Is the field pretty much cooked? Like first Greta dumped it and ran off with Palestine, and now all the billionaire NGOs are getting smoked out. Are there even any shills left who are still getting paid to post here? Feels like the end of an era. What's the latest on radiative forcing?

idk, probably gonna get worse, probably gonna cost everyone a lot, but hey we will survive.

>>16690528 (OP)
There will be threads as summer weather heats up. Less than in years past but that's been true of many types of threads since the war with Palestinians started.

they realized people understand basic science, and could call their bullshit. they got embarrassed and left.

>>16690528 (OP)
Greta didn't dump climate change. An activist can do more than one thing, and they are connected issues, with the US empire (which includes Israel) being the biggest and worst polluter on earth

>>16690528 (OP)
elon and drumpf are fighting, even the gender hysteria is on hold rn
give it about a month tops

>>16690579
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08987-z
Has anyone perused this one yet? It seems to suggest that when the earth warms up and less of it is covered with snow, more heat gets thrown back into space, cooling down the earth. That would be a nice feature if true.

>>16690579
everyone likes to make this political when you damn well know if we lived in a hippie utopia it would have to be powered by the same fuels as any other political system

>>16690528 (OP)
Is just a scam only morons believe.

>>16690528 (OP)
Climate change was redundant once the west opened its borders to invaders. It was only ever a pretense for climate rapefugees

>>16690528 (OP)
>Is the field pretty much cooked?
Are they still getting temps from urban heat islands, without subtracting the impact of those environments?
>it's now 2 degrees Celsius warmer, in areas that are completely comprised of asphalt and concrete and cars and industrial sites!
Wow, shocking. Better tax everyone more to make the weather more gooder.

>>16690610
Over 60 countries, with a combined population of 1.5 billion, now produce the majority of their electricity from renewable sources.
The use of those fuels is not as much of a strict requirement or foregone conclusion as you think.

>>16690599
It's the other way around.
More snow and ice = more albedo and more cooling, less snow and ice = less albedo and more heating

>>16690677
Did you read it? I'd post the pdf but it's 18.8MB. For example

>Overall, the albedo enhancement in non-barren LULC non-conversion regions under LCCS 2 increased global land surface mean albedo by 0.0024, contributing to 76.6% of the GSLA increase and resulted in a global mean radiative forcing of −0.126 (−0.141, −0.107) W m−2, accounting for 76.4% of GSLA-induced forcing. The albedo changes in these non-barren, non-conversion regions could be largely explained by changes in PV, NPV and SWC. PV refers to plant types actively engaged in photosynthesis, such as green leaves and grasses. NPV includes plant components that do not photosynthesize, such as dry leaves, stems and woody material, commonly found in shrubs and dead plant matter33.

>Albedo in snow-free regions experience a substantial increase (2.2%, 0.0038 (0.0036, 0.0039)), leading to a 0.72% global land surface mean albedo increase (0.0018 (0.0006, 0.0029)). The albedo increase in snow-free regions results in considerable negative global mean radiative forcing (−0.164 (−0.186, −0.138) W m2), equivalent in magnitude to 59.9% of CO2 radiative forcing and 48.9% of total greenhouse gas emissions radiative forcing during the period 2011–2019, as reported by the IPCC AR6 (ref. 10).

>>16690528 (OP)
Ultimately what's the point? Companies have abandoned any pretense of cutting carbon emissions because of the meme that is AI. Yearly emissions are higher than ever, and it's been a decade since the paris accords.

The elites have simply stopped pretending there was ever a plan to stop climate change in the first place. Now the only thing to do is deal with it and hope it doesn't get bad enough that the world collapses.

>>16690722
the plan was never to stop climate change, it was always to keep proles in their place. if the plan had been to stop climate change they'd have nuked the CO2 emitters which are China and India. Also stopped immigration.

>>16690528 (OP)
I don’t believe climate change is a problem anymore. Look at the rapid rate of solar power adoption (worldwide but especially in China). The shift to green power is becoming unstoppable. Combine that with geoengineering like aerosols in the stratosphere and climate change is solved.

Granted this plan won’t solve stuff like ocean acidification but it will prevent the planet from heating up.

>>16690733
>if the plan had been to stop climate change they'd have nuked the CO2 emitters which are China and India
And America. It's honestly impressive given they have basically a fourth the population of China.

The thing is that carbon emissions need to be basically stopped entirely. Not halved, not brought down to 10%, but just stopped altogether.

>>16690733
>nuke India and/or China to stop climate change
>do this while forgetting or ignoring how those countries also have nukes
>get nuked in return
Brilliant.

The money ran out. After the compromise was settled (keep emitting but pay some taxes via carbon trading) and there was no more need to battle it out most of the funding dried up. Not entirely of course but it’ll never be what it once was.

>>16690528 (OP)
It should be banned from being taught in schools just like all other RELIGIONS.

>>16690741
So how do we know that China reports true figures for CO2?

>>16691631
I don't think these are self reported. They're figures calculated from industrial output and lifestyle factors.

>>16691631
If you're concerned about whether CO2 emissions are accurately reported, you've accepted the idea that they can be and are being accurately measured.

>>16690579
China pollutes more
And palestinians do not matter at all in the grand scheme of things.

>>16690528 (OP)
They are just working on their next gig.

>>16691646
This makes absolutely no sense. They may for instance be well aware of coal fired powerstations not part of the CO2 accounting, amounts far larger than the uncertainty in the total reporting.

>>16690741
>>16691631
The better line of argument is to note how much of China and India live in poverty compared to the USA. They're developing nations. Meaning their carbon output is only going to increase.

>>16690528 (OP)

"Climate change" was numerological hysteria about the year 2000 (one hysteria among many). Once that year passed it became increasingly deranged, and was naturally memoryholed around 2020.

>>16692075
CO2 accounting measures assumptions, not CO2. There aren't measuring devices attached to every smokestack, every tailpipe, etc. The air isn't parceled out into cubic kilometers with a nano drone tasked to continually fly around each one, sensing the CO2 and taking an average. What's nonsense is to pretend that there's any sort of actual measurement happening.

>>16692143
NO MY MODELS COME STRAIGHT FROM GOD.
RECYCLE YOUR PLASTIC CHUD

>>16690599
>When something is darker it reflects more light
Lol no. How can you be this retarded?

>>16692332
See >>16690701

>>16690654
>Are they still getting temps from urban heat islands, without subtracting the impact of those environments?
This has never been the case. Holy shit, can you look up anything at all instead of just making shit up?

>>16690701
>>16692334
I get it. You're scientifically illiterate and you just didn't understand what you read. Why are you on this board?

>>16692337
What's negative forcing?

>>16692341
What's albedo, retard? It's a measure of reflected light. You don't get more reflected light from a darker surface.

>>16692342
You need to take a deep breath, count to ten, then calmly read the paper. All you're doing is defining words we both already know.

>>16692346
Fucking lol. Take your own advice, moron. Your paper doesn't say that when snow melts the land reflects more light. There's no snow involved at all. That's what snow-free means. It's not just that it's summer and the snow has melted by now, its the equator and there was never any snow. You're so desperate for anything to confirm your worldview that you can't even understand a simple paper. Why are you on this board?

>>16692347
There is snow at Kilimanjaro.

>>16692347
You forgot to take a deep breath, count to ten, and calmly read the paper. Do that. Don't define any more words we both know. And don't use emotional language like fucking lol, moron, desperate, confirm, worldview, can't understand, why are you on this board. Your posts so far all sound like you asked Grok to define a few words and simple concepts for you, that you weren't familiar with until now, in "unhinged mode."

>>16692348
>>16692349
Why are you retards pretending that the paper says anything other than what it says? Everyone can read it. Do you think you can win an argument by ignoring facts?

>>16692355
NTA. Your argument was that snow-free meant never getting snow, but there are areas at the equator that get snow. This refutes whatever you were getting at.

>>16692355
>Everyone can read it.
Then why don't you? Are you ever going to read it so you can talk about it? Or are you going to not read it and keep writing generic filler like this, that doesn't mean anything.
>Why are you retards pretending that the paper says anything other than what it says? Everyone can read it. Do you think you can win an argument by ignoring facts?
This says nothing. It's like writing out the text lorem ipsum text.

>>16690739
I believe the same things as you (solar power plus geoengineering will solve climate change), but it brings me no happiness.

For my entire life climate change was the final boss, the thing that would collapse civilization and kill billions. I fully expected my life as I knew it to be over within a decade or so, all because of climate change.

Now, global warming is solved, we are saved, and I have to admit I spent DECADES of my life being sad/depressed/stressed over something that won't happen. All that mental tension for nothing. Now what?

>>16692373
maybe you should have listened retard.

The purpose of greentarding was to herd up all the ideological liberals to a single cause. Today, that cause has switched to Neo-facisim, whatever the fuck that is.

>>16690741
Shit image, doesn't cover export and import corrected CO2 emissions. Producing non-locally and them importing the high-CO2 final product is such a cope.

>>16692395
>we need to save democracy and stop fascism by merging states and corporations into a power structure that can overturn popular elections

>>16692396
The CO2 emissions from shipping also aren't counted because they occur over international waters lol.

>>16692407
fair point to include transportation

>>16692396
This is true. America imports from China far more than the reverse, but the point of the image was to show how America and China have comparable emissions.

>>16690739
>>16692373
>geoengineering
people like you honestly deserve a bullet in the head

>>16692432
What’s the issue? Aerosol pollution reducing has contributed to the sudden rise in temperatures post-2021, increasing the amount of aerosols will thus lower the global temperature.

>>16694216
Not the flex you think it is bro. You have failed to defend the field of geoengineering.

>>16694216
Assuming that's true, why is polluted air a good tradeoff?

>>16694341
>There is a cheap way to patch up the damage done by CO2 emissions in terms of global warming
>This is bad
Explain.


>>16694375
Polluting the air with aerosols prevents global crisis in the form of climate change. Literally saves the world. How is it not worth it? Think of all the ecosystems that will be stabilized, all the natural disasters prevented, etc.


Mass scale solar adoption will stop the crisis from getting worse, aerosols will undo the damage done. Climate change is solved and we are safe.

>>16694216
>>16694407
Problem is if aerosols become a crutch that the climate is dependent on, where we have to keep continually replenishing them for decades and there's a risk of a huge sudden temp spike if they go away

>>16694407
>How is it not worth it?
Every couple months there's a new study that comes out on how the climate feedback from some old or new input variable differs so wildly from expectations that it calls the models themselves into question. Two questions you're missing are 1) how do you know that a large amount of extra aerosols won't have a different effect on climate than a small amount? 2) how do you know that flooding the environment with massive amounts of a synthetic chemical won't cause an even worse crisis of a different nature than the one you were trying to prevent?