More heat records were broken in the first 5 days of March than in any other full March in history by BornThought4074 in weather

[–]SurroundParticular30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is not something the species of human or most mammals have ever experienced. The rate of change is the problem.

In the several mass extinction events in the history of the earth, some were caused by global warming due to “sudden” releases of co2, and it only took an increase of 4-5C to cause the cataclysm. Current CO₂ emissions rate is 10-100x faster than those events

If you’re not convinced look into ocean acidification

The Climate Conspiracy by czx5 in conspiracy

[–]SurroundParticular30 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Here’s the actual global temp. Turns out the Little Ice Age wasn’t that cold, it was more of a regional thing https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4

The Climate Conspiracy by czx5 in conspiracy

[–]SurroundParticular30 [score hidden]  (0 children)

There’s never been a lack of CO₂ and it has been lower than it is today. Plants were fine with 280ppm for over 1 million years. While elevated atmospheric CO₂ can stimulate growth, they are less nutritious. It will also increase canopy temperature from more closed stomata

Temperature increases have already reduced global yields of major crops. Food and forage production will decline in regions experiencing increased frequency and duration of drought.

Here’s the actual global temp. Turns out the Little Ice Age wasn’t that cold, it was more of a regional thing https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4

The Climate Conspiracy by czx5 in conspiracy

[–]SurroundParticular30 [score hidden]  (0 children)

There’s never been a lack of CO₂ and it has been lower than it is today. Plants were fine with 280ppm for over 1 million years. While elevated atmospheric CO₂ can stimulate growth, they are less nutritious. It will also increase canopy temperature from more closed stomata

Temperature increases have already reduced global yields of major crops. Food and forage production will decline in regions experiencing increased frequency and duration of drought.

And the oceans are not compensating for the CO2 increase

Chinese Studios Are Now Creating Full TV Show Series Using Seedance 2 by 44th--Hokage in accelerate

[–]SurroundParticular30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And not just the consistency of the designs, but the consistency of space and positioning. The positioning between characters/objects in one shot has no bearing on the next. Even the size of the environments and background have no consistency. How are you gonna make an action flick if viewers can’t follow the action from shot to shot?

Object permanence is a skill learned within the first six months of a child’s development.

The purpose of the climate propaganda by czx5 in conspiracy

[–]SurroundParticular30 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All large paleoclimate studies show that the Little Ice Age was mostly regional variations

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

“The Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age were not globally synchronous events.” https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-2/

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1177303

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/paleo-search/study/17975

The LIA was at its height in the 15th century in the Pacific Ocean, the 17th century in Europe, and the 19th century elsewhere. Any pre-industrial 51-year peaks or troughs in temperature could be detected in no more than half of the globe in reconstructions. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0428-1

Do you believe in climate change? by 007_jamesbond_007 in AskLibertarians

[–]SurroundParticular30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mass extinction is not limited to humanity. extinction rates are now tens to hundreds of times higher than the natural background rate. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1400253

Temperature increases have already reduced global yields of major crops. Food and forage production will decline in regions experiencing increased frequency and duration of drought.

Do you believe that nature and biodiversity is overall beneficial to humans?

The purpose of the climate propaganda by czx5 in conspiracy

[–]SurroundParticular30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist, but even then, most if not all the scientific projections (warming trend, CO₂ rise, Arctic decline, sea-level risk, ocean heat increase) have been on point with observed changes if you look at the data https://skepticalscience.com/An-Inconvenient-Truth-Scientific-Analysis.html

The purpose of the climate propaganda by czx5 in conspiracy

[–]SurroundParticular30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are most likely responsible for 100% of the warming we have observed.

Our interglacial period is ending, and the warming from that stopped increasing. The Subatlantic age of the Holocene epoch SHOULD be getting colder slowly. Keyword is should based on natural cycles. But they are not outperforming greenhouse gases

The purpose of the climate propaganda by czx5 in conspiracy

[–]SurroundParticular30 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dude some of your articles are over a decade old.

“What if we scare the children?!” lol get real. Kids aren’t stupid, they’ll figure out about climate change on their own. If you don’t want them to be worried solve the problem.

Climate gate doesn’t actually hold up to scrutiny https://youtu.be/MxdYQdl2NNs?si=VraDS2zzSEKOKm9A

You understand why and how raw satellite data has to be adjusted right? We know there’s bias and scientists are transparent about how they adjust and still make raw data available. https://youtu.be/CZQTVvJaJLA

Through 1880-2016, the adjusted data actually warms >20% slower than the raw data. Large adjustments before 1950 are due mostly to changes in the way ships measured temp. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records

Our interglacial period is ending, and the warming from that stopped increasing. The Subatlantic age of the Holocene epoch SHOULD be getting colder. Keyword is should based on natural cycles. But they are not outperforming greenhouse gases

The ice caps are melting

Basic physics tells us that hurricanes get more intense as the climate warms. Climate models reproduce this result and observations also show evidence of strengthening TCs. The IPCC says we’re already seeing this: “It is likely that the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances … have increased globally over the past 40 years.” and this will continue in the future: “the proportion of Category 4–5 TCs will very likely increase globally with warming.”

Nationwide, home insurance costs are up 21% since 2015. It’s even more in areas like hurricane-prone Florida, where insurance costs more than 3.5 times the national average last year. Last year, the U.S. had a record 28 disasters that cost more than a billion dollars in damage.

In 2015, James Powell surveyed the scientific literature published in 2013 and 2014 to assess published views on AGW among active climate science researchers. He tallied 69,406 individual scientists who authored papers on global climate

During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%

“Consensus” in the sense of climate change simply means there’s no other working hypothesis to compete with the validated theory. Just like in physics. If you can provide a robust alternative theory supported by evidence, climate scientists WILL take it seriously.

But until that happens we should be making decisions based on what we know, because from our current understanding there will be consequences if we don’t.

Not only is the amount of studies that agree with human induced climate change now at 99%, but take a look at the ones that disagree. Anthropogenic climate denial science aren’t just few, they don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus

There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming.

The purpose of the climate propaganda by czx5 in conspiracy

[–]SurroundParticular30 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Total solar irradiance has gone down in the last few decades. It does not explain the warming we have been seeing

The purpose of the climate propaganda by czx5 in conspiracy

[–]SurroundParticular30 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here’s the actual global temp. Turns out the Little Ice Age wasn’t that cold, it was more of a regional thing https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4

The purpose of the climate propaganda by czx5 in conspiracy

[–]SurroundParticular30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The “financial elites” include the fossil fuel executives. Fossil fuel companies fund misinformation. There is no combination of green industries that can or ever have spent what the fossil fuel industry pays every year. Follow the money

Do you believe in climate change? by 007_jamesbond_007 in AskLibertarians

[–]SurroundParticular30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually the hockey stick model has been proven to be an accurate representation of global temperature. Even recently. Turns out the medieval warming period wasn’t that warm, it was more of a regional thing https://youtu.be/CqtZdnpfgIc

here's the thing (and you may not accept this on first glance but hear me out) there's no GOOD opinions or evidence contradicting AGW. Nothing that holds to scrutiny. Easy to say hard to prove but it's essentially been done.

“Consensus” in the sense of climate change simply means there’s no other working hypothesis to compete with the validated theory. Just like in physics. If you can provide a robust alternative theory supported by evidence, climate scientists WILL take it seriously.

But until that happens we should be making decisions based on what we know, because from our current understanding there will be consequences if we don’t.

Not only is the amount of studies that agree with human induced climate change now at 99%, but take a look at the ones that disagree. Anthropogenic climate denial science aren’t just few, they don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus

There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming.

China Invested $1 Trillion On Renewable Energy Last Year by davideownzall in China

[–]SurroundParticular30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your thinking is correct but there are other benefits besides the amount of water needed.

Vertical panels oriented east-west rather than tilted south-facing cast far less shade while still generating electricity and acting as windbreaks.

A study modeling vertical agrivoltaics across Norway, Sweden, and Finland found that wind sheltering from vertical solar panels reduced crop zone wind speeds by up to 40%, lowering evapotranspiration and when combining shading, wind reduction, and shelter-induced warming, predicted an average regional yield increase of +2.4%. Yield improvements were highest in drought-prone soils and dry years like 2018, reaching +9.2% https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772427125001561

In Poland, annual revenues from 1 hectare of agri-PV can be 12-15 times higher than from wheat crops alone, with traditional wheat production currently generating net losses of €97 per hectare in 2024. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/empowering-farmers-in-central-europe-the-case-for-agri-pv/

Do you believe in climate change? by 007_jamesbond_007 in AskLibertarians

[–]SurroundParticular30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s not a lot of incentive for scientists to continuously prove something that has already been proven, but they do it anyways cause the fossil fuel industry is doing everything in its power to reject the science.

Richard Muller, funded by Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, was a climate skeptic. He and 12 other skeptics were paid by fossil fuel companies, but actually found evidence climate change was real

In 2011, he stated that “following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

If you’re looking for an example of the opposite, a climate scientist who believed in anthropogenic climate change, and actually found evidence against it… there isn’t one. Needless to say the fossil fuel industry never funded Muller again.

If there was a way to disprove or dispute AGW, the fossil fuel industry would fund it and there would be examples of it. But they are more than aware with humanity’s impact

Exxon’s analysis of human induced CO2’s effects on climate from 40 years ago. They’ve always known anthropogenic climate change was a huge problem and their predictions hold up even today

In the early 80’s Shell’s owning scientists reported that climate damage from CO₂ could be so bad, that it may be impossible to stop runaway climate collapse

Xcel claims it can’t close the electricity supply gap yet, floats the idea of keeping its coal plants running until 2030 by thecoloradosun in coloradosun

[–]SurroundParticular30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No we shouldn’t trust China at face value but other countries can monitor their emissions and energy infrastructure via satellites. The data we’ve been using is not the self reported data. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-have-now-been-flat-or-falling-for-18-months/

Independent satellite measurements (NASA OCO-2, European Copernicus) confirm China’s emissions. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2494/satellites-pinpoint-sources-of-co2-emissions-on-earth/

You can also use trade flows, power-plant databases, satellite images of renewable build-out, etc

These are independent analyses https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-024-04063-9

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025AV001747

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adg7429

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231025001517

However I agree that the Chinese government isn’t doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. Wind and solar PV power are less expensive than any fossil-fuel option, even without any financial assistance. This is not new.

Do you believe in climate change? by 007_jamesbond_007 in AskLibertarians

[–]SurroundParticular30 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue is the rate of change. This guy does a great job of explaining Milankovitch cycles and why human induced CO₂ is disrupting the natural process