/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16088446
>Life will carry on, one more mass extinction, big deal. Sorry humans, you fucked up
Life won't carry on if CO2 drops below 150ppm. Carbon sequestration has been lowering atmospheric CO2 gradually for tens of millions of years - it has fluctuated up and down for various reasons, but until humans came along and began extracting and burning hydrocarbons, the global carbon cycle was gradually depleting itself.
Humanity is the saviour of life on Earth - if we hadn't evolved the intelligence and technology to extract and burn hydrocarbons and thus free the trapped carbon back into the biosphere, sequestration would have eventually caused atmospheric levels to fall beneath 150ppm and kill all plant life. Once all plant life dies, all animal life follows. The only lifeforms left would be chemosynthetic organisms around hydrothermal vents.

>>15806164
not even to mention fossil fuels are the best fuel for the health of the planet because CO2 is good for life on earth
CO2 in cells binds with amino groups to form carbamino groups which protect against oxidative stress and glycation, CO2 increases oxygen availability because its essential for oxygen to dissociate from hemoglobin
high altitude populations, due to the increased CO2 concentration, have nearly nonexistant incidence of alzheimers and neurodegenerative disease and have lower all cause mortality
all the geologic periods of the past characterised by megafauna and megaflora and the highest levels of biodiversity were characterised by CO2 levels much higher than now
on a geologic time scale CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere pale in comparison to past epochs (see picrel)
also when people talk about extinctions due to "climate change" (notice its not called global warming anymore) its total bullshit when you keep in mind a: nobody was keeping track before, b: biodiversity is the highest its ever been, c: the climate has always changed and right now the climate is the stablest its ever been
we are so incredibly lucky to live in an such a climactically perfect epoch (maybe not for long tho if we get a maunder minimum type cooling event but thats for another post)

>>10015757
because a central tenant of global warming marxists is that at a certain threshold green-house warming becomes "run away" warming

all of the green house effects are not linear by the way

IF run away warming were possible, THEN why haven't we ever seen it?