Friday Funny: Climate emotion – for your smartphone

Josh tips me to this new trend.

We’ve always known that the global climate issue and emotion seem to go together. After all, who can forget “weepy” Bill McKibben’s crying over some drought parched corn, or Ben Santer’s temptation to “beat the crap out of pat Michaels”.

For just such occasions where millennials need to evoke, a website has been created called “Climoji” to help for those times when climate warriors are triggered, and need to express how they feel about climate change. The website says:

Emoji are used to annotate feelings and to short-hand communication. Climoji serve as signifiers to amplify climate change and as a new signs with which to express despair, hope, and solidarity.

Some examples:

 

Josh didn’t think that was a full emotive set, and adds his own:

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
77 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 30, 2018 12:44 am

Brilliant! Nice one Josh 😎

Bryan A
Reply to  Jamie Spry
March 30, 2018 12:07 pm

Sea Levels, bringing the Beach closer to you by a Foot per Century

pameladragon
Reply to  Bryan A
March 30, 2018 4:26 pm

Just so! If we hold onto our farm in Virginia, eventually it will have an ocean view….

ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 1:21 am

And now let’s see what impact climate change is having on different ecosystems so as not to trivialize this issue which WUWT is always looking to do, any chance it can get:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-is-climate-change-affecting-the-earth-s-different-ecosystems.html

Brent Hargreaves
Reply to  ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 1:33 am

Ivan, has it occurred to you that you are exhaling CO2 with every breath you take? Pray tell, how do you FEEL about your contribution to planet- murder?

Filbert Cobb
Reply to  Brent Hargreaves
March 30, 2018 2:14 am

Simultaneous inhalation/exhalation is a rare technique developed by a few exponents of reed instruments in the jazz idiom so probably not applicable to Climastrologists.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Brent Hargreaves
March 30, 2018 2:53 am

Trumpeters, too, can take advantage of circular breathing.

Bryan A
Reply to  Brent Hargreaves
March 30, 2018 12:47 pm

Interesting link Ivan
Let’s look at these “Problems” (emboldened emphasis/strike alterations mine) and make the needed corrections to tell the Whole Truth and not just the Horror Half of it
Increased Global Warming since the end of the last Ice Age has affected many terrestrial eco-regions, and the increased temperature has driven many species to move out of their habitats increased habitat range for many species, alongside mildly rising sea levels of around 4-6” per century, weather changes fortunately weather isn’t stagnant and always changes, and lessened snow cover during La Nina Years. The rising temperature has even affected the environment as glaciers are shrinking and growing, plants and animals’ ranges have shifted and ice on rivers and lakes is also breaking and refreezing. The animal and plant species have shown a change in behavior as they started moving towards the higher altitudes, and it is seen that the birds, butterflies, and plants are moving towards the poles by 6.1 kilometers per decade. Climate change The Changing Climate> has become is being touted as the biggest threat as it impacts the biodiversity.
Tropical Rainforests
They cover 30 million square kilometers of the Earth’s surface and contribute only 6% of its space, while it supplies 40% of the Earth’s oxygen nonetheless. The unique features of the Tropical Rainforests are high temperatures, lack of seasonal variation, and a high amount of rainfall, which allow its ecosystems to be so diverse. The climate change Deforestation to grow biofuel crops affects the rate of change of the this environment and the pace of evolution as the species faces the necessity to adapt higher temperatures to less forested space. Species that are living in the rainforests now fits into the changing aspect of the environment. A greater temperature swing is also caused in their environment as deforestation forces these creatures move away from the equator.
Temperate Forests
To understand the change in the temperate forests, one needs to understand the species which relate to each other in the environment, and how they relate individually to the environment. The Global Warming or the ever changing climatic shifts can cause the disturbances, which will make the forests not worth living for plants and animals. With higher temperatures, either the species have to migrate, adapt to the environment or they die in the region. The presence of carbon dioxide in the environment may also affect the forest population and cause death rate rapid and increased plant growth and better usage of atmospheric water supplies, wildfires can occur always have, always will, pine beetle spread through lack of proper forest management can also infect the entire forest region and much more.
Taiga
The forest wildfires affect the Taiga region with the change in climate, and even human developmental activities have affected it a great deal. The Taiga region responds differently to the climatic conditions because of hydrology and soil development. The Taiga region also faces threat due to the lightning strikes and natural regeneration processes. Conifer trees are also found in the area but their growth is limited but likely could be enhanced by increased CO2 fertilization, and their seeds which fall on the ground are also dispersed by the wind.
Tundra
The tundra covers a tenth of the Earth’s land, and therein one can find frozen bogs which have a minimal level of vegetation diversity. As these are among the sensitive habitats of the world so it is also affected by the Global Warming. The climatic change is a threat to Tundra vegetation as the soil of the land is carbon-bound and when the frozen soil thaws the organic contents present over there begins to decay, and it releases carbon dioxide. The major threats which are faced by the region are that the permafrost will radically change the landscape (not certain just how “Permafrost can radically change the landscape”) of the area and the lives of the species living there. The ozone depletion at North and South poles will harm the Tundra region; Air Pollution will cause smog clouds, which will contaminate lichen, and is a food source for many animals and much more.
Mangroves
The climate change has drastic effects on the Mangroves too as the sea level may rise and the sediment surface may not keep pace with this. Other factors which may affect the Mangroves are high-water events, precipitation, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, health of the functionally linked ecosystem which is nearby, and changes in temperature. If there will be a damage to the Mangroves then it may seriously affect the coastal communities and the fisheries directly. A serious threat will also be seen in this manner that if the Mangroves are finished then during coastal storms, the human lives cannot be saved as the forest dampens the wave heights and the speed of the wind. Other threats can be the risk of floods, saline intrusion, erosion of coastal lines and storm surges will be increased.
Savannas and Grasslands
The Savannas have been affected by the release of carbon DIOXIDE in the air as the vegetation has been removed from some areas. (So NOT CO2 induced changes but land use changes) . The climate change has social, economic and ecological impact as in the Savannas, the coral reefs are at risk, and the rising sea level is also one of the issues. Another threat is the feral animals, floods, cyclone, and fire in the region and increase in the mosquitoes. The grasslands are mainly found in U.S. region, and climate change has affected it considerably as the species which are living in these grasslands have to shift to other areas to compensate for the climate change changing Climate.
Shrublands
The shrublands, mainly in the areas of U.S. which have been researched extensively for the impact of climate changes, have shown that the shrub species have developed the tolerance to largely counter changes in the soil and water. Even it was found that these shrublands if (weasel word warning) faces reduction in the carbon sequestration with the climate change then the loss of wildlife habitat can be faced and soil erosion and wildfire are stated to be other causes.

goldminor
Reply to  Brent Hargreaves
March 30, 2018 2:39 pm

@ Bryan A…+100

Alex
Reply to  ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 1:37 am

Ha Ha Ha

Reply to  Alex
March 30, 2018 8:56 am

And fluters …

Stephen Richards
Reply to  ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 1:39 am

planet is greener now than before the industrial revolution, Ivan. Does greening upset you?

MarkW
Reply to  Stephen Richards
March 30, 2018 12:01 pm

Anything that gets between him and power over others upsets him.

Hugs
Reply to  ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 2:11 am

Hey, ivanskins, do you eat insects? Just wondering if you have opinion on that when you missed Eric’s post yesterday.

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 2:21 am

I think that site is for April Fools Day. It has everything backwards, i.e. sea ice is expanding and deserts are shrinking.

Reply to  ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 2:36 am

The correct response to trivial issues is to trivialise them.
We do not hold state funerals for dead hamsters.
So is Manmade Global Warming trivial?
Yes.
• Sea level rise is not noticeably accelerating. And is certainly trivial compared with land-use change at the shore.
• The number of species going extinct each decade is certainly trivial compared with the effects of conservation workers in zoos (and evolution demands some).
• Life expectancy is increasing, infant mortality decreasing and we are producing more food than ever before. The effects of manmade weather disasters are certainly trivial compared with the effects of cheap energy.

The greatest threat to this benign state is poverty. Poverty will come from wasting resources on boondoggles instead of investment.
Modern green policies are based on waste on trivial issues.
They do more harm than good.

Reply to  M Courtney
March 30, 2018 2:46 am

Well said M Courtney.

ivankinsman
Reply to  M Courtney
March 30, 2018 3:36 am

Sceptics love to talk about wasting resources on climate change iniatives – as though every cent spent is money down the drain. But nothing about the wasted money on the negative impact of C02 pollution on human and planetary health. Why not I wonder? Doesn’t fit in with your credo?

Ben of Houston
Reply to  M Courtney
March 30, 2018 6:37 am

What negative impact of CO2 on health? It’s a trace chemical becoming less trace, and we can take multiple times the current concentration without any noticeable effects.

Reply to  M Courtney
March 30, 2018 7:05 am

“Sceptics love to talk about wasting resources on climate change iniatives – as though every cent spent is money down the drain.”
Correct – because it is.

MarkW
Reply to  M Courtney
March 30, 2018 12:02 pm

Since nobody can find these alleged negative impacts of climate change, why should we waste any resources on them?

Reply to  M Courtney
March 30, 2018 12:15 pm

CO2 is not pollution. It has no negative effects on health.
indeed, if you have less CO2 in your mouth when exhaling rather than inhaling then you do have a very severe health problem . You are already dead.
So there is no need to worry about the negative impact of CO2 on health. It doesn’t exist.
As for the negative impact of CO2 on the planet – my first comment addressed that. They are negligible, if they even exist. It’s not ignored for any credo. It is addressed and dismissed.
Try reading what you are replying to.

Bryan A
Reply to  M Courtney
March 30, 2018 2:11 pm

ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 at 3:36 am

Sceptics love to talk about wasting resources on climate change iniatives (sic) – as though every cent spent is money down the drain. But nothing about the wasted money on the negative impact of C02 pollution on human and planetary health. Why not I wonder? Doesn’t fit in with your credo?

A) CO2 isn’t a pollutant, if it were your exhalation at 45,000ppm would make you a gross polluter by California emission standards.
B) CO2 has a net positive impact on Plant growth and evapotranspiration within the ecosystem so no net “Negative Impact” on health

AllyKat
Reply to  M Courtney
March 30, 2018 2:58 pm

1) Considering that most of the negative environmental problems listed above are due to human actions like clear cutting forested areas, development (often excessive), etc., things that DIRECTLY and IMMEDIATELY impact the environment, it is asinine to try to connect it to the CO2 boogeyman.
2) If we were not wasting money on people flying around to attend conventions in exotic destinations where they stay in very nice hotels and eat very fancy meals and pat themselves on the back for being “enlightened”, we could spend that money on reforestation programs, establishing wildlife preserves, setting up programs that enable people to have a decent quality of life while conserving and coexisting with the local flora and fauna, clean up sites that have suffered REAL pollution, and educate people so that they do not think that coral reefs are part of savannah and grassland ecosystems.

Reply to  M Courtney
March 30, 2018 8:52 pm

Yes, well said M Courtney, but don’t equate boondoggles with calculated kleptocracy

Reply to  ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 3:21 am

You do realize that this map was made up by some bored kid playing with Minecraft don’t you?

ivankinsman
Reply to  Steve B
March 30, 2018 3:32 am

Yeah yeah yeah

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 3:40 am

Ivan: “CO2 pollution”? Now we have it confirmed that you spout nonsense.

John Bell
Reply to  ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 5:32 am

Your link spews a bunch of quackery.

hunter
Reply to  ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 6:35 am

Ivan,
Certainly you are trying to demonstrate the desperate need for climate apocalypse fanatics to regain their critical thinking skills?

ivankinsman
Reply to  hunter
March 30, 2018 7:41 am

Never had any problem with that.
Sceptic: factories, cars, power plants pumping out CO2 = no pollution and a greening planet = moron
Everyone else: increasing amounts of human-priduced CO2 = no beneficial effects for the planet = do something about it = proactive and logical person

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  hunter
March 30, 2018 8:39 am

No ivan, it’s:
Climate Believer = Increasing CO2 = “carbon pollution” = “climate destruction” = “destroying the planet” = illogical, humanity-hating person = moron.
Skeptic/Climate Realist = Increased CO2 = a greening planet = possibly some beneficial warming (but none that can be shown) = all beneficial = no “need” to “fix” a non-problem = logical, humanity-loving person.

Sheri
Reply to  hunter
March 30, 2018 9:23 am

Ivan: Name-calling just indicates you have NO science.

MarkW
Reply to  hunter
March 30, 2018 12:03 pm

I notice that the only way ivanski has to promote his nonsense is to declare that anyone who believe in reality is a moron.

Bryan A
Reply to  hunter
March 30, 2018 2:21 pm

Ivan…
Lets fix this for you so that it IS logical and not nonsensical

ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 at 7:41 am
Never had any problem with that.
Sceptic: factories, cars, power plants pumping out CO2 = no pollution and a greening planet = moron
Everyone else: increasing amounts of human-priduced CO2 = no beneficial effects for the planet = do something about it = proactive and logical person

ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 at 7:41 am
Always had problems with that.
Sceptic: factories, cars, power plants pumping out CO2 = no pollution and a greening planet = Truth
Leftists: increasing amounts of human-priduced (sic) CO2 = no beneficial effects for the planet Other than …
–extended greening,
–extended growing seasons,
–increased crop yields,
–increased availability of atmospheric water vapor
= do something to stop those benefits = sophmoronic and illogical person

Reply to  hunter
March 30, 2018 2:42 pm

Bryan A, I wish you wouldn’t conflate climate change scaredy-cat with “leftist”.
I am politically left-wing.
That doesn’t mean I believe the manmade component of climate change is newsworthy.

Bryan A
Reply to  hunter
March 30, 2018 8:00 pm

M Courtney in my opinion, being politically left means you vote with your heart whenever possible while being leftist means you vote with your party regardless of its direction. You, like my wife and daughter are politically left but definitely not Leftist

Bryan A
Reply to  hunter
March 30, 2018 8:05 pm

M Courtney in my opinion, being politically left means you vote with your heart whenever possible while being leftist means you vote with your party regardless of its direction. You, like my wife and daughter are politically left but definitely not Leftist if I could alter what I wrote, I would change Leftist to Alarmist and extend apologies to you. Since I can’t modify my post, I will simply apologize to you for using a somewhat offensive verbiage

Reply to  hunter
March 31, 2018 11:13 am

Bryan A,
Thank you for the courtesy and consideration.

Sheri
Reply to  ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 9:23 am

Statistical studies designed to prove a predetermined outcome. How about some REAL science?

MarkW
Reply to  ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 12:00 pm

The only impact so far is a slightly longer growing season and plants that are more efficient at using water.
Both good things.

ivankinsman
Reply to  MarkW
March 30, 2018 12:10 pm

If you think it’s just that then you’ll be be believing in fairies next … ice caps and glaciers melting, tundra releasing methane, ocean acidification, increased desertification, exacerbated strengthening of hurricanes and tropical storms, increased coastal flooding, biodiversity loss, prolonged drought periods resulting in increased incidences of wild fires … want me to carry on?

Roger Knights
Reply to  MarkW
March 30, 2018 2:58 pm

IVK: The Antarctic ice cap isn’t melting. Other concerns of yours have been rebbutted, in whole or part, by threads here. They can be found by clicking on the Categories drop-down list (unhelpfully located 8 page-downs from the top) or by use of the search box.

AllyKat
Reply to  MarkW
March 30, 2018 3:26 pm

If I put a single drop of water into a gallon jug of bleach, that jug of bleach is acidified. Still not actually acidic.
Some ice caps and glaciers are melting because we are fortunate enough to have warmed up a bit since the Little Ice Age, regardless, we still are well within natural temperature variation. There are natural methane seeps worldwide, show me a direct way that this has harmed the planet. Desertification is currently largely caused by poor land management (overgrazing is a major culprit). Show me a study that actually shows that hurricanes and tropical storms are getting stronger. Flooding increases, where they actually occur, are almost always because of human alterations to the landscape, and are noticed more often because of increased development on coastal areas. Biodiversity loss is generally due to irresponsible development and the resultant loss of habitat, poaching, and other direct actions by humans. Increased wildfires is generally due to fire management policies that we now know were unsound, and since people freak if you talk about “thinning” the forest, it is going to take a few more decades of wildfires to return to a healthier forest.
There are tangible negative environmental impacts directly caused by specific human actions. These actions can be observed. Claiming that a tiny increase in plant food gas is the culprit is dishonest and distracts people from doing things that would actually solve these problems.

Reply to  ivankinsman
March 30, 2018 4:25 pm
Phillip Bratby
March 30, 2018 2:18 am

Where’s the starving polar bear?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
March 30, 2018 10:22 am

I see London, I see France
I see Climate Fraudypants.

Anoneumouse
March 30, 2018 3:20 am

comment image

Robert from oz
Reply to  Anoneumouse
March 30, 2018 4:34 am

+1000000000000

March 30, 2018 4:56 am

I really don’t grt the bats eating a turkey leg. Are they saying that global warming will cause bats to attack Renaissance Festivals?
And the one in the upper right can be sued to call ‘BS’ on “ivankinsman”. No, we don’t talk about CO2 pollution here, because it is NOT pollution.

Kira
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
March 30, 2018 6:57 am

I think they are flies. Really evil, bad flies, because meat is bad because…global warming

Reply to  Kira
March 30, 2018 7:27 am

In other words, EPIC FAIL! You’d think people used to reducing their political philosophy to fit on bumper stickers could at least get an emoji right. Still look like bats to me. 🙂

Reply to  Kira
March 30, 2018 7:31 am

Also, how can dead penguins cry?????

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Kira
March 30, 2018 9:38 am

Mumbles:
Remember the counterculture bumper sticker that read, “Kill a gay whale for Christ”? I assume the target was the self-righteously violent members of Greenpeace.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
March 30, 2018 12:17 pm

Pretty sure the flying things are vultures. And flies are on it. The message being that if you throw your turkey legs about willy nilly, they will eventually attract flies, and even vultures. Because global warming.
Or something.

PaulH
March 30, 2018 6:08 am

I guess the hand reaching out of the blue circle indicates “further research required, hand me more money” 😉

hunter
March 30, 2018 6:19 am

How about an emoji showing climate profiteers, a parody face combining Gore with the Monoploy money guy…
Or how about a board game….”The Climate Hustle”…..

Reply to  hunter
March 30, 2018 7:29 am

How about an emoji of Al Gore being eaten by polar bears?

john
March 30, 2018 6:26 am

I want burning turbines!

Yirgach
Reply to  john
March 30, 2018 6:47 am

And exploding batteries!

Schrecken
Reply to  Yirgach
March 30, 2018 7:38 am

How about a burning Tesla?

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Yirgach
March 30, 2018 9:41 am

In space.

Sheri
Reply to  john
March 30, 2018 9:24 am

Yes! Absolutely!

ResourceGuy
March 30, 2018 6:56 am

I think we’re going to need a broken California icon…..
California Judge Rules Coffee Must Carry Cancer Warning
Under state’s Proposition 65, cancer warnings appear on wide range of places and products

Schrecken
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 30, 2018 7:40 am

Or maybe one of a shivering Brit who can’t afford his heating bill due to high fuel prices brought on by “carbon reduction”!

save energy
Reply to  Schrecken
March 30, 2018 3:06 pm

Bits of me have already shrunk with the cold… & more snow is forecast this weekend (:-((

Sheri
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 30, 2018 9:25 am

California labels virtually everything carcinogenic. It’s so crazy and lacking in science, how anyone who can think at all falls for the nonsense, I do not know. Only death does not cause cancer.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Sheri
March 30, 2018 11:10 am

+1

AllyKat
Reply to  Sheri
March 30, 2018 3:28 pm

Just wait.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 30, 2018 4:33 pm

“A broken California”? Kinda like a wishbone? The sane get to leave “The Left Coast” behind?

March 30, 2018 9:18 am

To trivialize this even more, when did “shorthand” become a verb, as in “to shorthand”? And where did “trivialize” come from?

Carbon Bigfoot
March 30, 2018 10:00 am

Ivan is a 56 year old liberal that lives in an apartment in Tribeca. That speaks volumes of his reality.

ddpalmer
March 30, 2018 10:06 am

All the people in their ‘Climojis’ are white. How racist.
And of the 3 where you can tell, they appear to be young and female. So sexist and ageist too.
They better fix this ASAP or the PC crowd will start having fits.

Reply to  ddpalmer
March 30, 2018 1:31 pm

Well, the cow poop in the upper right emoji is brown. Also the dead crying penguin is black. So they’re covered. And the frog is green. Wait a minute, why is a frog a climemoji anyways????

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
March 30, 2018 4:38 pm

Well, France has (or had) lots of nuclear power plants. The frog is dead. So … the greens hate the French?

ResourceGuy
March 30, 2018 2:05 pm

Obviously, we need a chart icon that shows large divergence.

March 30, 2018 6:01 pm

Here’s MY suggestion for a “climoji”:comment image