/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16226262
Humanity is dramatically and measurably improving nature on this planet by geoengineering the atmosphere to be more nutritious for plant life.
Plants in turn feed all the other forms of life. The 450Gt on this picrel will grow in proportion with atmospheric CO2

>>16208005
>subjective
no it isn't
all the statistics on this pic scale proportionally with atmospheric CO2.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will allow nature to thrive in ways that no human or any other creature has witnessed in over 20 million years.
Anyone who would complain about that hates life.
Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause all the numbers on picrel chart to double as well.

>>15959477
right, but the point at which lack of CO2 becomes a detriment is about 200ppm and the point at which CO2 becomes excessive is well over 2000ppm and we're currently at around 400ppm, so clearly we'd be better off in the middle of that range with over 1000ppm.
with twice as much CO2 in the atmosphere the numbers on picrel chart would all double, nature would flourish in ways no human has ever witnessed, farmland and wilderness would all be twice as productive and ever living creature on the planet would be far better off

>>15959481
shouldn't you be busy searching the internet for pictures of people larger and wealthier than yourself to get angry at?

>>15854553
Thats how you know they're lying when the claim to be concerned about the health of the environment. Someone who truly cares about nature wants it to have more CO2 so that it becomes healthier and more productive.
More CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the mass of plants in picrel and in turn that will increase the masses of all other forms of life.
Less CO2 in the atmosphere will have the opposite effect, remove enough CO2 and all of the masses will rapidly go to zero.

>>15846282

>Temperatures have been higher than today over most of the past 600 million years, and life flourished.
Thats why rising CO levels are good. When picrel 450gt of plants grows so will the total mass of the rest of the life forms.

>>15782265
>CO2 bad because it will make nature flourish in ways that haven't been witnessed on this planet in over 25 million years.
Can you imagine that we're living on a planet with conditions that were hospitable enough for total retards like Australopithecus to live comfortably and we're on our way to making life easier than it ever was for our kind by enriching the atmosphere with CO2 and the people who claim that they're concerned about the environment's health are against it all? They must be complete demons to be trying to stop it.
Just imagine how much more of every other form of life there will be when the 450 Gt in picrel becomes over a trillion, when one acre of farm land produces what it used to take 3 acres to grow, etc.

This chart show some current numbers for the breakdown of life on Earth by mass, with twice the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, these numbers should at least double. All those endangered species numbers should rebound to much larger amounts.
On the downside, maybe this means that people will be more likely to be eaten by wild animals if theres more of them. Does your car get twice as much bird shit on it with twice as many birds flying?

>>14730180

>>14721056

>>11116449
>Humans by mass when we're strictly speaking about flesh
Wrong
>ants
Also wrong
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506
It's krill btw