The thunburgs of 70s told us we going into an Ice Age. Will it come after the warming age?

  • 5
    Acid rain, Manhattan under water by 2000's, hole in ozon layer etc
  • 3
    We are in a Ice Age right now. Nobody knows how the climate will be in the future. Yes we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we have now more than ever. But Earth with all the Biospheres is way to complex for any human to ever understand.
  • 1
    I once googled on Thunberg's ass. So far, no black helicopters
  • 4
    My 8th grade science teacher (along with the texbook) was claiming+blaming the industrial complex for bringing on the next ice age. She said it would be better for the earth to warm because we would have more places to grow food (can't grow the corn in freezing weather, a lot more people die in cold weather, etc) and having longer growing seasons would benefit mankind.

    I can remember wearing winter coats in October thru April, so the 'scare' was real. Its cold outside, blame <insert opposing political party>!

    Then after a warm~ish winter, Al Gore scared people into global warming catastrophe in 10 years. When that lie was debunked, it's now "climate change".

    Its harder to debunk 'climate change' because its easy to gaslight someone when 0.02% increase in temperature is technically climate change.

    Not saying its not real, just saying hard to trust bunch of billionaires in flying around in private jets telling me to increase my ESG score so they can save the planet.
  • 2
    Fear porn propaganda
  • 7
    @retoor Well, that acidic rain actually was real and a lot of old heritage buildings made from sandstone had to be restaurated in Europe because of that. Luckily, power plants exhaust and fuel desulfurization is mandatory since some decades now and the rain isn't that dangerous to that buildings (and forests - which where the actual reason for the laws) anymore.

    And since HCFCs are outlawed, the ozone layer normalized quite a bit again. It is only the people on the lower side of the earth who still have a slightly higher chance of getting skin cancer because of increased UV levels.
  • 1
    @Oktokolo It took minimal effort to replace HCFCs for something less problematic as soon as the alternative became available, and the whole change had hardly any impact on the consumers. Same for sulphur scrubbers, the solution had minimal impact compared to other costs of building and operating a (coal) power plant. That's because those were well-defined problems with a known cause and consequences. Climate changes aren't like that; we can measure a bunch of things about climate, we can prove certain trends within the measured data, we can show correlation between certain actions and consequence within a controlled environment, but that's about as far as we can get. In the end we can still barely predict the weather for a couple of days or maybe weeks, so talking about definitive "facts" about climate changes and their long(ish)-term consequences is just ridiculous. And expecting people to take drastic actions based on such "predictions" is just plain insane.
  • 2
    @hitko Yes. And i already believe in the success of the ongoing terraforming project. It is @retoor who just doesn't differ between "just some doomsday predictions with absolutely no evidence of it already happening" and "just some doomsday predictions with a lot of evidence of it already happening". Both are doomsday predictions - but one category is actually at least going in a direction matching what we can already see happening and the other isn't.

    But on the other hand: What if suddenly a fairy stops the runaway global warming process by a swing of her dong? Then we would have reduced our dependence on fossil fuel and the hundreds of military bases around the world to protect them for no reason. We would waste all that effort and risk world peace for no economic gain. So better keep the terraforming project going...

    The factory must grow!
  • 0
    @Oktokolo The evidence for global warming is based on correlation, while the evidence for acid rain and ozone holes has been based on causation. The only other "scientific" field where correlation-based evidence is widely accepted as truth is psychology and sociology, while the next major area where correlation is interpreted as evidence are conspiracy theories.

    Human breathing contributes to about 5-7% of man-made CO2. But humans make up only about 2.3% of all animals (by mass); further, bacteria and fungi, which also produce CO2, make up for about 32x more biomas than all of the earth's animals combined. So, living beings make at least 50x more CO2 from breathing than all the man-made CO2 combined. Then, more than 1/3 of all man-made CO2 comes from burning inefficient solid fuels for cooking and heating, and most of that is from third-world countries, while industry and transport make just over 25%.

    Now compare that to almost all of sulphur and HCFC emissions being man-made.
  • 0
    Even if we halve all of the man-made CO2 emissions, that's still less than 2% of naturally-occuring CO2 emissions, and these are really optimistic numbers, in reality it's probably closer to 0.5%.
  • 0
    @hitko But humans have a great influence on how many animals and bacteria live and which kind. This is also something we should do, since God gave us dominion over the animals. GHG emissions from domestic animals and their feed production are part of man made GHG emissions.

    However, if we should or shouldn't reduce GHG emissions and how much is a different question. Since they are a hard to avoid byproduct of things we do that benefit us in a great way, like food production, building homes, research or minimizing the impact of disasters, i would argue trying to reduce GHG emissions will do more harm than good.
  • 0
    @hitko You can ignore CO2 emissions that are part of a short-term cycle. What we exhale is what was bound in our food. It will be bound in biomass again.

    But fossil fuels are more like moors - they store carbon long-term. If we burn the carbon contained in them, it takes thousands (moors) to millions (oil) of years for that to get bound in long-term storage again. For global CO2 levels, only the changes in longterm storage matter. Trees don't really matter. Moors do.

    Also we can't do anything about volcanic activity for now. But we can stop burning fossil fuels and create moors (most energy-efficient carbon storage tech we got right now - slow but steady).
Add Comment