The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

They set a good example, fiberoptic fur and black skin.

Better to take their skin, or make synthetics? The anti-humanists would say neither.

[redpoint5]

dupe

[freebeard]

Is there an echo in here?

Who cares what the anti-humanists, or for that matter what the anti-polar bearists, say? But that was the point, from TFA:

To recreate this excellent approach to insulation in something humans can wear, the University of Massachusetts Amherst engineers created a new fabric with layers that specifically recreate elements of a polar bear’s body. The base layer is made from nylon coated with a polymer known as PEDOT, which has excellent heat-retaining properties. The top layer, meanwhile, is covered in transparent polypropylene threads that help conduct visible light—whether from the sun or artificial indoor lighting—towards the nylon base layer to warm it up.

The engineers claim that a jacket made from the material they’ve created would be both “30% lighter than the same jacket made of cotton” while also keeping you “comfortable at temperatures 10 degrees Celsius colder than the cotton jacket could handle”—assuming you aren’t sitting in the dark, because the material’s warming properties are completely dependent on harnessing light.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Did that research include the Beaufort Gyre?

Only racists, bigots, anti-science, extremist, trump supporters talk about that which is inconvenient to global warming narrative.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Of course, net-benefit to humanity is quite subjective, but so too is climate catastrophism.

Is less polar bears a negative for humanity? 99.9% of us don't interact with them.

Anyhow, I'm sure I linked it somewhere in The global warming thread.

The polar bear loss is just a symptom of the sea ice loss, which is the deal-breaker.
The algae which lives underneath the sea ice IS the beginning of the entire marine food chain.
As we go to 'blue-ocean' all sea life dies, by default.
All the millions, or billions of humans who rely on ocean fisheries will lose that food supply.
Since photosynthesis 'stops' at 104-F, land-based agriculture will go the way of the sea ice, even if it isn't rained to death, hailed to death, droughted, real estate developed to death, insect-plagued to death, or wind-erosioned to death, etc..
Also, as we lose the north and southern polar ice, we lose the largest solar reflectors on the planet. There's additional global warming built into the loss of albedo. It's one of the non-linear feedback loops observed as early as with Benjamin Franklin in the 1800s.
As sea level rises, there's less arable land for farming and ranching.
Salt water intrusion destroys municipal water supplies.
The Atlantic Meridonal Overturning Current ( AMOC ) [ The Gulf Stream ] has already slowed by 30% because of polar ice melt, which is accelerating, which at some point may re-introduce ice-age conditions to northern Europe.
There won't be any new 'green revolutions.'
The entertainment value is endless!

[redpoint5]

300 years from now folks might really be putting in effort to mitigate some of those things.

[aerohead]

By then, there won't be any 'folks', except for around 100-million souls, which exhibit the original carrying capacity of pre-technological Earth.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The Atlantic Meridonal Overturning Current ( AMOC ) [ The Gulf Stream ] has already slowed by 30% because of polar ice melt, which is accelerating, which at some point may re-introduce ice-age conditions to northern Europe.

That sort of apostacy will get you the label from Post #1414.

[aerohead]

As best as I can tell from the scientific literature, if you follow the chain of events unfolding from global warming, one cannot expect anything other than another mass extinction event.
The Himalayan glacier moraine lake blowouts and hydro-electric infrastructure collapses foreshadow the end of 'rivers' and hydro power we know it. That's today, not the future.
Where do you think the electricity used to turn atmospheric Nitrogen into fertilizer for the great 'green revolution' came from?

[freebeard]

Himalayan glacier moraine lake blowouts and hydro-electric infrastructure collapses

[citation needed]

Earth is homeostatic. The flea on the elephant's back says 'look at all the dust we're raising'.