/sci/ - Science & Math

Like a week ago or so, an anon posted something about this and everyone was calling him a liar or an idiot and coping and denying. I found it funny and sad.

>>12286427
We just move away from the equator you idiot. You act like humans can’t adapt to global warming

>b-b-buh my humans ruining the earf!!!
Many animals have caused mass climate change (snowball earth) and many other animals can easily destroy the environment. We are an animal, fuck off you hippe

>>12286452
>dood, we'll adapt! just wear short sleeves! lmao!

>>12286445
They're just coping. Expect more of this type of behavior as time goes by.

>>12286452
>Many animals have caused mass climate change (snowball earth)
Retard.

Also: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328781907_Are_increasing_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_levels_lowering_our_intelligence

>>12286452
The "we" at the equator is some 2 billion or more nonwhites. Guess who's backyard they'll be moving into? Yours.

>>12286452
That's just one of the few catastrophes from climate change, you haven't accounted for new viruses that will appear in the north from the melting permafrost, will probably make covid look like a joke and that's just one way we know, we are not prepared to deal with what will follow

>>12286427
Give me one (1) good reason I should give a fuck about this

I don't believe in something I can't see.
Yes I have a degree in a molecular sciences but I don't even believe in molecules

>>12286730
I'm going to buttrape you.

>>12286427
The only question remaining is what would be the most optimal time for a suicide if one still wants the most out of the world in its current, barely sustainable state?

>>12286427
I was told the future was bright by my 80 yo grandad and his vast amount of wealth

>>12286427
>the sky is falling
>>>/x/

>>12286746
Threats by sodomites is not an argument or a reason.

>>12286427
BRAAAAP

Heard of horizontal well drilling? There's more to it than just fracking. The USA has been a net oil exporter since December 2019, way before COVID flattened oil demand.
The question that really matters:
Will the changes to the ppm of carbon in the atmosphere, the incidence rate of cold weather, the incidence rate of hot weather, the incidence rate of rain, the incidence rate of drought, the incidence rate of tornadoes, the incidence rate of hurricanes, the incidence rate of derechos, meltwater usage, meltwater availability, groundwater usage, groundwater availability, fertiliser availability, tractor/truck fuel availability, pest presence, chemical pollution, plastic pollution, electromagnetic spectrum pollution, radionuclide pollution, the incidence rate of human diseases, the incidence rate of livestock diseases, the availability of electrical power, the economy, the availability of finished goods to replace broken equipment, the availability of raw materials to replace broken equipment cause a famine in the USA?
The CIA and the department of agriculture don't seem worried about this, so why should you be? Are they wrong?

In the absolute worst case scenario, we can carry on civilisation in Canada at this level:
https://acoup.blog/2020/07/24/collections-bread-how-did-they-make-it-part-i-farmers/

>>12286730
Warmer climate means millions of niggers coming up north.

>>12286803
It will be in 30 years.

>>12286452
Cope, stop trying to avoid responsibility. Its our fault. Deal with it.

>>12286730
Since we live in a globalized community that relies on resources all over the world , if a bunch of countries in the equator start breaking down because of droughts and other shit that will be caused by global warming it will fuck our economy up a lot fucking you up.

>>12286730
If all the frozen methane were released, we would die. It's a chain reaction that cant be stopped. We're too late.

>>12286798
>goes to /sci/
>thinks science is paranormal

You're a moron.

>>12286887
>We're too late
We never even had a chance to stop this. Our death will be slow and agonizing, but that was always our fate.

>>12286891
Man's pride and greed will be his downfall, once again.

>>12286427
When humanity will start to panick governments' officials will meet in some beautiful place to make some sad decisions. Global holocaust of non-whites and nuclear winter is a perfect remedy to global warming.

>>12286914
Once again and for the final time. The curtain is drawing, enjoy the last of the light, friends.

>>12286427
>Methane deposits: AAAAAAAAA IM OOOOOZING!!!!

>>12286923
Good thing pakistan and china are stockpiling nukes.
Europe is gonna look pretty nice when the nukes fly right back.

>>12286886
Not that guy, but I sort of fall in between alarmist and skeptic. I think things will get bad, but I think there are still things that can be done to survive.

It is a shame that we do not have resilient systems, but I think this may be a shock to fix things. It will be a nasty shock, but I do think things will get fixed, and those that survive will be those who deserve to continue civilization.

There are ways to counteract things like this. Once it starts to get worst and worst the funding will greatly increase. Things like carbon capture. It’s never too late to fix a mistake OP. With enough money you can fix any issue. Stop being such a doomer. If we started soon with someone like joe Biden who will invest to carbon capture it’s a good start. There also other destructive ways to lower global temperature if it really gets bad. Let’s hope it doesn’t get down to that. Things like dumping iron into the ocean and probably lots of other theoretical ways scientist can dream up that are very destructive but can lower the temp

>>12286445
To be fair, if you read the article the researchers put stress on this being preliminary research.

>>12286923
Nuclear winter is a meme.

>>12286929
>>12286940
Cute that you're optimistic, even at a time like this.

>>12286983
There's good in every bad.

>>12287039
Depends on if I hated humanity to begin with, in which case this would be good. Because soon, not even I could be around to hate my own species.

>>12286927
I'M G-G-GO-GONNA SUBLIMATE!

>>12286427
It's a shame the fuckers who knew about this and had the power to stop it won't reap what they sow. They'll be in life support bunkers while everyone else dies.

>>12287082
>They'll be already dead while everyone else dies
Ftfy

>>12286940
>Things like carbon capture

>>12287100
Fair enough.

Everyone in this thread please we protect the environment regardless of whatever.

There’s no reason to not protect your home planet.

>>12287127
Fuck the planet I just want there to be people left over. It's obvious the world powers will do nothing to to stop this. What can anyone do to survive this shit!? I'm having a meltdown here, there has to be a way to continue the human race.

Imagine the smell

>>12286730
you will turn into a nigger from the heat.
Warm country = darker skin

Does the earth get a catastrophic methane release every time it exits an ice age?

>>12286940
>With enough money you can fix any issue.
Actually, no, not this time. This issue is fundamentally different.
In this case, "with enough money" you can only make it worse.

I wish economists had some fundamental grasp of basic science, but they don't. The way the world really works just doesn't interest those types. To them, it's all about game the system and other people to get the things you want. That's all they ever thought about.

>>12286940
>Let’s hope it doesn’t get down to that.
It will. And the solutions that people try by then will only partially work and have a whole new set of dire consequences. That's the vicious cycle that sees the world devolve into a totally uninhabitable, toxic, lifeless shit hole.

Entropy I suppose... Most people are merely a completely oblivious manifestation of it.

Humanity will as adapt. The world will change, just as it has always changed

>>12287164
And higher CO2 levels = lesser IQ

>>12287164
no?
stronger sunlight = darker skin

>>12286890
>pussy hurting
>>>/lgbt/

>>12286485
4cham also lowers your intelligence through opportunity cost, yet here you are

>>12286940
>carbon capture

>>12286694
We literally have more than enough land if we wanted to take them in and if we didn’t then the problem solved itself. Overpopulation is a meme issue when Japan is a proof of concept otherwise
>>12286714
And then we adapt like always buddy the new virus would infect an animal first and then be noticed quickly if it was sufficiently deadly
>>12286882
Does the buffalo care when he overgrazed a field?

>>12287671
>We literally have more than enough land if we wanted to take in [2 billion people]

Speak for yourself.

>>12287671
Japan was never overpopulated.

>>12286452
You're too stupid to be on /sci/. You have to go back to /b/

>>12287702
Unless you live in China, Japan, the Netherlands or India your country would have enough land to be able to take in a portion of refugees If you wanted to.

You may not support such action my point is if you wanted to it would be possible.

Modern zoning laws are mostly low density housing and we literally throw away food we produce too much

Where did this methane originate? Was it once a part of our atmosphere? If so, during what era and what was the climate like during that era?

>>12286427
How did it get there in the first place?

>>12287721
>If you wanted to.
I don't want to.

>>12287721
Like I said,
speak for yourself.
I decide if I have enough land,
not you
and not some sleazy real estate developer.

>>12287734
>implying someone won't just take it from your weeb ass

>>12287736
they can certainly try

>>12287712
Japan imports is one of the most densely populated countries in the world while still maintaining a high standard of living despite so

(Apparently South Korea and the Netherlands are good examples too)

>>12287738
Society favors the community over the individual.

>>12287715
Nice argument bro, I actually have a degree go back to plebbit


>>12287730
>>12287734
like I said if you don’t let them in the problem solves itself. The only issue is the radicalization of the populations of those countries which could resort to bargaining with the threat of nuclear war (if I am going to die of famine why do I care if you blow me up?)

>>12287743
That's right. And an intelligent society would like to keep its land for itself. Hopefully that's not too complicated a concept for you.

>>12287755
That's not how that works and you know it.

>>12287754
so be it
if a society that produces 9 children per woman gives me an ultimatum, then so be it.

>>12287739
Japan's density is almost entirely in Tokyo and Tokyo still has less people per square mile than a place like New York City.
No city in Japan even makes the top 60 list for most densely populated cities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density

The idea that Japan is an overpopulated or densely populated country is not true.

>>12287762
That is how it has always worked. That is why wars are fought, and have always been fought.

>>12287775
And the Japanese disagree with you. And it is their path to choose, not yours.
If you want to turn every city in the world into Lagos, Nigeria then you can quite simply go fuck yourself.

>>12287769
That’s not your best counter strategy, the romans tried to bargain the same way and got BTFO by desperate people in the face of climate change.

Also 9 children is a gross over exaggeration and Africa is not overpopulated compared to its (possible) output. My bigger issue was Pakistan, India, China and Iran all becoming desperate

>>12287783
Disagrees with me about what? Japan entirely agrees with me on my opinions about immigration i.e. that you shouldn't let in a lot of foreigners.
IDK what you're talking about.

>>12287721
>enough land
Fucking retard.

>>12287775
I’ll back down because I should’ve used the Netherlands or S.Korea as my example. I also had the historical notion of the Population of Japan too
>>12287783
First of all I said It’s POSSIBLE to house there people not SHOULD

Second you are grossly underestimating human competence if you think humans can’t handle taking a refugee crisis without crumbling apart

>>12287743
Lol no it doesn't are you retarded.
Society will allow 1000 proles to do before the factory owner does.

>>12287790
thought you were someone else.
on the face of it points like: "japan is not densely populated" seem to be arguing for migration to japan

>>12287798
unironically tell me which country you live in

So will this turn the entire equator into a desert?

>>12287149
methane doesn't smell like much, it's sulfur that makes farts smell like farts

>>12287809

If the heating and deforestation continues, yes, the equator will be one, very hot desert.

>>12287803
"Having enough land" doesn't magically solve the problem of having to maintain millions of refugees, especially in an increasingly warmer climate that fucks the crops up.

>b-but northern areas will become more fertile and crop-friendly!
No.

Just for the record I'm not against migration except when it's from countries with above replacement rate fertility.

>>12287834
or when an influx to an area becomes too much for local ecosystems to bear

>>12287832
>>12287834
I’m guessing same poster so I’ll dual quote

Yes soil quality is a point especially since the northern soil is not developed as much but you could either develop the soil, plant hardier crops, genetically engineer crops, have less land for meat farms, or do in-house farming. However you could even begin this task without agreeable temperatures which global warming provides for those latitudes. Plus you could do year round farming in places where you could only do seasonal farming (I’m aware of the less sunlight during winter)

Furthermore automation and the increasing returns on capital easily makes this feasible economically in 20-30 years.

I’m not trying to blast you to accept migrants my bigger point is that complete stopping global warming is a pie in the sky dream, I’m trying give a meaningful intellectual argument that realistically life goes on (as we know it)

>>12286868
They will be coming anyway and the only thing that's going to stop them is non-stop gunfire.

>>12287858
You're living in fairyland

>>12287143
Don't worry bro, I'll be fine.

>>12287874
1. Not an argument.

2. You are living in fairytale land if you think humans will just roll over and die

3. You certainly arnt living in science land if you deny how strong current position is scientific to engineer an economically feasible solution to this in 20-30 years. It currently takes a pitiful portion of our workforce to farm currently.

Honestly I'm fine with it.
Because at the end of the day, I'll be DEAD before it's that bad.
DEAD DEAD DEAD, I'll be chilling peacefully in my FUCKING GRAVE and all of humanity will SUFFER for what they've done.
It's a fair ending.

>>12287903
It's not fucking fair if i don't get to know the end of the story.

>>12287907
Play Free Cities and you'll get an idea.

>>12287903
>all of humanity will SUFFER for what they've done
Not sure people being born right now are to blame for that.

>>12286868
>millions of niggers
that's a pretty conservative estimate, mate.

>>12287886
Honestly, I'm glad anon. Stay safe out there buddy.

>>12287897
>if you think humans will just roll over and die
I'm just saying your "solutions" to the problems I've mentioned are ridiculous.
You really think it all comes down to "muh science and engineering" when there are thousands of other factors at play here. Superstition, ideological radicalism and willful ignorance are going to become increasingly common from now on.

>>12287082
I'm going to spend my time in the wasteland hunting the down and killing them one by one.
It won't change anything but it will make me feel better

>>12286427
oh look the CO2 vector lost relevance as America is about to pull out from the Paris Agreement time to bring up methane

>>12287164
wtf this convinced me

>>12288066
Kys

>>12286427
Is any real money buying land in the cold parts of Russia and Canada? The second I see a purchase boom I will be worried. Might even buy some cheap land up there just in case.

>>12288085
As soon as the ice starts melting they'll become huge puddles of sludge, so not really. Unless you want your descendants to live in a massive stinky swampland.

>>12287951
You have done nothing to even come close to even present a shred of evidence to prove my claims are ridiculous. I really don’t know what reddit tier economically illiterate shithole spoonfed you the idea that humans would prefer to starve instead of using some of their VAST production capacity vested in luxury goods to feed themself.

You LITERALLY can go look up how expensive it is to feed a person per capita from an artificial greenhouse and see it’s MUCH less than EVERY 1st world countries GDP per capita. That alone should shut your retarded ass up on how we are going to fucking starve if we have to live on a pile on gravel and vertical farm.


God you reddit tier 18 year old brainlets are so fucking annoying because you think you’re so smart yet your “”””big”””””” brain simply can’t fathom humans fucking adapting. Like you really think humans can send 10% of their population to die in a war and use their entire economy for a war effort 100 years ago, but not build some fucking artificial greenhouses to not starve today?

>>12286427
So?

>>12287903
cant wait to die bros, fuck humans fucking retards all around. we are just stupid stinky animals that think we're smart. gonna go through the same population boom and bust as bacteria in a petri dish.

>>12286452
>implying i want 500k turkroaches running around in my town

>>12286714
Anthrax pops up in Siberia every couple of years already, i can't wait until a massive outbreak and mass medication causes antibiotic resistant anthrax to show up

>>12286735
based psycho

>>12287858
>year round farming
How the fuck do you do year round farming when you get less than 50W/Sqm peak for 3 months of the year, with the middle month being complete darkness

>>12288107
Most land at around 75 degrees north and above is literally just sand with less than a foot of moss and maybe a few shitty trees that don't even reach to your knees because it's simply too windy, too dry or the sea keeps salting the earth every time there's a storm.
At least over here

>>12288289
I’m not talking year round farming at Antarctica. I’m saying some seasonal farms could now move to year round farms with a longer growing season (reaping the benefit of them already having developed soils compared to the virgin soil of frosted high latitude countries). Most areas will have growing season cut short from temperature instead of sunlight currently.

You need at least 10 hours of sunlight to grow a plant (however this is genetically determined and hence we could create a GMO that would slowly grow in lower amounts of sunlight if necessary) the intensity of sunlight just really determines growth time

>>12286427
imagine the smell

>>12286427
Why don't they mine that gas?

>>12286542
Beautiful. I cannot wait for this planet to go berserk and finally starts crashing and burning.

POOR ZOOMERS, THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAD A CHANCE LMAO

>>12286940
The only thing that can stop this now is if we resurrect Pol fucking Pot and appoint him dictator of the Earth.

>>12286928
No one sane would want it, but a nuclear war within the next century would be hilariously one-sided if the US and Russia were cooperating against the rest of the world.

>>12286940

All the money in the world won't save us from losing half of the world's arable land and acidification on the ocean killing off most sea life. Humanity will survive but it'll come at the cost of billions.

>>12288345
>mfw most of america is only as far north as spain
>mfw they literally don't know

>>12288456
Deep sea clathrate mining is an expensive and potentially dangerous operation, but it could probably be harvested easily by just placing an undersea funnel with anchors and then a piece of tubing under water to a on shore processing plant.

>>12286427
LOL you didnt even read the article did you

>>12288702
>Humanity will survive
Cringe
>but it'll come at the cost of billions.
Based

I'm still trying to come up for a reason as to why is climate change such a bad thing. If it happens just stop buying the newest smartphone you retarded zoomers, it's that simple.

>>12288207
Not the guy you are replying to, but I dont think you addressing the long term implications. Sure humans could survive like you are saying in the immediate future. But the very long term outlook could be far more bleak, with temperature rising above 6 degrees C and higher. Under those circumstances you have a near total extinction of nearly all life living in natural ecosystems. Basically any humans then are living in domed enclaves.

I sometimes think that serious efforts at colonizing Mars is also aimed at developing technology aimed at surviving on Earth in the worse case scenario.

>>12288247
And that's just the reindeer anthrax, now think about what will happen when fuckers start cultivation in the same soil since there'll be no permafrost anymore

>>12288207
That's right!
Necessity drives innovation, and the more thy consumeth the more thy WILT CONSUME!!!

Hence thou wilt become content and bloated feasting on the world's vast resources!!!

COMPETE, CRUSH THE WEAK, AND GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY TO INDEFINITELY AND CONQUER THE GALAXY

HUMANITY SHALT BECOME AS A GOD AND IMMORTALITY AWAITS

SO SAYETH THE GOOD BOOK OF
ECONOMICS

>>12288207
Congrats, your level of ignorance and delusion can only be achieved by devout money priest true believers in the anti-science cult of market worshipper economics.

You're on a science board here, pal. You might as well start babbling on about the rapture and how Jesus turned water into wine. You actually sound quite ridiculous.

It's sad actually. Orthodox economics had a chance to be a real, valid, and useful science but instead they chose to go into the deep end and ignore this guy's work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Georgescu-Roegen

Something to do with fraction reserve bankers calling the shots I think...

>>12287897
So now we have psychotic fucking clowns like you blissfully NOM NOM NOMing your way into oblivion and dragging the rest of us along with you.

Check out this picture.
A lot of people see the beauty in this living manifestation of entropy/death and decay.

It's a force of nature, really - these people. Simply fulfilling their pre-defined role in the world, much the same way putrefaction flesh eating bacteria breaks down living tissue.

Yup, heard about this from some Russian guy on /pol/ a few years back. Greta will make some money over this, then we'll all forget about it, and nothing will happen. Yet another attempted power grab by statists.

>the climate changes just as it always has
>humanity will be fine

I honestly wish I was that astoundingly fucking stupid. Ignorance is bliss.

>>12286940
9/10.

The Biden gave it away

>>12289213

>>12290782
You sound like the fagdoll who complains we should spend exorbitant money to go to Mars even though it’s economically unviable with such little returns to human in the present day

>muh science board
>muh religion is dumb
Fuck off I’m not even religious but anybody who strawmans religion to argue against somebody has to be some high school retard. I have an actual degree meanwhile you can’t even refute any of my point without arguing from emotion instead of rationality. Literally post ANY proof you are in college or have been in college
>>12290765
Economics is the study of how humans allocate their resources works dum dum, it’s not voodoo science.

I like how you noticed how I have a background in economics though lmao, first one ITT

>>12289402
Until Canada becomes hotter than 45C in the summer Humans not natural life won’t come close to extinction. So what if the equator becomes unlivable?

>>12290819
Not an argument

>>12290851
>humanity will be fine
this parts true, but youve been too scared too see it

either that or youre an angry edgelotd

>>12286427
>It's over. Was good knowing you guys.
This article isn't evidence of your stupid feedback loop, if you actually bothered to read it

>>12290851
fuck off cunt if you scared go to church

>>12290849
>>12290900
I will skull fuck you

>>12286940

God will do something

>>12286427
simple solution if it really get to be a problem, build a launch a couple solar shades this will cool down the earth from the sun by limiting uv.

>>12287739
Japan's also ethnically homogenous

>>12286427
Its irrelevant at this point. If anything it just speeds up the process.

>>12287143
>Fuck the planet I just want there to be people left over
Fuck the lifeboat, I can swim forever

>>12286427
What a shitty start of the decade, 2020 has been

>>12290980
You actually took the time to save that post? It's literally just rambling about freedoms and calling everybody sheep but them. None of it changes the immediate and long lasting danger global warming poses to humanity, that anon would rather we lie down and let our crops collapse along with civilization itself than admit there's something wrong with our current societal paradigm. All of it is vague and unnecessarily negatively speculative anyway, I'd disregard it.

>the sky is falling unless you give more money the "developing world"
HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>12286761
you will always suicide when it's too late anon...

>>12291201
No they're not. Yamato, Ainu, Ryukyu

>>12286427
game over.

>>12286427
OH GOD OH FUCK HOW DO WE STOP IT? COMMUNISM? GIVE ME YOUR TRANNY DISCORD AND SIGN ME UP SO WE CAN MAKE IT STOP

>>12286427
>climate change alarmism thread #58205
yawn

>>12292014
new decade doesnt start until 2021 dip shit

>>12286427
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/guardian-article-on-arctic-methane-emissions-lacks-important-context-jonathan-watts/

Climate feedback is a good site that ask secondary opinions from scientists in the field about of a lot of clickbaiting science results

>>12286923
Nuclear winter is a myth, once someone starts using nukes people will get trigger happy

>>12287832
>having to maintain millions of refugees,
Why do we have to? It seems like a self solving problem to me. In the long run it might even better for humanity.

>>12287143
Why do you think global warming will kill everyone?

>>12287754
Then just kill them. Nations that cannot survive global warming are unable to sustain enough nukes to do anything other that blow up a few cities.

>>12294736
no u

>>12286923
>global holocaust of non whores
>sad
lmao
Get a load of this faggot

>>12286427
Didn't we know this was happening months ago when Siberia hit 45c?

>>12294848
Red Mars version of ww3 incoming

>>12286761
Depends on various factors such as your own personal health and net-worth

>>12286923
Don't be ridiculous, it will be the all out war between the Global Norf and Souf that Spenglee warned us about

Bottle it
Put it in rocket

>>12288702
>he thinks things can only be grown in land

>>12286735
>Yes I have a degree in a molecular sciences but I don't even believe in molecules
lol
me too tho

>>12286427
>the guardian
>sci
lol

>>12296122
I spend my free time reading guardian articles from early 2000s.

According to them I take a paddle bike to work because the nation is flooded. But there's no food either because there's a global drought going on.

>>12286427
Worst comes to worst, global warming destroys modern civilization and sends us back to 1600s levels of technology. Not so bad. The only real problem is that unlike 1600s Europe, the average inhabitant will have high numbers of dysgenic mutations from the two hundred or so years (1900-2030) where humans were spared natural selection and allowed to mutate into barely functioning demons. It’s not like we’re going to forget EVERYTHING, it’s just going to be that many of our modern technologies are no longer feasible and/or become luxuries. I always wanted to live in medieval Iceland, it would be nice to get the chance. No computers, no iPhones, no contraceptives, and no fiat currency. I think in the end we’ll be happier this way, after the birth pains have subsided.

>>12296213
>global warming destroys modern civilization
Communism is 100 times more likely to destroy civilization than the AGW meme.

>>12286542
fuck.

>>12296224
Something that no longer exists is more likely to destroy civilization than something that exists right now and is steadily worsening? No, Soviet tier economic planning is the only way to save the world. Unlike soviet planning which aimed to maximize productive capacity through central planning, the new system will aim to minimize carbon use through central planning. It’s sad, no one’s going to like it, but we will save this planet, even if it means killing every last white man (whites expel the most carbon per capital). It’s gonna suck but we gotta do it. Come on, let’s roll.

>>12296321
>Something that no longer exists
AGW never existed.

>something that exists right now and is steadily worsening? No, Soviet tier economic planning is the only way to save the world.
Look at this, the ugly deadly spectre of communism showing up in this very thread.
Luckily we can easily solve communism with rifle bullets.

>>12296337
>solve communism
>easily
Debunked

>>12296213
In reality, we'll stay at the same level of tech, but a decent number of places become uninhabitable and we can't fish anymore because they're all dead

>>12296393
Yeah, and the gigantic underlying problem will remain the same: too many effing people left on the planet and too small a habitable zone. Fossil fuels would be fine if the human population had peaked at five hundred million, but no, we have to cram so many humans into modernity that continents become uninhabitable. Once Canada and Australia are the last habitable zone, we’ll have what’s left of the rest of the world trying to punch there way in. Sucks. Our ancestors were to busy fighting pointless world wars to get a handle on the Malthusian apocalypse. Shame, we could have avoided this

>>12295695
Same, they are like energy distortions.

>>12296321
>No, Soviet tier economic planning is the only way to save the world.
These toilet paper hoarders foretold the future.

we can start working on this once Europe and North America are composed of ethnically homogenous societies, there is nothing we can do before that. China needs to be dealt with as well.

>>12286473
>Climate change isn't real
>Maybe it's real but it isn't caused by humans
>Okay it's real and caused by humans but it's too late now anyway
Pretty much how it will go

>>12296727
hoarders got gulaged in the soviet union

>>12286427
If earth really has these horrible positive feedback loops that will turn us into Venus, why didn't it happen in the past?

>>12297090
Based

>>12287671
>Overpopulation is a meme issue when Japan is a proof of concept otherwise
But Japanese people are well behaved.

>>12286427
This is old news. It was just a matter of time until it started

>>12286803
People who went for climate research thought it was climax research. Easy mistake to make.

>>12297090
>ethically homogeneous

Yes it's called (((brownsville))) and the best part is the very concept of environmental pollution won't even exist then. True utopia.

>>12287671
Japan is big, and it also has the oldest demographics in the world.

>>12286445
Because he posted no evidence

>>12286887
>>12286891
>>12286914

Are you sure you guys aren't overreacting?

>>12300415
they are

>>12286427
If you would remove greenland's icesheet right now, the arctic would be 10 degrees warmer and the rest of the world 1 degree cooler.
It's only that we need to heat up by a degree first until that happens.
I think its possible to live on an earth without a greenland ice sheet but with a stable antarctican ice sheet in perpetual balance and with temperatures in the non arctic regions very similar as today.

>>12290980

You can tell some overweight boomer typed that up

>>12286427
Antarctic Treaty System preservation efforts are a ticking time bomb. Naturally occuring gasses could be safely removed by fracking (half the price of traditional shale applications) and burned as propellant for private sector space efforts.

>>12301900
>t. economist

>>12301900
>gasses could be safely removed by fracking
>propellant for private sector space efforts
it will never happen because economic growth doctrine has ensured the inevitability of sudden and total economic collapse

>>12286427
The real redpill is that the world heating up is good.

>>12286427

Finally

>>12301993
>entropy is good
>death is good
>t. economist

>>12302000
Yeah actually, all energy is just imbalance trying to get back to equilibrium, which is pure cold, to have movement you need to have imbalance, so more entropy means more energy.

More heat is more energy available for all forms of life, I'd have to look into methane, but at least carbon I'm sure it's not a problem as it'd allow plants to grow faster which would give more food for all food chains in the world.

>>12302010
it seems you have everything figured out then. you must be very happy.

>>12302018
Not really I'm worried we might be fucking ourselves over by trying to control carbon emission.

>>12302010
More energy for what? We don't use heat in the atmosphere for energy. Neither do plants.

>but at least carbon I'm sure it's not a problem as it'd allow plants to grow faster which would give more food for all food chains in the world.
If carbon is not the limiting factor for growth then it won't. Also how does only looking at one effect show that it's not a problem? It's like saying cancer is not a problem because it helps you lose weight.

>>12302029
you might as well try warning a crack head about the dangers of smoking crack. that is literally the level these people operate on.

still voting trump

>>12286694
They would move in no matter what.
Ethnic wars are unavoidable.

>>12296321
The planet will do fine without you or any commies around.

>>12302029
>More energy for what?
Are you joking? Animals do, plants do the hotter the area the less energy is spent trying to heat yourself. Yes plants rely on heat to grow.
>If carbon is not the limiting factor for growth then it won't.
We already know it is, we've had plants grow faster the more carbon is available for them, and why wouldn't they, it's literally their building block.
>It's like saying cancer is not a problem because it helps you lose weight.
False equivalency, carbon isn't bad because we don't have a single metric that points to it being bad.
>>12302036
Not an argument.

>>12286427
oh no it is the happener

>>12296321
I'd be willing to bet that non-white immigrants living in western countries emit a lot more carbon than the average white.

Not like it would matter to a racist like you that just needs a reason to hate.

>>12302111
You're unwilling to understand anything that makes your bloated lifestyle seem irrational.
You drink a lot of booze, don't you?

>>12302143
>your bloated lifestyle
stop projecting, this is an international site with people from many countries, I could be from a village in Lithuania and you wouldn't know. The fact that you're trying to attack my identity rather than my arguments show that they are weak and that you have no faith in them yourself.
>You drink a lot of booze, don't you?
No, I don't drink don't smoke, don't eat out.

>>12302175
If you ever had even the slightest interest in science then you wouldn't be making these posts.
no its not an argument, yes its an ad hominen

do you even understand the concept of blackbody radiation?

>>12302111
>Are you joking? Animals do, plants do the hotter the area the less energy is spent trying to heat yourself. Yes plants rely on heat to grow
We also use energy to cool when it's too warm. You're just cherrypicking without doing an actual analysis.

>We already know it is
For every plant? No, we know it's not.

>False equivalency, carbon isn't bad because we don't have a single metric that points to it being bad.
Except for temperature and ocean acidification. Why are you lying?

>>12302292
>Why are you lying?
What makes you think he's lying instead of just not having a single clue what he's talking about?

Crack heads aren't lying when they say it's not hurting them. That's what they actually believe.

>>12301900
>safely
>fracking
Choose one

>>12302036
ironic, you are the crack head smoking up all the fear mongering propaganda you fit in your pipe

>>12302187
>If you ever had even the slightest interest in science then you wouldn't be making these posts
Being interested in science doesn't mean repeating a mantra or preaching to the choir, furthermore
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094715300116
Heat does affect plant growth positively.
>>12302292
>We also use energy to cool when it's too warm
So? Most of the world is not habitable due to colder temperatures or lack of precipitation, both of which will be affected positively by a warmer climate. The positive effect is just going to outweight the negative effect.
>For every plant?
Obviously, not every plant species is adapted in the same way, but as a rule, there's a reason why warmer places have more dense forests.
>Except for temperature and ocean acidification
Temperature is debatable. If you actually want to argue about that come back with the studies on plant biomass in eras when the climate was much warmer, do that and then come back to talk. Ocean acidification is another matter altogether, and I still have to study about it.
>>12302310
I see what you're trying to do and this isn't how debates work, either provide an argument or just shut up. If you actually care about science that is what you'll do.

>>12302667
>The major impact of warmer temperatures was during the reproductive stage of development and in all cases grain yield in maize was significantly reduced by as much as 80−90% from a normal temperature regime.
>Increases of temperature may cause yield declines between 2.5% and 10% across a number of agronomic species throughout the 21st century
Did you even read the paper you linked to? It directly refutes your argument.

>>12302745
>in maize
Making the implication that there's only one species of it and that it's only adapted to one type of temperature
>In controlled environment studies, warm temperatures increased the rate of phenological development
Funny how you ignored this part. Disingenuous much? I guess I shouldn't have expected the science board to actually want to discuss science instead of just throwing shit like every other board, oh well.

>>12302667
>Heat does affect plant growth positively.
fire affect plant growth positively
woah you must be some sort of fucking genius

>>12302667
>So?
??? That's what your entire argument is about. You think "more energy" is good.

>Most of the world is not habitable due to colder temperatures or lack of precipitation
Source? Once again your argument fails from the start because you completely ignore any negative effects, like land which becomes uninhabitable or unsuitable for agriculture due to heat or drought. Without taking both negative and positive effects into account your argument is impotent. Luckily, this analysis has already been done by scientists, and the results have been compiled and summarized by the IPCC. I suggest you go read their reports before spouting more unbalanced bullshit.

>Temperature is debatable.
It already has been debated by people much more knowledgeable than you, yes.

>>12302756
>Making the implication that there's only one species of it and that it's only adapted to one type of temperature
No, your made up assumptions isn't an implication of what they wrote. You're grasping at straws because you didn't even read what you cited.

>Funny how you ignored this part. Disingenuous much?
This is really rich. I didn't ignore it. The sentence directly after what you quoted explains that this is not the major effect of warmer temperatures:

>In controlled environment studies, warm temperatures increased the rate of phenological development; however, there was no effect on leaf area or vegetative biomass compared to normal temperatures. The major impact of warmer temperatures was during the reproductive stage of development

The one selectively quoting and being disingenuous is you. Unfortunately, you're not very good at it.

>>12286427
>The seafloor will fart so hard that we die
Actual adults believe this is true.
That's why I voted for Trump.

>>12302814
Imagine the smell

>>12296321
Yes comrade we also have to have all the races interbreed, if they dont interbreed into a grey glob the sea will fart the crust off the planet and make natural gas turds rain down upon all humanity. Out flesh will melt if we dont dissolve our nations and eat bugs and shit. Keep spreading the gospel

>>12286427
Hmm...

>>12302773
What sort of argument is even this? Honestly I'm starting to think I was stupid to think this board was still capable of actually debating anything, it has become the same type of sectarian/identitarian shitfling that fill the rest of the site. RIP.
>That's what your entire argument is about.
My entire argument is that just saying "it'll get hotter" as if it that were in itself a bad thing is not a proper argument. Again, where is the proper comparison with the biomass of older times when it was much much hotter?
>Source?
Are you joking? Most of the land of the world is either on hot deserts in china/africa or cold deserts in russia/canada.
>drought
Warmer doesn't mean more drought. Why are you even trying to make this argument?
>Luckily, this analysis has already been done by scientists
I doubt it, even our most powerful computers are incapable of doing the proper calculations which involve the thousands of variables that affect the globe climate. So you tell me, how would they arrive at a conclusion which they lack the proper tools to reach.
>It already has been debated by people much more knowledgeable
Appeal to authority isn't an argument. You sound like a religious nutjob.
>>12302801
>No, your made up assumptions isn't an implication of what they wrote
So you're saying that calling several different species as "maize" is the proper way to go about? Or that questioning it is "grasping at straws"? I'm being sincere here, why when it comes to climate everyone is so disingenuous? It's really not about trying to see the truth anymore it's just the same tribalist barking you see in politics.
>that this is not the major effect of warmer temperatures
"Major" is a subjective word and you know that. Point is I wasn't wrong in my earlier post, warmer climate makes plants grow faster.
>The one selectively quoting and being disingenuous is you
I posted an entire article, even though I knew there were some negative points to it, and you call that disingenuous?

>>12303187
every single time

>>12303293
Holy shit

>>12287725
>Where did this methane originate? Was it once a part of our atmosphere? If so, during what era and what was the climate like during that era?
Why hasn't anyone answered this? It's quite a basic question.

>>12303121
Nice fake quote and schizophrenia.

>>12286427
What does this mean? I'll only have another 600 years left to live? *yawns*

>>12303238
>So you're saying that calling several different species as "maize" is the proper way to go about?
There is only one species of maize as far as I'm aware, but several different varieties. Where did I say there are multiple species?

>Or that questioning it is "grasping at straws"?
Questioning what exactly? This is your own source, telling you that warming over the 21st century will reduce the yield of our agricultural products. They use maize as an example. Maize happens to be the most cultivated grain in the world, and it shows large drops in yield at high temperatures. So what is your question?

>I'm being sincere here, why when it comes to climate everyone is so disingenuous?
By "everyone," do you mean you?

>It's really not about trying to see the truth anymore it's just the same tribalist barking you see in politics.
Nice projection.

>"Major" is a subjective word and you know that.
So?

>Point is I wasn't wrong in my earlier post, warmer climate makes plants grow faster.
Your point was not just that plants will grow faster, but that warming is good. Please tell me how reduced agricultural yields are good.

>I posted an entire article, even though I knew there were some negative points to it,
So you posted an entire article that supported a premise but disproved your conclusion on purpose? I think it's much more generous of me to assume you didn't read/understand the paper than to assume you don't understand basic logic.

>>12303238
>My entire argument is that just saying "it'll get hotter" as if it that were in itself a bad thing

It's it was actually getting hotter they wouldn't need to adjust the historical data like pic related. They are creating a fictional reality. A world of lies.

>>12303238
>My entire argument is that just saying "it'll get hotter" as if it that were in itself a bad thing is not a proper argument.
So your entire argument is beating up a strawman? Scientists don't simply assume warmer is a bad thing, they explain how it's a bad thing. Not to mention that it's not simply "hotter" which is bad, it's the very rapid rate at which the temperature is changing which is bad.

>Most of the land of the world is either on hot deserts in china/africa or cold deserts in russia/canada.
Then why only say "colder temperatures or lack of precipitation?" Either lack of precipitation is the problem, or both extreme cold and heat are problematic. You are doing everything you can to ignore the negative effects of heat.

>Warmer doesn't mean more drought.
It does in some places. It increases desertification at the edges of Hadley cells. It also unbalances precipitation in places like California, so you get both more droughts and more flooding.

>I doubt it, even our most powerful computers are incapable of doing the proper calculations which involve the thousands of variables that affect the globe climate.
Just because they affect the climate doesn't mean they're significant. You can predict the climate within an acceptable level of error with only the most important variables, such as solar forcing, albedo, and greenhouse gases.

>Appeal to authority isn't an argument.
Correct. But appeal to experts with scientific evidence certainly is an argument.

>You sound like a religious nutjob.
Sure buddy, I'm the religious nut job even though I have mountains of scientific evidence and the world's climatologists on my side, while you deny scientific facts like a creationist.

>>12303504
Temperature measurements get adjusted all the time whether to account for heat islanding, measurement error, precision, regional differences, ect. Conspiratards will find problem in literally everything.

>>12303636
Heat island effect increasing the closer to present you come but the adjustment also further heat the measurements the further you come to the present.

And it all come together nicely to create a nice hockey curve shaped curve that fits your predetermined opinion of how reality should work.

>>12303649
>Heat island effect increasing the closer to present you come but the adjustment also further heat the measurements the further you come to the present.
kek anon, I guess you got me. That's a tasty lookin word salad.

>>12303481
>Where did I say there are multiple species?
The paper only included a single type, in fact it didn't even define the type of maize being used. There are several different variations, and yes some of them are specifically adapted to countries with well defined seasons, while others aren't, it's logical that the former would do poorly in conditions where it's warmer all year around. How the fuck am I supposed to know if they controlled for it properly? Of the 2 papers I saw on the subject one of them admits there's little literature on it, the other does this.
>By "everyone," do you mean you?
I make a question, I point out a problem I link an article even if it doesn't paint a perfect picture to my point and somehow I'm the disingenuous one? Again, what the fuck happened to your life that you are showing this kind of behavior?
>So?
So I can just as easily say that plant growth is the major effect. When you do this kind of claim, the discussion goes nowhere.
>but that warming is good
The first step in proving that is showing some of the positive effects it has, yes.
>reduced agricultural yields
They'd have to prove that this affects all the variations, specially the ones cultivated in warmer countries.
>that supported a premise but disproved your conclusion on purpose?
It didn't disprove my conclusion, again, without the specific variation of maize there's nothing to be said about the yield.
> I think it's much more generous of me to assume you didn't read/understand the paper than to assume you don't understand basic logic.
Again you assume the tribalist mentality and start shitfling.
>>12303504
I'm more interested in the millions of years and how that relates to the available living biomass of the planet, honestly.

>>12303530
>Scientists don't simply assume warmer is a bad thing, they explain how it's a bad thing.
They predictions have been wrong time and again, to "explain" how it's bad they need to be able to make accurate predictions in the first place.
>it's the very rapid rate at which the temperature is changing which is bad.
"Rapid rate" assumes a comparison. To which period, in millions of years, is that comparison being made?
>Then why only say "colder temperatures or lack of precipitation?"
Because the territories I mentioned are not habitable due to colder temperatures and lack of precipitation. For the former it's Russia and Canada, for the latter it's Africa and parts of China/Middle East.
>It increases desertification at the edges of Hadley cells. It also unbalances precipitation in places like California, so you get both more droughts and more flooding.
Source?
>Just because they affect the climate doesn't mean they're significant
Fucking what? The most minuscule change can have large scale effects in the global climate, a single dam can cause massive droughts in millions of kilometers. The reflectivity of ice changes the heat absorption and even forest fires affect how much heat the earth absorbs, and you think scientists have models for that? Do they even have a model that takes into account several different solar activity and corona ejection scenarios?
>But appeal to experts with scientific evidence certainly is an argument
You literally just said "correct, but appeal to MY authority is an argument".
>I'm the religious nut job even though I have mountains of scientific evidence
Of people whose jobs depend on climate change being manmade. I'm sure there's no such thing as conflict of interest for scientists, right?

>>12303708
What predictions have been wrong? climate models have been pretty much dead on over the past 40+ years. Hell, svante arrhenius predicted this whole thing over 100 years ago.

>>12303728
literally 30 seconds on google
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=7mgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7qkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5563,4123490

>>12303769
I can't find a single incorrect scientific prediction in that newspaper article. Could you try again?

>>12303504
This seems to be a meaningless comparison. The average final represents all stations, including station measurements not in the raw data set. So how do we know the raw data set isn't biased to colder stations?

>>12303649
>Heat island effect increasing the closer to present you come but the adjustment also further heat the measurements the further you come to the present.
Wrong.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

>>12303801
No no, you don't understand, every temperature monitoring agency, public and private, in every country on the planet has been conspiring together for over 40 years to sell solar panels.

>>12303812
Have you ever considered the alternative that you're schizo?

>>12303812
I remember being so naive I thought something like this was beyond the realm of possibility. Those were the days when I was fancy free

>>12303845
It's pretty amazing, how deep it goes, especially considering most of the work is done by barely paid graduate students. Somehow not a single one has blown the whistle despite the fact that oil companies and conservative think tanks like the heritage foundation have paid climate "skeptics" millions of dollars. I can't even comprehend the level of power that the solar industry must have.

>>12303801
>Grasping this much
You truly are a cult

>>12303675
>The paper only included a single type, in fact it didn't even define the type of maize being used.
Are you illiterate? They used two types, Northrup King N68B 3111 and Dekalb RX730.

They also cite plenty of research on maize that shows maize pollen viability decreases with exposure to temperatures above 35 °C. They show that faster development of non-perennial crops results in a shorter life cycle resulting in smaller plants, shorter reproductive duration, and lower yield potential.

>How the fuck am I supposed to know if they controlled for it properly?
Why did you cite it if you doubt it? Weird how you didn't mention any of these problems when you thought it supported your point and only mention them now that it's a problem for you. Yes, that is practically the definition of disingenuous.

>I make a question, I point out a problem I link an article even if it doesn't paint a perfect picture to my point and somehow I'm the disingenuous one?
You misrepresent the argument in order to distract from the fact you have no clue what you're talking about. Yes you're the disingenuous one.

>So I can just as easily say that plant growth is the major effect.
Sure you could, and the article you cited would refute that. You are perfectly capable of spouting bullshit. What is your point?

>The first step in proving that is showing some of the positive effects it has, yes.
And when do we get to the second step?You aren't just going to ignore all the bad effects, right?

>They'd have to prove that this affects all the variations, specially the ones cultivated in warmer countries.
Look at their citations. Why do I have to read your own source for you?

>It didn't disprove my conclusion, again, without the specific variation of maize there's nothing to be said about the yield.
Citing research showing reduced yields and explaining why warming reduces yields is thoroughly disproving your conclusion. The problem is your failure to read, not their research.

>>12303675
>Again you assume the tribalist mentality and start shitfling.
What are you talking about? My pointing out that you failed to read your own source is not tribalism. Keep trying to castigate me for your failure, it's pretty entertaining.

The fact that death is the outcome of climate change and that I can expedite that death whenever I choose is comforting to me. We'll all be dead, it wont really matter to any of us. See you all on the other side!

>>12303885
you know you can just buy a gun right?

>>12303708
>They predictions have been wrong time and again
Can you give some examples?

>to "explain" how it's bad they need to be able to make accurate predictions in the first place.
They do make accurate predictions but that's not even a valid argument. We don't have to look in the future, we can look in the past for what have during rapid climate change.

>"Rapid rate" assumes a comparison. To which period, in millions of years, is that comparison being made?
Rapid compared to all the data we have for similar timeframes. So at least 600,000 years. It appears the most rapid warming humans experienced until now was interglacial warming. Current warming is over 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming 10000 years ago. Seems pretty rapid to me. But you're just arguing semantics. The warming would be just as bad if you called it rapid or not.

>Because the territories I mentioned are not habitable due to colder temperatures and lack of precipitation.
This just repeats what I asked you to clarify. Why do you think extreme cold is problematic but extreme heat is not?

>Source?
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/13/3858

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.81

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09763

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09762

Since I doubt you'll read, fast melting of the snowpack due to warmer temperatures causes flooding and means there is less water available later in the year for agriculture.

>>12303708
>Fucking what? The most minuscule change can have large scale effects in the global climate
That describes weather, not climate. That's why we can't predict the weather a few weeks out but we can predict the climate many years in the future.

>The reflectivity of ice changes the heat absorption
Yes, that's called albedo. I lready mentioned it.

>and you think scientists have models for that?
Yes, they do. Your ignorance is not an argument.

>You literally just said "correct, but appeal to MY authority is an argument".
I neither literally nor figuratively said that. Try not to lie, it ruins your credibility.

>Of people whose jobs depend on climate change being manmade.
Huh? The climate would still exist and need to be studied regardless. Once again you're arguing like a creationist. "Biologists NEED evolution to be true hurr durr."

>>12303857
How am I grasping? If you compare the average of two data sets that aren't measuring the same thing, what do you think it means?

>>12303885
I voted for Biden to stop people like you.

>>12303636
actually that's called doing food science, when you don't look for and find the problems you are called a hack. Being a double digit IQ donkey hack yourself I can see how you got confused

>>12304113
*good science

>>12304113
You're right, adjusting for irrelevant variables is good science. All data is adjusted to some degree, excluding very rare circumstances, there's literally nothing wrong with it. Data tampering is what that anon might be thinking of, that's intentionally fabricating false data, which no climate study has been found to do.

>>12304152
low information retards are so predictable always so sure of yourself when you never know wtf you are talking about
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

your opinion is about as reliable as a nigger who just got a hoe pregnant

>>12304186
>realclimatescience.com
Oh cmon, you're not even trying to deny your brainwashing. We could go through this whole debate, you post your shit sources, I post skeptical science, really you're not listening. The time has passed where we should try to convince deniers, literally just go outside, it's mid 80s in November where I live anon, ice age when?

>>12304212
>>>/x/

>>12304217
I was almost about to post that for you. Just keep denying anon, it changes nothing.

>>12304186
So his response to record temperatures being set is the percentage of days over 95F? This is a non sequitur.

He incorrectly averages stations instead of averaging over space. And he calls all adjustments "fabrication" without even looking at why they exist. This guy is really dumb.

He also cherrypicks by only looking at US data. Globally, adjustments have reduced the warming trend. Is that a fabrication too?

>>12290833
Did nobody find that fat fuck and kill him yet?

>>12295069
aka World Wide Syria

>>12297203
how it went*

>>12286808
kek

>>12286427
Clathrate gun, lets go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

>>12304584
Things that are equally real
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

scary green terminology oh noes please don't explody killy me pleasy weasy. Here's all my life savings as donations to your multibillion dollar global lobby

>>12303890

That's what I'm saying. If I dont want to deal with the collapse I can just kill myself ezpz. There's no point in trying to live through mad max or waterworld.

What I'd like to know:

Why didn't the Earth turn into a venusian hellhole during the 70% or so of its geological history that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were higher than today?

In fact, after checking carbon dioxide concentrations over Earth's geological history - it's entire history, not just the past 100k years. I found that most of earth's history actually has CO2 concentrations double to quadruple our modern day concentrations, and the last time CO2 concentrations were this low (actually still higher than today) the Earth was a literal frozen snowball with only the equator free of ice.

With this in consideration, I've come to fully reject the idea that higher CO2 concentrations are concerning. In fact, I believe that we're closer to killing off all life on the planet with CO2 concentrations that are too low, than killing off all life on the planet by making it too warm.

>>12304918
addendum: especially taking into consideration that we are currently climbing out of a natural glaciation phase in Earth's climate history. We should be expecting things to warm up.

And with the final consideration that CO2 doesn't cause exponentially increasing warming but rather hits a sort of 'max capacity warming' where adding massive amounts of CO2 cause little additional warming effects, I struggle to see how there can be an actual climate issue here.

It literally just looks like natural warming and people are playing hysterics over it for political reasons.

>>12304918
>Why didn't the Earth turn into a venusian hellhole during the 70% or so of its geological history that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were higher than today?
Because we have a cold troposphere that precipitates water vapor and prevents it from increasing the optical depth of the atmosphere. On Venus, all the surface water evaporated into the atmosphere, preventing the planet from cooling itself with blackbody radiation.

>I found that most of earth's history actually has CO2 concentrations double to quadruple our modern day concentrations
Humans haven't been around for most of Earth's history, what is your point?

>and the last time CO2 concentrations were this low (actually still higher than today) the Earth was a literal frozen snowball with only the equator free of ice.
Because the Sun was weaker. What is your point?

Also, the problem is not simply the concentration of CO2, it's the rapid rate it's changing. Rapid changes in climate tend to cause mass extinctions because many species don't have time to adapt to the new environment.

>With this in consideration, I've come to fully reject the idea that higher CO2 concentrations are concerning.
Rapid global warming is already occurring, so even if your faulty claims were true, they are irrelevant to the negative effects of rapidly increasing CO2, which are directly observable.

What latitude degrees are fucked and which would be survivable in a 2 degree increase?

>>12304926
>especially taking into consideration that we are currently climbing out of a natural glaciation phase in Earth's climate history
Incorrect, the interglacial warming that took us out of the glacial period ended 10000 years ago. We are warming about 25 times faster than that warming, when according to the natural cycle we should be slowly cooling right now. You are spouting pure nonsense.

>And with the final consideration that CO2 doesn't cause exponentially increasing warming
Who said it does?

>but rather hits a sort of 'max capacity warming' where adding massive amounts of CO2 cause little additional warming effects
We don't even have enough fossil fuels to reach that point. Burning all our fossil fuels would cause about 10 degrees C of warming, which would be disastrous. So again, what is your point?

>It literally just looks like natural warming
It literally is the opposite. There would be natural cooling if not for human emissions. What do you think causes this "natural warming?"

It's amazing how deluded and irrational you people are.

>>12305260
That's your answer to the difference between Venus and Earth? That's the only reason in your head?

No mention that a DOUBLING of CO2 leads to a 1-5W/m2 increase in calculated heating. Meaning that 40000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere would only cause 7-35W/m2 increased heating compared to todays levels.

Compared to venus that have an additional 1600 W/m2 increased heat influx from simply being closer to the sun.

You fail to see the obvious, yet somehow you're dead sure you're right about it. We have a word for people like you: retard.

>>12305298
>Burning all our fossil fuels would cause about 10 degrees C of warming
For that to happen we'd have to get back to somewhere in the interval between 3000 - 20000 ppm of CO2. 10-50 times the concentration of today.
And that also incorrectly assumes
1: The heating effect is perfectly linear and doesn't saturate the wavelengths.
2: Carbon sinking isn't a thing.

>>12304888
that is when the fun begins cuck

>>12286445
oh shit I remember that thread

>>12288085
AFAIK nobody lives in Canada not because of the cold but because it is solid rock where you can't grow anything.

>>12305401
Oh yeah, forgot to mention the topsoil naturally gets thinner the further from the equator you go.

>>12305401
It's not solid rock except maybe around ontario and quebec

most of canada's food is grown in the western/central provinces

>>12305317
>That's your answer to the difference between Venus and Earth?
That's the answer. What is your argument?

>No mention that a DOUBLING of CO2 leads to a 1-5W/m2 increase in calculated heating.
That's radiative forcing, not the temperature increase. I don't why you are presenting it in such a large range since it's well known to be 3.7 W/m2.

>Meaning that 40000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere would only cause 7-35W/m2 increased heating compared to todays levels.
No, that would be about 100 doublings of the current concentration, which means you would get a change of 370 W/m2. Fortunately, we would be dead from CO2 poisoning long before our bodies would burn to a crisp.

>Compared to venus that have an additional 1600 W/m2 increased heat influx from simply being closer to the sun.
Nice try, but Venus also has much higher albedo than Earth, so it absorbs less heat than Earth.

This is what happens when you're too stupid to see your own stupidity.

>>12305411
>No, that would be about 100 doublings of the current concentration
Oh you're this stupid. Good day then. And enjoy your life as a retard.

>>12305317
>That's your answer to the difference between Venus and Earth?
That's the answer. What is your argument?

>No mention that a DOUBLING of CO2 leads to a 1-5W/m2 increase in calculated heating.
That's radiative forcing, not the temperature increase. I don't why you are presenting it in such a large range since it's well known to be 3.7 W/m2.

>Meaning that 40000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere would only cause 7-35W/m2 increased heating compared to todays levels.
"Only" 25 W/m^2, which would "only" result in 20 degrees C of warming. LOL.

>Compared to venus that have an additional 1600 W/m2 increased heat influx from simply being closer to the sun.
Nice try, but Venus also has much higher albedo than Earth, so it absorbs less heat than Earth.

This is what happens when you're too stupid to see your own stupidity.

>>12305269
>which would be survivable in a 2 degree increase?
all of them

>>12305443
You are the guy I replied to here >>12305429
You declared yourself terminally stupid in the post you now deleted. Enjoy your retarded life where you're oblivious about the topics you try to debate.

Why are tankie trannies always trying to fear monger? No one wants to be part of your tranny commune tankie please just kys

>>12305339
>For that to happen we'd have to get back to somewhere in the interval between 3000 - 20000 ppm of CO2
More nonsensical ranges. It would be about 4000 ppm, which is indeed what would occur if we burned all fossil fuels.

>1: The heating effect is perfectly linear and doesn't saturate the wavelengths.
This is gibberish. Warming per doubling of CO2 is by definition "nonlinear."

>2: Carbon sinking isn't a thing.
Carbon sinks are currently a thing, and CO2 concentration is still increasing. Carbon sinks will reverse as it gets warmer.

>>12305458
Every point you made was BTFO and now you are running away like a coward instead of responding. Typical deniertard.

>>12305545
Don't waste too much time or energy on this troll

Now that we have a decent president at least we can expect some action.

>>12286427
Why they don't put gigantic cover on it with cooling? That would just harvest the heat and beam it out in laser or wattever,

>>12287164
>anon solves right-wing reluctancy to accept climate-change

>>12286730
SpaceX could easily use this methane for starship.

what do you people think the world will be like when climate change really unravel? People say its going to be cyberpunk shit but I think its more like primitive people living like African warlords after the billions of people that will die from war and hunger

>>12307848
"easily"

>>12307850
this

>>12286808
Came here to post this.
Good job!

>>12286427
>WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!1!1!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!111!!!!

>>12286694
Time to get in the real estate game

>>12287103
Planting a tree sounds too oldschool.

>>12286868
Do you fear war?

global warming is a pandora's box tier nightmare for national security. Water wars. Mass migration. Radicalization of the disenfranchised.

if you wanna get into real estate, consider the booming lost city of atlantis market. the mer-people will surely want submerged bangladeshi huts.

>>12286427
Prepping for total extinction: What the best lube to use in this case?

>>12286427
BRAAAAAAAAPP