4 ms·

Well, I think I understand your sentiment. You believe it's racket because it hasn't happened yet, so it's just FUD? I guess it could be, but is it worth ignor

Well, I think I understand your sentiment. You believe it's racket because it hasn't happened yet, so it's just FUD? I guess it could be, but is it worth ignoring the risk if it isn't just some FUD? This is second-hand anecdotal, but: there are already agricultural issues in Croatia, and the people aren't sure why. A good suspect is global warming, and assuming it is, it probably isn't an isolated case either I know there's lots of politicking and bickering around global warming, but IMO this is something worth putting differences aside to get to the bottom of, and how much of an impact it might have on the planet (and by extension people)

richrichie 3y ago
Are you saying we never had drought in times before co2 concentration went up 0.01 pct points over the last 100 years? The climate change cult language is a lot like that of medieval christian nutcases: “oh there is drought because you angered the God with your sinful behaviour. You must repent with fasting, abstinence and prayers. … oh you say you did all that and still have drought? Thats because you have not prayed hard enough, try again. Or its perhaps God’s will. Now pay your subscription to the church.”
- defrost 3y ago
  They are not saying the earth has never had a drought before the Industrial Revolution. Frankly it'd be a fool that would think that they did. Since the Industrial Revolution CO2 concentrations have increased by 50%, by half as much as was there for some 10,000 years prior. The physical, engineering reason why comparing CO2 amounts in the amosphere against all other gases in the atmosphere is incorrect is simple - Oxygen and Nitrogen do not insulate - they are not greenhouse gases and do not trap infrared radiation. What is significant is the increase in the amount of insulating gases - this directly ties to the increases in trapped energy. It's a common mistake made by those that don't understand the physics.
  - richrichie 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - defrost 3y ago
      No. That's essentially irrelevant to the current dynamics, just as the earth once being molten doesn't negate the cause|effect of recent human activity. I feel almost certain that you're brighter than your comments here so far.
      - patcon 3y ago
        Yeah, even if richrichie were correct, they're correct for the wrong reasons Rich, I might humbly recommend looking up "demand avoidance" as a psychological phenomenon. I have a bit of it myself, that I try to be mindful of. It's essentially a pathology of resistance just because something is requested or required. It's possible to have in a systemic sense, and seems like you're feeling resistant to a popular hegemonic thought on principle, then backfilling with attempts at reason
        richrichie 3y ago
        Pat, All i see is some kind of hidden affinity to religion among the sciency types amd some weird end of the world fantasy. I am open to a good argument. I am yet to see one though. Per the crazies we are to spend trillions that pushes 100s of millions into poverty by spiking energy costs (esp cost of reliable energy), which will affect most econ activity downstream. This will create more conflicts, mass migrations and deaths NOW.
      - richrichie 3y ago
        You jumped from -10000y to -5000000000y to make a strawman case. I see you are strongly passionate about your beliefs.
        defrost 3y ago
        I'm not evangelical about the laws of thermodynamics, phase spaces, heat equations, etc. These are just things that reliably work to model and predict the physical world we inhabit (subject to measurement and error bars). There's nothing particularly spiritual or faith based about such dull repeatable workings.
- tasty_freeze 3y ago
  From 304 ppm (1924) to 420 (2024) is 38% rise in concentration. [1] > Are you saying we never had drought in times before co2 concentration went up This is a strawman. Nobody claims that AGW is the only reason for climate change. Year to year, some of those things swamp the short term effect of AGW. But while those other things are deviating and returning to their normal, AGW keeps pushing the average global average temperature higher, cumulatively until it becomes a serious threat. Your logic is like dismissing someone's worry about 30,000 people a year dying in car crashes by saying, "Oh, this car rash thing is like religion... people died before cars existed." Finally, religion is a cultural thing backed up by old stories. Climate research has the data -- while deniers have done zero research and pretend to know better. [1] https://www.co2levels.org/ https://www.co2levels.org/
  - richrichie 3y ago
    % change in itself means nothing esp at smaller scales. CO2 stats dont look that grave when we look at past estimates AND when we look at the benefits we have had from a warming and greening planet.

richrichie 3y ago

Are you saying we never had drought in times before co2 concentration went up 0.01 pct points over the last 100 years? The climate change cult language is a lot like that of medieval christian nutcases: “oh there is drought because you angered the God with your sinful behaviour. You must repent with fasting, abstinence and prayers. … oh you say you did all that and still have drought? Thats because you have not prayed hard enough, try again. Or its perhaps God’s will. Now pay your subscription to the church.”

defrost 3y ago
They are not saying the earth has never had a drought before the Industrial Revolution. Frankly it'd be a fool that would think that they did. Since the Industrial Revolution CO2 concentrations have increased by 50%, by half as much as was there for some 10,000 years prior. The physical, engineering reason why comparing CO2 amounts in the amosphere against all other gases in the atmosphere is incorrect is simple - Oxygen and Nitrogen do not insulate - they are not greenhouse gases and do not trap infrared radiation. What is significant is the increase in the amount of insulating gases - this directly ties to the increases in trapped energy. It's a common mistake made by those that don't understand the physics.
- richrichie 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - defrost 3y ago
    No. That's essentially irrelevant to the current dynamics, just as the earth once being molten doesn't negate the cause|effect of recent human activity. I feel almost certain that you're brighter than your comments here so far.
    - patcon 3y ago
      Yeah, even if richrichie were correct, they're correct for the wrong reasons Rich, I might humbly recommend looking up "demand avoidance" as a psychological phenomenon. I have a bit of it myself, that I try to be mindful of. It's essentially a pathology of resistance just because something is requested or required. It's possible to have in a systemic sense, and seems like you're feeling resistant to a popular hegemonic thought on principle, then backfilling with attempts at reason
      - richrichie 3y ago
        Pat, All i see is some kind of hidden affinity to religion among the sciency types amd some weird end of the world fantasy. I am open to a good argument. I am yet to see one though. Per the crazies we are to spend trillions that pushes 100s of millions into poverty by spiking energy costs (esp cost of reliable energy), which will affect most econ activity downstream. This will create more conflicts, mass migrations and deaths NOW.
    - richrichie 3y ago
      You jumped from -10000y to -5000000000y to make a strawman case. I see you are strongly passionate about your beliefs.
      - defrost 3y ago
        I'm not evangelical about the laws of thermodynamics, phase spaces, heat equations, etc. These are just things that reliably work to model and predict the physical world we inhabit (subject to measurement and error bars). There's nothing particularly spiritual or faith based about such dull repeatable workings.
tasty_freeze 3y ago
From 304 ppm (1924) to 420 (2024) is 38% rise in concentration. [1] > Are you saying we never had drought in times before co2 concentration went up This is a strawman. Nobody claims that AGW is the only reason for climate change. Year to year, some of those things swamp the short term effect of AGW. But while those other things are deviating and returning to their normal, AGW keeps pushing the average global average temperature higher, cumulatively until it becomes a serious threat. Your logic is like dismissing someone's worry about 30,000 people a year dying in car crashes by saying, "Oh, this car rash thing is like religion... people died before cars existed." Finally, religion is a cultural thing backed up by old stories. Climate research has the data -- while deniers have done zero research and pretend to know better. [1] https://www.co2levels.org/ https://www.co2levels.org/
- richrichie 3y ago
  % change in itself means nothing esp at smaller scales. CO2 stats dont look that grave when we look at past estimates AND when we look at the benefits we have had from a warming and greening planet.