I live in a two river city, 3 or 4 if you count the streams that other people call rivers. So the humidity sucks, but the heat isn't all that dangerous.
When I lived in southern Idaho, I remember tossing a bucket of mop water on cement and it just vanished. Dehydration is the biggest thing you have to worry about in the places you mentioned.
Then again this is fucking lulz, most of us are just going to crank up or A/C's and sit at our computers naked.
That said, my dad and I were planning on doing some outside work this weekend, with the heat wave in mind, I'll probably plan on doing a few inside projects instead.
trust me I was an air force librarian, secondary job, the government has no idea what there doing at any time… or at least that what they make it seems like. Then I was a commissioned officer and got let go for medical reasons, which im pretty sure that they knew were going to happen. You don't get randomly irradiated out of the blue, after suddenly getting a stack of complaints.
Anyone who rants about climate change without mentioning China doesn't actually give a fuck about climate change
It's all just disingenuous virtue signaling and tribal politics
well china or india. America has done a ton to limit it's carbon footprint, but if you look at pollution maps, china and india are just…
well they're just disgusting.
after the surgeries, they found that my spleen was 100% ok, my kidney was 100% ok, the half of my liver they took was 100% ok, my colon was 100% ok, and my gull blatter was was 100% ok
kinda hard to put them back in though
the only cancerous thing they found was the quarter of my heart that was messed up and had to be removed.
you can't lose a piece of your heart and still be able to use it dumbass
tell that to my heart.
>Texas, California and the lower parts of Utah
It is hot in these places EVERY year and will be hot every year thereafter.
Whats the point of this?
yeah I wasn't op but his heat wave was leigit, it just wasn't that bad…
to a very limited degree, it does create ozone from burning up a bunch of electricity, not enough to do anything, basically the same as breathing causes you to make more carbon dioxide in the air.
So you assert it does not
damage the ozone but just the opposite, makes ozone more plentiful.
But that's not the good organic ozone that lives up there in the atmosphere.
Just say NO to man-made ozone.
There is a grain of truth there. Ozone is a poisonous gas that is around 100 times more deadly than carbon monoxide. Best to keep it up and away from people.
BTW, that doesn't stop dishonest hawkers from trying to sell ozone making gizmos which supposedly kill germs in the air. Government agencies try to stop it but the crooks just relabel it as "activated oxygen" or "supercharged oxygen" and continue to sell the things.
you need to actually wear this solar panel to power vaccines that are inside you. 50 bucks.
I have an ozone generator I use about once a year, and when its on i have to leave. I mainly use it to kill the yearly bugs. Its also cool that it deodorizes all the male dog smell.
Even flooding my house with ozone does absolutely nothing to the atmosphere.
"The Ozone Hole" was the primary climate boogeyman of the 90's. It was determined that fluctuations in ozone are natural. The scientists 'know more about it now', so they've moved on to the next scare.
if im remembering right, the "ozone hole" closed back up.
you know kinda like the earth's climate going in cycles, and not giving a shit what humanity does?
ah yes, the nightmare generator, its just what i need to kill off my pesky inlaws. if only i could possess this technology legally.
The ozone hole was a result of chemicals mankind was releasing into the atmosphere.
We figured that out and stopped releasing them. Once we stopped hurting the earth, the earth healed.
That's kinda why the green new deal is important. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220321-what-happened-to-the-worlds-ozone-hole
the green new deal is basically just an agreement to let the arabs control the gas economy.
there has been absolutely no effort from any party to actually put money into "green energy" and instead we just see 5 dollar a gallon plus gas prices.
Trust me if they were subsidizing, I'd be the first one taking advantage of this bullshit, but they arent, not at all.
I mean I do have a water well, and I do have a gas well, and I do have roof solar panels, but none of them actually do enough to keep me entirely off the grid.
there is only so much one person can do without substation.
and no one is getting substitution .
The green new deal is just more government grifting with a coat of green paint to appeal to retards.
You want to fix climate change, go nuclear and crackdown on china and india
they make a big deal out of it, but its based off of MWatts, basically the only people actually seeing anything coming from this bs "green new deal" are asshole rich people.
if you aren't already seeing digits in your checking account over 1,000,000 you aren't going to get anything from the "green new deal" other than really high gas prices
>>3659660>the ones responsible for 80% are just laughing and ramping up their shit.
80% of the pollution comes from corporations. You know, those things you keep arguing shouldn't be regulated
by the tree hugging libs.
Again, it's us vs the rich. Until you understand that, you are nothing but a pot hole on the road forward for humanity that needs to paved over. >>3659661>just an agreement to let the arabs control the gas economy.
Bitch they control it now! The green new deal takes power away from them!
Who the fuck do you think OPEC is?
Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia!>>3659662>there has been absolutely no effort from any party to actually put money into "green energy"
Oh, yeah there is. China is kicking our ass and already fighting the next economic war while America is still trying to build on old technology to make oil last longer.
China rules the future because the old, white, morons in charge of America keep looking to the past for answers. https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/05/23/windy-times-in-american-energy-policy/?sh=1a3082c51350
i agree with weavile, everything you just said is No.
also going to put it out there that im not 100% against the "tree hugging libs" its just that they tend to be young and have no real plans.
Then they start shooting up schools and shit cause they disagree with speakers, and make their entire case void.
seriously, just stop murdering elementary school kids and your Lib ideas would get along with like 60% of Conservatives.
Just stop killing kids.
then again I guess its so ingrained in our heads that Libs are going to be just going on violent child killing rampages when they don't get their way, that maybe stopping wont do anything
you really cant have a real conversation with people who if they take a micro-offence are going to just murder your kids, and laugh
Vis: 10 MI
WSW at 9 MPH
30.18" in Hg
>>3659669>You want to fix climate change, go nuclear and crackdown on china and india
You'll go nuclear eventually. America always do what's right, after trying every wrong solutions.
Tree huggers are to blame in climate change too. For years they have been demonizing nuclear plants "but but the waste storage problem !".
Result : only now, facing climate death, are some politicians bitchslapping them and finally supporting nuclear.
Yeah sure … THAT'S the reason you get banned.
You're sooohhhh convincing.
I think you are confusing all that with the pol shit. It's all just one guy. He literally posts from Area 51 you kno
Mining Crypto requires a MASSIVE amount of electricity to run all the cards to be worth it which requires more power to be made for the power grid which requires more pollution.
You have to realize, Crypto isn't that little rig in that picture, massive warehouses are being set up anywhere there is no regulation and they can get cheap electricity.
Remember how Texas got fucked over during that snow storm and state went black out? A huge portion of the power load in the major cities in Texas are from coin-farms. It's the wild-west of bit farming. No rules, no regulations, cheap electricity.
After that fiasco Texas tried to regulate them but "Free market" republicans axed it so the power grid struggles on until the next emergency without any of the problems being fixed and more drains on the grid being added every day.
What are you even on about? School shooters are almost exclusively right-wing, white, male, incels, every time.
Except they're not.
But no matter HOW MANY TIMES proof is posted of this, you go right on saying the same retarded shit endlessly.
There is no gun problem. There's a black and brown problem.
Must be what dreams are made of hmm.
Look, Ima be real with you. That shit probably has freddy kruegar running around them halls.
>Remember how Texas got fucked over during that snow storm and state went black out? >A huge portion of the power load in the major cities in Texas are from coin-farms.
We call that a non-sequitur. Those two things are unrelated. Mining rigs can be shut off when loads are high and energy prices increase. In fact it's practically certain they would be. What business is going to mine at a loss?
You act like the mining industry isn't a driver of green energy either. Do you suppose all these greedy corporations are just scrambling to use the most expensive sources of energy or do you suppose they might be more interested in the cheapest sources of energy available? Which makes more sense to you?
Not to mention the technological advancements being made. The super low voltage processing technology being worked on is lit.
Here is some information from the conspiracy theorists at Cambridge if you still remember how to read.https://ccaf.io/cbeci/
We could use all that Texas winter snow to cool our crypto warehouses even better use the crypto's heat to warm other people's houses!
We could use the crypto's heat to warm our plants during winter. Think!
I'm hopeful that we'll get to optical CPU soon. That will not only super-charge our speeds but massively reduce power requirements and equipment costs for all industry.
Of course Republicans will probably vote against it because change is scary and they'll probably say the light is secretly gay rainbows.
>>3660115> which requires more power to be made for the power grid which requires more pollution.
You are replying to a post questioning damage to the ozone. The pollution you are talking about has nothing to do with that.
It is chlorine in the upper atmosphere, mostly from CFCs, which causes ozone depletion. There is NO significant chlorine in the pollution you mentioned. The insignificant amounts do not make it into the upper atmosphere.
You are a clueless brain damaged fool who is unqualified to express an opinion on anything discussed here.
are you not aware of remote viewing?
Do you see a psychologist? You should tell a professional about the republicans. Maybe they can help you.
Really fucking bizarre the amount of bullshit in this thread, but then again the oil and gas industry has poured tons and tons of money into generating it.
That is a FAKE GRAPHIC from a rabid pro-global warming propaganda website called skepticalscience.com
The graphic was created by a non-scientist, global warming fanatic using an online graph creation tool that any lunatic might use without any real data.
we're so fucked it's going to be great
Eat the dead, eat the Rich, Fill your veins with the last final Fix…Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
We are actually. My understanding is that at some point, this will lead to a runaway greenhouse gas effect where huge stores of carbon are exposed and released (primarily through permafrost melt) and then the heat approaches a point where water vapor itself becomes a greenhouse gas and we basically become venus. Right now the idiots denying this (probably some botnik who got unlucky in the office lottery and tasked with posting to this retard/schizo furry board) can't even wrap their heads around carbon dioxide as a greenhouse and very simple correlation between pumping it out of the ground and the overall energy in the atmosphere rising due to CO2. The sort of nightmare shit scientists talk about with just rising temperatures and forest firest and moderate sea level rise is a best case scenario. Just wait until things really start to accelerate. We're rising not just higher than in the past but at a rate that is astronomically higher than any before and this isn't just going to slightly shift things up.
I for one am looking forward to the day that things get so fucking shitty and awful that the assholes who lied to everyone are absolutely dragged put of their yaughts and bunkers into the public square to be 'reprimanded.'
Yes, you are right. And if you watch the perma-frost in the Siberian Tundra melting , you would realize just how much ancient frozen vegetation is re-appearing and begin to rot, which ALSO create even more CO2…..We are seriously boned. And the Oil-industry knew. They fucking knew since 1959 , since Edward Teller told them at a meeting in New York. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming
Even later their own scientist confirmed it. And their reaction??? Deny , attack , spin and ridicule
Straight out of the Tobacco industri playbook.
And I forgot : Edward Teller was like a real life Doctor Evil. He had NO reason or drive to go against US industry or the will of the US Empire and yet he warned them.
Nah, everybody forgets that those graphs show less than 0.1% changes in solar radiation. It's far too little to change anything in a hurry.
What people also forget is the Thermohaline Circulation in the oceans. Ocean waters absorb something like 98% of the incoming solar heat and carry it around in a 1000-year cycle. The surface water that we have now, which pretty much dominate the mean surface temperature, contain heat trapped during the medieval warm period. Next in the pipeline is waters from the "little ice age" between around 1200-1800. It's a non-linear relationship because slight increases in ocean water temperature add evaporation, which adds clouds and water in the atmosphere, which results in much higher surface air temperatures, but also slight drops in the water temperature does the opposite and the air temperatures go crashing down.
It's an oscillating system that goes up and down with each swing growing in intensity - but it's not symmetrical. The greenhouse effect saturates at some point and the temperatures can't rise further, whereas with lower temperatures you get ice cover which increases reflection and starts to lower the temperature more and more, and you get stuck in an ice age. The dramatic rise in temperatures we're seeing today predict the next crash in temperatures will be deep.
Thanks BD. No one can even start to believe the silly schizoid shit you spew so you more or less prove that climate change deniers fall in line with people who are either intentionally lying or so deranged (usually because of some imaginary big man in the sky) that they'll believe and parrot these ideas. Where's your data points? Where's your weather logs and statistical analysis and any actual evidence for what you're saying? Oh, it's just bullshit you heard from fellow nutcases and paid disinformants, the other 'sources' you think have some sort of bearing matching what a government agency working with old records produces.
But of course all governments are run by baby eating satanists or something.
You make a fine steamed ham, but you don't fool anyone.
I'm not a bot btw, though of course you think anyone who isn't you is. I don't get my info from political websites either, I've actually got uni education where it was pretty fucking easy to see what was going on like 20 years ago and the closest thing to a conspiracy to promote global warming was trying to get a keyword into a study. To concoct the massive cover up you're implying would take thousands and thousands of low paid, underemployed people all hiding the same secret and also never doing the one thing that makes a name for you in science: finding new data to cast doubt on old beliefs. Not to mention that science is so in bed with industry in the US that the concept that there's hidden data out there showing global warming isn't real and no one is publishing it and making a name for themselves and getting a ton of money from the oil and gas industry is ludicrous. The reality is they funded their own studies and found the same thing, and then hushed it up and created the sort of massive disinfo campaign (just like the retarded ancient aliens bullshit flying around is a disinfo campaign for government research programs, but have fun believing in lizard people and shit like that too.)
Wow, actual science. If you look at the temperature graph though there's a steady decline in temperatures preceding the little ice age, so why would temperatures not be doing the same? Colder water has been shown to mitigate temperature but we should actually be going down and we're going up. This is ignoring ocean acidification where the buffer eventually gets used up. The idea of a 'saturation' happening is bullshit, no idea where you got that. At what point will this happen? Look at the temperature graphs and even if there is a stopping point we're nowhere near it, but I suspect the stopping point is Venus. You are right that it's an oscillating system too – we are basically pulling a pendulum higher just as it was starting to go down, so there's no telling what will happen.
Domesticated humans are so empty headed they need to be told they should drink water when it gets hot out…
How the ancestors of these people ever survived is a wonder.
They didn't, they dropped like flies, just managed to fuck enough before doing so to continue the cycle.
>>3663506>we should actually be going down and we're going up
We're going up before we crash down.
>The idea of a 'saturation' happening is bullshit, no idea where you got that.
The long wave infrared radiation (heat) that shines off of the earth into space has to pass through the atmosphere, where it is blocked by water and CO2. Adding more water or more CO2 into the atmosphere has diminishing returns: the spectral windows are already blocked, and doubling or even quadrupling the amount in the atmosphere does not have the same additive effect on trapping heat. Instead you get vanishingly small changes in surface heating and the atmosphere cannot trap more heat.
Mind, the effect of the thermohaline cycle are not "causal" with our recent history. The water that is welling up from the depths is history.
Historically in the warming cycles, you first get hot surface waters, but then the ice caps start to melt and you get a rush of cold water, so you first get a warm pulse and then a cold pulse. This already happened a thousand years ago and it's now driving our climate.
It is true that the earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles however those natural cycles take thousands of years to raise or lower even 1 degree the earth was actually in a cooling cycle for 1800+ years until the industrial revolution.
Since mankind embraced mass fossil fuel use however, that cooling has reversed and is now growing hotter at 20 times
the historic rate of change.
There is absolutely no doubt what-so-ever that climate change is man-made and is going to kill us all.
>>3663572> climate change is man-made and is going to kill us all.
Bullshit, at worse it'll be just like the climate the dinosaurs had and our ancestors survived just fine at these time.
Of course, you must know way more than all the scientists who literally study this kind of thing. It's amazing they haven't phoned you up to ask for your input on this thing they apparently know nothing about.
Alternatively, if your belief is that all those educated people are lying to you, then just fuck off
>>3663722>our ancestors survived just fine
LMAO, dinosaur practically a goliath that nature design to be able to survive ancient hot climate similar to cold blooded animals. Shit happens and their entire generation are practically wiped out from the cold weather because of century effect after the catastrophic cataclysm. Mankind just apparently got lucky for even able to exist from that.
With mankind population almost reach 8 billion, it's likely just around the corner that nature are going to take it's course of controlling the species population. Yeah mankind may survive, but with what cost? And do you think anyone here will ever make it? LOL.
Your entire post is just bullshit.
We are currently in a geologic warming period. It will continue to get warmer because it is SUPPOSED to. Its a cycle.
The cooling, as you call it, was changed by the 1974 Clean Air Act. The warming resumed as the cycle dictates.
It has been hotter in the past. It has been colder in the past. Humans are not a sufficient force of change at the moment.
Climate change large - the long time view from ice core samples. Notice the variations over time. I have highlighted the current warm period.
Climate change medium - the view of our current warm period. This is the plateau that allowed agriculture and then civilization to occur. Notice the variety over time, but consistently warm and not as warm as in the past.
Climate change small - The same view but centered along the 'current trend line' that is being used by modern 'alarmists'. Larger warm periods existed before fossil fuels were even a thing.
Its all political, not scientific. Climate change as defined by the media and politician is fake. That does not mean we should be polluting. However, large scale lifestyle changes in only white countries is wrong. Considering that the 'climate pollution' overwhelmingly comes from Aisia, Africa and South America.
Additionally, if you even consider climate change is man-made, the overpopulation is the driver, since consumption is driven by population and hence, CO2 production. Nothing being proposed will change consumption or overpopulation.
Its all crap to hide the real problems.
tl;dr - Its a feature, not a bug.
You mean the scientists who only get paid if they publish studies that confirm anthropogenic climate change and get black balled if their results show anything else?
Of course I believe them. They have absolutely no reason to be dishonest…
I get it, you're young and don't have the wisdom of years behind you but predictions of the end of the world are nothing new. There's also no particular reason to believe these claims are any more credible than the last 100 predictions that didn't come true.
One day you'll look back on all the lies you've been told over the years and things will start making a lot more sense. Unfortunately it's a lesson that only time can teach which is why we are stuck in these endless cycles.
>>3663879>You mean the scientists who only get paid if they publish studies that confirm anthropogenic climate change and get black balled if their results show anything else?
Here's the problem with the "It's all a scam!" logic.
Why wouldn't they report progress towards fixing it? Just saying there is a problem isn't a lucrative business model.
Fixing the problem is where the money is so if it was really a scam they would be coming up with new and interesting things for them to fix as old things are corrected but that's not what is happening.
They just keep discovering new bad things as old bad things keep getting worse and no one is spending money to fix anything.
The profit in the scam that you are imagining isn't happening because people like you keep denying the obvious truth in front of your own eyes.
>Just saying there is a problem isn't a lucrative business model.
That's where you're wrong bucko.
The researchers are practically a kid who cried wolf. But that doesn't meant the wolf didn't exist. Thanks to that, there's people who no longer willing to listen anymore (not that it matters to me because of natural selection will take care of it).
Most "researchers" these days are too egoistic and prideful to bother to listen to other people opinion. They always try to make sure their own opinion are the one being accepted as the "absolute right one", because who would fund for a research that won't yield the result that favored to them.
Even if the researchers were told to manipulate the data findings that is favored to the people/company that fund them, they still know not to manipulate the data that much because it will be too obvious and get caught, ruining their reputation and career.
Still, that doesn't meant the opposite side of researchers that doing the same thing to keep denying about the climate change doesn't exist.
We're all going to die soon and we all deserved it
Embrace death OP
>>3663877>Posts graphs leaving out the huge spike at the end>doesn't understand that we should be going down based on the curves
Learn calculus and try again. Or stop lying.
>>3663883>Just saying there is a problem isn't a lucrative business model.
Tell that to the people who publish weak research papers "showing" that cellphones cause cancer, every year, despite all the past metastudies showing that they have no show.
But new research! Could be dangerous! New research warranted, gibbe grant monies!
Besides, you don't know how academia works.
In order to earn a doctorate, you have to publish papers to show that you can do it. It doesn't matter if your results are null, or just a rehash of some old research with a slightly different angle. Best results can be had if it's a novel simulation model, because the results can be anything since the point is simply to demonstrate the model and not the results. This is most popular in climate science, where you pick the same old datasets and make a new fit of some new formula that diverges from reality just five years after you've published your results - but who cares, you got the doctorate.
So, people pick a topic, research it, and in order to publish more papers they split the work into multiple papers with preliminary results showing a positive but weak effect first, and then a "nope it wasn't real after all" result in the following paper.
The trick is, if you model the climate as an unstable system that is prone to running away into extremes (axiom, never questioned), then you get models that run off into extremes. Even models which follow real observed temperature data will diverge because the model is like balancing a broomstick on your finger and forcing it to stay in line for as long as you have a line to follow. Once you stop "driving" the stick back to where it's supposed to go, it will fall over one way or the other - and of course if the simulation says the temperatures will go down, you reject the results.
Observations are still going up. What part of 'we should be going down and we're going up' do you not understand? Besides this graph is manipulated with bullshit like smoothing and moved baseline spreads to make things look as off as possible. This is the troposphere as well, it's affected by things like volcanism.
The reality is that if there were concrete evidence out there showing that the warming isn't an abberation caused by CO2, they'd be funding an entire army of scientists and pushing papers out. They can't even do that, so instead they pay shills and spread a bunch of semi-convincing disinfo picking apart at things like models that are never going to be 100% accurate, posting 'adjusted' graphs and making (totally contradictory ) arguments about 'earth cycles' and 'weather not being a stable system' that don't hold water in context of the issue.
who cares, you are powerless to stop it
it's too late to prevent it
the future is only suffering
>>3663943>we should be going down
Climate alarmists never seem to have an answer for that one. I like to ask the question, "So, okay, the earth's temperature, however you want to measure it, has been higher in the past and cooler. What temperature SHOULD it be and why?
They never seem to have an answer for that, and just fall into twisted logic or stare blankly.
>>3664732> Look at those graphs. We are past the climate optimum
Idiot! You are proving the point made in the post you replied to. You can not say what the the temperature should be and why, all you did was refer to some unspecified "optimum."
Typical climate fanatic stupidity.
I think we haven't even reached the climate optimum.
The northern passages around the pole are still covered in ice much of the year and you can't reach all the good natural resources in Alaska, Canada and Siberia easily by sea.
Once the north pole melts, all this becomes fertile and habitable land with previously inaccessible minerals and oil resources. There's room for billions.
Meanwhile, all the troublesome parts of the earth like the Middle-East and north Africa, Middle-America, most of China, southern Europe etc. become uninhabitable and unable to sustain unchecked population growth against the civilized world.
All you can say is win-win.