, you know where I am.

[Anonymous No.11936343]

>>11936320
>trends that govern literally every population holds for humans
what trends?
>I’m pretty sure there is no increase in population growth
but you said decrease in population, not decrease in population growth

[Anonymous No.11936353]

>>11936337
>hue hue hue I love killing people
>just don't kill my family
what a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.11936649]

>>11936305
>betting the farm that a generation that isn't even born yet will decide to have fewer children. sorry, not buying it.
Most 1st world countries have birthrates below replacement level among the domestic population. Immigration is used as a method to grow the population. In most cases, this immigration is coming from countries with a much higher birthrate, acting as a pressure release valve for the population growth in those countries. Shitholes pump out children, those people go to Western nations (where they often continue pumping out children for at least a generation or two), leaving room for people left behind to pump out more children.

It's not white people in 1st world nations who are the problem when it comes to planetary population growth.

[Anonymous No.11936709]

>>11925864
Shut up you stupid faggot
>>/lgbt/

[Anonymous No.11936727]

>>11936337
>and I get a cute Persian gf.

Dangerously based
I hoped we're colleagues once the depopulation agenda finally gets a global agency that is tasked with its enforcement.

[Anonymous No.11936728]

>>11927959
>>11931498

thread over guys. All I need was to google methane hydrate and this study was published just this year. I'm not saying one or the other was wrong, this just exemplify that the science is literally not settled

checkmate warmists

[Anonymous No.11936892]

>>11936728
Are you illiterate? Those studies support each other.

[Anonymous No.11937043]

>>11931498
That's the same study you posted before, I'm asking you for the one that says the opposite.

[Anonymous No.11937057]

>>11936311
>Fun fact: The earth has self correcting cycles
Like what?

>and a little bit of ground juice and cow farts isn't going to destabilize the Earth.
What does "destabilize the Earth" even mean in this context? The Earth can reach a steady state that is very harmful to humans, so what are you even arguing against?

[Anonymous No.11937072]

>>11931479
>The gist of it is still right
No, he's wrong both in conclusion and in detail. There's literally zero science and zero "mechanism" supporting his claims.

[Anonymous No.11937378]

Why are most of the solutions to climate change hippie faggot things like reducing consumption and standard of living, taking public transit, limiting economic output, and reducing population growth, instead of patrician technological solutions like widespread carbon capture, orbital shades, algae farms, nuclear power, etc.

One makes us pathetic pseudo-luddites, the other has direct applications to terraforming other planets.

[Anonymous No.11937472]

>>11937378
>Why do people argue for realistic solutions instead of daydreaming scifi from people who don't know anything about the topic !

[Anonymous No.11937599]

>>11930013
>This question is pure satire and is in no way serious, but why hasn't anyone just started wasting these motherfuckers?
How would they? Can you name an "oil magnate" off the top of your head? Where would you find them? Uber wealthy people don't just walk down the street by themselves in the middle of the night. They know people want their blood and they've taken extreme precautions to protect themselves.

[Anonymous No.11937739]

>>11936649
obviously.

[Anonymous No.11937867]

>>11937472
>realistic solutions
>stop driving, stop having children, eat the bugs, drink the onions, and pay your carbon tax, goy!

[Anonymous No.11938221]

>>11937867
>Stop driving
Yeah, it's wasteful. Using your resources efficiently is the whole ethos of good engineering, not being a Luddite.
>Stop having children.
Have one or two
>Eat the bugs, drink the sœy
Just stop eating meat, see my first response
>Pay your carbon tax
Aka price goods based on the cost they have for the ecosystem rather than the immediate cost to the manufacturer, forcing them to explore more advanced ways of producing goods, even carbon capture at the factory?

None of this is ridiculous or unreasonable, and it's a fucking bargain if you consider it as purchasing a healthy future for our ancestors.
>>11937378
People are very interested in it, but they are ultimately more expensive, more challenging to coordinate, and less actionable for protestors. Further more even if we did make burning hydrocarbons emit 0 ghgs, they would still become very expensive to extract in under a century, so alternative fuels are very necessary.

[Anonymous No.11938268]

>>11938221
>Yeah, it's wasteful
Get fucked commie. I'm never taking the bus again. Having a vehicle is not merely a means to conveniently travel, but a means to be independent. Compare the mentality of North Americans to yuropoors, the lifestyle and perspective is completely different.

>stop eating meat
See above. Though I have no issues with lab-grown meat, if that takes off.

>price goods on the cost they have on the ecosystem
That's not how prices work, and it's nonsensical to even attempt to determine this "price". Why are environmentalists always econlets?

[Anonymous No.11938463]

>>11938268
>Never taking the bus again
Sure you're independent until you're paying 4 hours of pay for a week's groceries. Noone is independent of the climate system and you're just exchanging one kind of security for insecurity in the long term.

>Stop eating meat...see above
Eating meat makes you independent?

>Not how it works
Not an argument. Anyways I don't give a shit if it makes sense in your argot, I'm sure you know what externalities are and why they present a problem.