Even technigger is against climate change, /g/,
have you signed the petition yet?
Also climate saving tech thread I guess.
There's solar panels on my roof, so I guess that helps. I wonder when we will actually integrate batteries into the power grid and build more windmills and stuff to go completely green.
Or will we finally just drill a hole and cook water with the earth's warmth?
That was my first thought too. But capitalism in general is wasteful by definition. Not that the alternative (one model of state phone or some shit) is good...
It would be cool if there were a significant number of signatures. Over 100 million or some shit would be pretty dank and hard to completely ignore, although the corporate cash is probably harder to ignore for politicians.
>find his parascope video before his 6P review
>he had 3 6Ps with another 2 on order
He is the definition of spoiled rich kid living it easy on his parents dollar while he bitches about muh environment and muh global warming.
>>51491590Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.
Well, you are still contributing to the strength of the call for better policy. It's like whipping the politicians you elected to do what they probably promised to do. It's not an excuse to not try to reduce emissions where you can.
Oh, and using less oil also means you're not supporting sandniggers as much :^)
Anyone know how viable/expensive it would be to get off the grid? Basically to have your home powered solely by wind and solar energy.
I think I could do it. I'd build my house small because I don't need a lot of space, also tfw cozy, so it wouldn't take much to keep warm. I would barely need electricity in the summer months except for some shitposting power, so the winter is what I'd be worried about the most.
>Well, you are still contributing to the strength of the call for better policy. It's like whipping the politicians you elected to do what they probably promised to do.
Nobody gives two shits about online petitions
You have more impact writing to your representative if that's your argument, but most people are too lazy to do that.
Yeah, he's a bit insane.
He could just wash his clothes, but instead he buys clothes monthly and justifies it by saying he's not as bad as other people.
I don't think I buy more than 1 pair of jeans, 4 tshirts, a hoodie or two and some socks and underwear every year. And I don't have to wear his shit-tier chink synthetic clothes.
>For storage a $65 lead acid automobile battery does the trick. It’s 12V so can be charged directly from the solar panel, and holds 420Wh, way more than I use in a day. That’s $0.15 / Wh so I don’t see why everyone is so excited about Tesla charging $0.43 / Wh for the Powerwall, sans inverter and installation.
That guy is a fucking idiot. The first time he drains his "automotive" lead acid battery down, he's destroyed it. Good job on the sustainability, prick. Next time at least get a marine deep-cycle battery. Also, how about running the numbers on recycling all that lead?
Later he brags about having no stove. A stove has zero parasitic power use, unless it's modern with a clock on it.
Dude just sounds mentally ill.
>WE WANT CLEAN ENERGY!
>I agree, I believe nuclear energy can pow-
>DIDN'T YOU SEE CHERNOGBYL, WE NEED TO INVEST TRILLLIONS INTO SOLAR AND WIND!
such is life when debating climate change.
>when we will actually integrate batteries into the power grid
thats equally as bad, the way generators work now are way more efficient than batteries.
because its best for earths warmth to stay in the earth.. onces the core cools bad stuff happens.
You are right, nuclear power is perfectly clean. Except of the meltdown every 20 years somewhere on the planet and the nuclear waste for which there are no proper disposal plans except of:
>LMAO, just put it into a salt stock for the next 10k years and hope for the best that future generations will take care of it
That chimp got paid to make that nonsense propaganda.
Hey, MKBHD, go tell your racial brothers in the would-be-a-paradise-resort-if-not-for-the-niggers-land to stop burning tires with gasolines around their fellow inhabitants necks, its polluting quite a bit.
They have preliminary plans for sequestration beneath the seas but technology is lacking. Genetically modified super trees are still a pipe dream but super CO2 scrubbers are getting closer (bigger versions of the technology found on power plants emissions stacks).
You can't get normies invested in the idea of climate change because the causal link between human actions and climate change is too abstract.
Understanding climate change requires a background in chemistry and atmospheric physics to which the normie reaction is "dude science lmao".
The best way to get normies to support climate change is to make climate change so bad that they don't care what's causing it or what is going to happen in the future.
It has to be so bad that they would just want it get rid of it now.
tl;dr normies don't have foresight granted by basic science and climate change will have to fuck us all before anything is done
And you know what? This is a useless effort. If they aren't going to address animal agriculture as the largest contributor to climate change then their efforts will be a drop in the bucket. If you want to make a difference, don't focus on how technology can solve climate change through renewable resources, focus on what's on your plate. Animal agriculture, according to estimates contributes 18% of all green house gases to the atmosphere. More than all of the transportation industry combined. Don't be a fool, just leave animal products on shelf at your super market next time you go shopping and you can reduce demand for these environmentally harmful products.
Still too abstract for normies.
It has to be bad enough that they can see their children burning to death from the sun before they realise that this concerns them and not just the coral reefs.
All I am saying is that the climate needs to directly damage the normies before they really start caring. Right now climate change is not a direct threat to normies.
Acting on good intentions without the proper understanding can cause more problems than it solves.
In this case it might be fine but it's not a substitute for actual understanding of the issue.
Listen, you think normies matter. This shows a lack of knowledge about the topic. It is the populations of China and India that matter. You know how everyone likes to save the cuddly pandas? Normies are the pandas, they don't matter. It is the third world populations that want to be pandas that matter. And how their governments vote desu
What I'm saying isn't abstract, it is as real of a case as you're going to get for Sun burning children. These stake holders have no conception of these because they're externalities.
"The path to he'll is paved with good intentions" doesn't apply here. If they do the RRRs and but less good & fuel, they can have a measurable impact
>It is the populations of China and India that matter.
Government officials that are responsible for actions against climate change are elected by normies in those countries.
>It is the third world populations that want to be pandas that matter
What? If you mean that they are most at risk from climate change because of their poor infrastructure than yeah I agree.
>These stake holders have no conception of these because they're externalities.
It's getting really hard to understand what you are trying to say, but it seems you are agreeing with me here. I used the word abstract as a synonym for indirect.
Let me rephrase myself. People have a hard time perceiving and responding to threats that are more indirect, less visible, and less human. Compare nazis with viruses as an example.
Climate change and it's effects are not the kinds of things people are naturally good at responding to.
>If they do the RRRs and but less good & fuel, they can have a measurable impact
Their impact is positive but not maximally positive. I am saying they can do better if they understand what they are fighting against.
>one million species
Such large numbers cannot be accurately perceived by humans. It has to be represented using mathematical language or a human language.
Hence it is abstract.
>extinction projected by 2050
That's almost 35 years from now. Humans cannot accurately imagine the world in 35 years, take science fiction as example. I know this projection is more accurate because it's based on climate models and not conjecture.
My point is that how "far" 35 years is difficult to imagine. To see what I mean try to express 35 years in more understandable units like seconds. The number that comes out cannot be intuitevely understood without mathematical language.
Hence this is abstract.
>Half our coral reefs are already dead
Humans cannot perceive accurately with intuition how much the whole coral reef is, much less what half of it is.
This is abstract.
>increased in global average sea temperature
oh wow do I have to do this one?
This is my point. Climate change is too abstract.
>I have not set foot in a grocery store in years. Nevermore will I bumble through endless confusing aisles like a pack-donkey searching for feed while the smell of rotting flesh fills my nostrils and fluorescent lights sear my eyeballs and sappy love songs torture my ears. Grocery shopping is a multisensory living nightmare. There are services that will make someone else do it for me but I cannot in good conscience force a fellow soul through this gauntlet.
Are these people real or is this a joke?
Nuclear fission fits the discription if you don't fall for the "nuclear power = chernobyl" memes.
A bigger problem is to incentivise energy companies to switch to clean energy, because they won't do it unless it's more profitable than current methods of energy.
More importantly is that there needs to be a breakthrough in atmosphere scrubbing technology to remove the current greenhouse gases
because they will continue to sit there in the atmosphere and fuck us over for a long time before they return to acceptable concentrations.
> temperatures have been fluctuating since forever due to sun cycles
> temperature changes 1/10th of a degree
That might as well be measurement error.
>The effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's temperature – a climatic reality upon which man's carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun's present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the 'green agenda' dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.
Are you implying scientists can't remove solar cycle effects from their temperature recordings?
Because that is a thing that I did in undergrad atmospheric physics. Hint: it's periodic. Bigger hint: You can get solar energy measurements from above the atmosphere, get temperature readings below atmoshpere and see how they compare.
Most scientists know what a statistical significant result is.
>meltdown every 20 years
nice mem, it seems the libs have chernobyl shoved down your troat.
would it surprise you that a coal plant does more damage to the environment and kills more people than a nuclear meltdown?
Who cares if it's human made? It's human preventable.
Even taking what you say as true. It shouldn't change what we should do to prevent it.
Or are you saying because it's nature doing it we should do nothing and let it fuck up our shit?
People STILL are too fucking stupid to use it. They would fuck up something in the long term.
This thing is too powerful to be maintained by humans. At least at 2015 it is.
How the fuck /g/ you are so stupid to not understand it?
1 human error and we fukko which definitely would happen in the long run.
I am not an expert on this but apparently there have been designs of nuclear reactors that are very safe and require no human supervision because they self-regulate. So way less chance a human error could occur during operation.
iirc it was called a liquid thorium reactor
It hasn't caught on because energy companies don't want to deal with the PR of having experimental nuclear power.
>It hasn't caught on because energy companies don't want to deal with the PR of having experimental nuclear power.
Yes, every energy company on Earth from China to Russia to France to Japan cares about the exact same PR.
(hint: nobody uses it becasue it's crazy expensive, no other reason)
We can't stop it anyways.
USA and China will use up the last drop of oil and the last lump of coal regardless.
So I've just accepted it and hope my new climate will be nicer than the cold shitty one we had before.
Probably a petition for congress.
See the thinking is to convince a political figure that they can get re-elected with more ease if they support something that has a high amount of backing by the American people. I'm not saying it works that way but I believe that is the thought process of those who sign the petition.
I am interested. Why is it too expensive? I had a read of its wikipedia article and couldn't see anywhere that it's flat out worse cost/performance than conventional nuclear reactors. In fact, it seems to be more efficient according to it.
Climate change is actually caused by the cattle industry who is responsible for 51% of all climate change toxins. But people foam at the mouth when you tell them not to eat meat but whatever
ive been living under a rock for the past few years. i have not been reading into this "climate change" nor do i know what this "global warming" thing is. with that said, i know that there are some really powerful people that have not been shy to express their support xor disdain for climate change or global warming.
what is climate change, and what is its relationship with global warming? and why is it such a big deal for world leaders to acknowledge that it exists? they can say "oh yeah that thing is a bad thing, i agree." but that might not lead to anything changing???
chinese & indian "normies" electing officials is correct. The point i was making with that statement is they are the ones that should be targeted for change, not US or EU normies. We created the problem but they will destroy us.
The panda analogy was implying the third word population seeking to live first world lifestyles. Their views are the ones that should be changed, was that implication.
The reason you are misunderstanding stake holders & externalities is because this is the language of climate change. But for that point, I am agreeing with you. My formal education is environmentalism & ecology.
Climate change isn't abstract but I understand your reasoning with your view that it is indirect. Carbon credits is a good example of abstract in relationship to global climate destabilization.
You last point is completely correct (increasing understanding). Reduce, reuse, & recycle is not maximal because of an inconsistent implementation.
Thorium is pretty fucking cheap mate, MUCH cheaper than uranium. Most power companies haven't made thorium reactors because we still need more research, and that research won't make money for quite a few years.
"Fucked" isn't binary. If we keep making the problem worse, we'll be in for an even worse time than if we stop now.
>Mass awareness is one of the most important forms of activism.
This is true, but also need to start fixing this shit already.
It's called a liquid fluoride thorium reactor. It relies on a a salt plug that melts when the reactor overheats and passively vents the radioactive material without needing human interaction.
>retards LITERALLY think that humans have permanently changed Earth's environment from 100 years of fossil fuels burning
>mfw the Earth is 4.6 Billion years old
>100 years vs 4.6 Billion
Pretty impressive, isn't it?
I'm one of the climate research faggots, and I'll be honest, there are shitloads of unsolved, rather basic, questions about Earth's climate and it's workings. But even if you subtract these, the experimental evidence just keeps piling that our influence in the global carbon cycle did change things.
Just ONCE, I'd like to hear at least some educated criticisms or questions around here, but then I realise it's just a trolling board so I keep posting pictures of Costanza.
Friendly reminder the largest carbon sink is the ocean and it's becoming acidic.
We probably shouldn't poke the bear on that one. I'd much rather nuclear waste than the entire ocean being broken.
No, because I don't give a shit. By the time it gets really bad I'll be dead. I'm not going to waste the short time I have on this earth worrying about something I can't control.
>caring about things that will never affect you
Complaining about global warming is like complaining about gay marriage.
that makes it even worse actually, you dumb nigger.
Also it's not a 4.6 billions years vs 100 years thing. This makes no sense.
Go live in pollution see if you like it. Fucking murican you piece of shit