/sci/ - Science & Math

Ehhhh you're probably fine as long as you don't live in Florida or South Carolina

Most impoverished regions in the world will have their agriculture destroyed but you're posting on 4ching so you're probably fine

Here's the optimism tier list:
Very optimistic: Artificial General Intelligence is developed soon and is nice. It solves all the worlds problems.
Optimistic: Global warming is a hoax. Something something jews reptilians the trilateral commission (least likely option)
Neutral: Horrible ecological and farming damage results in famine in poor countries, worldwide economy is hurt. All countries finally wake up and finally work hard on fixing the situation
Bad: Same as above, but instead of cooperating they keep polluting and start resource wars. Mass famine and migrations lead to unprecedented death tolls. Large sections of currently livable land turn into deserts or sink under water.
Very Bad: World war 3 OR the AGI we build isn't friendly

Absolute fake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

>>10175062
nope
https://youtu.be/ztninkgZ0ws?t=10m

Maybe we're hecked but the the defining characteristic of humanity is that we don't give up till the bitter end.

>>10175045
>Most impoverished regions in the world will have their agriculture destroyed
>you're fine
Maybe you haven't noticed but there is a refugee crisis already right now...

>>10175078
We'll be fine once trump finishes that wall

It will be just like that wall in World War Z

Most positive outlook is that standard of living will drop significantly.

>>10175087
Only for 3rd worlders. Rich countries will do fine in their ivory towers.

>>10175095
No, third worlders will get embroiled in war. For us it is going to be a poorer existence.

>>10175036
I live in a shithole and I will probably die

>>10175095
Where do you think your clothes, computers, etc come from?

>>10175152
>3rd world collapses
>jobs finally come back to us
all according to Trump's master plan

>>10175180
Yay! Who didn't say as a kid "when I grow up, I want to work in a sweatshop!"

>>10175195
oh fuck didn't think about it quite like that

>>10175036
fighting "climate change" is fascism in disguise, it's a premise for government to control private companies.

>>10175095
Several of the countries that are going to get wrecked by climate change, in particular India and Pakistan, have nuclear weapons. When they collapse and their nuclear arsenals end up in the hands of people who will hate those rich countries, do you really think your ivory tower will protect you?

>>10175195
>What is automation

Retard

>>10175238
It is automation if a chinese can do it

>>10175238
Not a job

>>10175048
>agi
The only hoax in this thread

>>10175214
>it's a premise for government to control private companies
Which should happen anyway.

>>10175180
>>jobs finally come back to us
Implying this will not drop standard of living. Outsourcing shit to 3rd world countries improves the standard of living for 1st world countries.

>>10175062
According to the Milankovich cycle we should be slowly cooling into a glacial period over the next ten thousands years. Instead we are warming an order of magnitude faster than interglacial warming. Dunning Kruger.

Perspective depends on your event horizon.

>1 year
Shit. Migration and extreme weather are threats to civilized nations.
>1 decade
Not much of an issue, unless governments try to use it as an excuse for a power grab. Increased crop production.
>1 century
Desertification and mass extinction are a real possibility. Likely civil unrest/war.
>1 millenium
It was going to happen anyway, the earth is always changing and it was once much warmer than current tempuratures.

>>10175274
Ok, this is terrifying... I don't really care though lol

>>10175214
>I deny scientific facts because I don't like what they imply
Hello SJW.

>>10175256
Explain

>>10175036
If we actually survive long enough to develop space elevators and conquer the solar system then we can just set up some mirrors in space

>>10175274
>implying that pic related won't happen
our problems and answers are in the future

>>10175036
>>10175036
>So, climate change
Fake news.

>>10175422
retard alert

>>10175256
Yes anon, tell us about how technology is just going to magically stop developing or your superstitions about human consciousness being some supernatural magical thing that's not reproducible

>>10175036
>2 million years ago
So, climate change... how hecked are we?

Stupid tribe won't believe fire is cause and refuses to give me shiny sea shells to piss on their fires.

>>10175409
Space elevators are literally impossible and space mirrors will destroy the environment by killing off oxygen producing plant life.

Unless we convince people to start living as Nature intended the entire biosphere is doomed.

I wouldn't mind if humans went extinct, its the damage they'll do in the process of doing so that pains me.

>>10175418
this, trying to combat climate change on any meaningful scale at this point will result in so much loss in new technological development that it will most likely delay the adoption of actual sustainable energy.

Think of it this way, we need to get walking on our feet, but we are on the ground. We better use our goddamn hands to help us up even if we cant walk on them forever (which nobody wants to do, save oil giants). So long as there is no active suppression of development were set (and theres literally the opposite going on).

Everybody should at least try something to fix this problem. Become a vegan, put solar panels on your roof, don't fly, plant a tree, etc.

>>10175618
Please explain to me, exactly how you plan on creating an AI.

>>10175214
Thats the why it should work. Private companies rule, own and fuck up everything.

>>10175618
>Thinks AI will just create itself.
Don't hold your breath on that one.

Climate change is going to be a problem, but not in our lifetimes, or our children’s, or their children’s.
If we continue at this rate, 400 years from now things will be pretty bad. But it will be a long and slow decline.

>>10175418
>I don care how fat I very cuz in da future I liv foreva
Enjoy your heart attack, fatty.

>>10175048
>Very Bad: World war 3
But that would fix the "global warming" thing.

>>10176753
>Become a vegan
Not even this much. Just stop eating so much meat and dairy. We would have a lot less of an issue if people would be willing to give up just a little.

>>10175036
stop making these threads

>>10175036
Extremely hecked.

Only the collapse of civilization prevents runaway climate change, but if the heat engine of civilization turns off, it heats the earth even faster. It's a paradoxical predicament we're in.

The aerosol masking effect/"global dimming" from coal power plants and airplane contrails is the only thing preventing a sudden jump in temperature that causes massive crop failures.
So we have to keep burning dirty coal, even though it's contributing to the problem.

>>10175635
Need to decommission our nuclear power plants first though.

Human might go extinct in the near future, but that won't save the biosphere, the meltdowns and radiation will kill off most other lifeforms.

>>10178161
it is already a problem for many people, flooding, wildfires, crap failure, it's happening now
and it's getting really bad quickly
https://www.cbsnews.com/climate-change/

>>10179085
>but that won't save the biosphere, the meltdowns and radiation will kill off most other lifeforms.
is it that serious?

>>10179085
Blowing up some nuclear plants might even help environment, most lifeforms can deal better with radiation then humans. But human activity can kill almost all life in an area and turn fertile regions into deserts.

>>10179464
Yes, it's that serious.

In a collapse situation where utilities stop functioning, you lose the cooling systems in the nuclear plants, which require a constantly circulating supply of fresh water.

Spent fuel rods get exposed to the air and explode.

We have 400 nuclear plants around the world, it would be a life-ending disaster if this happens at only a fraction of them.

>>10179951
just for human life

>>10179951
>We have 400 nuclear plants around the world, it would be a life-ending disaster if this happens at only a fraction of them.
LOL. Most meltdowns have zero fatalities.

>>10175084
haha we'll just kill em amrite magabros *fist bump*

>>10179085
>Need to decommission our nuclear power plants first though.
this is already happening

it's not just climate change, human activity kills all kind of life, even insects vanish at an alarming rate

>>10175036

We need to consider migration.

>>10175036
I am quite comfy in Poland

>>10182363

Where do you think all those red countries are going to go when all their food and water runs out genius?

>>10182299
don't worry warmer climate will mean fewer of them will die in the winter. we'll soon be drowning in these little motherfuckers

>>10182376
six feet under genius

>>10182363
Can even imagine Canada and Scandinavia being the new breadbaskets of the world? It was Eisenhower who said the luck of these lands being so fertile is the main source of America's power on the world stage. We are completely fucked.

>>10178161
at least you'll be losing weight from climate change porky. god i fucking hate you.

>>10182376
into the oceans
not willingly of course
they will just need a little bit of.. let's say.. "persuading"

>>10182415
Not gonna happen. Graph is retarded. The current breadbasket in Canada regularly goes on fire in the summer. North Quebec is mostly tundra so the ground is literally solid rock.

>>10176753
solar panels are a meme. they probably create more greenhouse gasses mining for the materials than they save.

>>10182420
>North Quebec is mostly tundra
So is scandinavia. That's what climate change is. It's changing the climate so that tundra becomes temperate. That's the whole point.

>>10182376
They are going to either reduce their population or adopt building underground farming or perhaps even asteroid farms

>>10182420
>North Quebec is mostly tundra so the ground is literally solid rock.
Poland already is one of the most fertile regions in the world, as is Germany and Belarus.

>>10182434
>asteroid farms

>>10182434
Black people are still working on making sure everyone else recognizes they wuz kangs. How are they going to make asteroid farms?

>>10182444
Adopt or die

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22430004-900-asteroid-soil-could-fertilise-farms-in-space/amp/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrarium_(space_habitat)

>>10182452
It’s for them to figure it out.
Although I suppose Asian nations might do it first

>>10182459
That makes sense. China is pretty much the slave master for the continent of Africa at the moment. Better the Chinese than us. We'd be called racists if we did what they're doing anyway.

>>10182423
Solar cells are mostly glass and silicon, this is made of sand. To "mine" sand you just need a bucket and a shovel. Transport and melting needs energy. But this energy is earned back quite fast. A year in Alaska, two months in sunny California.

>>10182656
Why would I need stupid solar cells if we have coal reserves for next 1000 years?

>>10182668
Because they are cheaper and less polluting.

>>10182386
actually the opposite is the case, insects can survive even very cold winters, a milder winter is good for bacteria and mould, this is killing insects
and because of this polish-apple-guy >>10182363
may have to pollinate apples by hand or learn eat grass

>>10175036
I don't know, I'm not an expert, but please rewatch Goremans Inconceivable Trut. All predictions this far are about as valid as flat earth theories. Global warming changed to climate change and climate change doesn't just manifest as global warming but "increasing climate extremes". I don't buy it. Not saying humans can't alter atmosphere dramatically. But. Freons were another case entirely, their chemical reactions with ozone could be proven a priori and a posteriori. Climate change from methane and carbon dioxide has way too many variables in it to make sense out of.

>>10182668
solar and wind energy is cheaper, coal plants go out of business because they can not compete

>>10182668
because coal is going to accelerate the degradation of living standards and the environment while amplifying global warming whereas solar is just a stupid waste of resources that would have a neutral effect on pollution and warming.

>>10182682
>All predictions this far are about as valid as flat earth theories.
Which predictions?

>Global warming changed to climate change and climate change doesn't just manifest as global warming but "increasing climate extremes".
Incorrect. https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

>Freons were another case entirely, their chemical reactions with ozone could be proven a priori and a posteriori. Climate change from methane and carbon dioxide has way too many variables in it to make sense out of.
The greenhouse effect is proven a priori and a posteriori.

>>10182684
>>10182686
coal is super cheap and global warming is good for developed world

>>10182673
so we're not going to get swarmed by mosquitos any time soon. good to know

>>10182711
Coal is already too expensive to use, actually

>>10182722
Coal is super cheap without “climate change” taxes.

>>10182673
>may have to pollinate apples by hand or learn eat grass
what are nano-drones

>>10179951
This is also a plot half way through the series of The 100.

Spoilers: It's bad

>>10182455
That looks way to expensive for any Republican to get behind.
Better just make more F-35's and Reaper Drones

>>10175642
you daft bastard

>>10176753
And let's crash any type of economy while we're at it

>>10182711
Even if you deny the effects of global warming, coal is the most harmful source of energy: www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

>>10182782
harmful in what way? black lives don’t matter

>>10175036
Given the track record, I'd prepare for the opposite of whatever the alarmists say.

>>10182684
Wind and solar make up 1% of the world's energy despite all the fuss and subsidies. And if anthropogenic impact is bad, why is the anthropogenic impact of wind and solar ignored? Wind literally translates wind energy to electrical energy. Robbing the environment of it's normal flow. It creates a pressure difference that effects immediate local temperature and collapses the lungs of birds and bats. Solar covers the ground that would otherwise receive sunlight and has a heat island effect. Both alternatives are made from non-renewable elements. If we were reliant on wind and solar and just found coal, we would probably be insisting on switching over in order to "save the environment".

>>10182711
>global warming is good for humans anywhere
>limited gains in crop productivity in northern canada and eastern europe and barren wastelands like scandinavia are going to offset making central, southern europe and north america incapable of subsisting off domestic staple crops
faggot

>>10182981
nobody cares about third world, time to die

Man reading this thread is depressing. Literally, like livestock leading themselves to our own slaughterhouse.
Can't imagine being a scientist and having to deal with the mental gymnastics/putting head in sanding that people pull off.

Is Antibiotic resistance a serious thing too for the future or is it just fear mongering?

>>10182997
>Is Antibiotic resistance a serious thing too for the future or is it just fear mongering?
It's a pretty serious thing. Doctors are pretty retarded for having gone through so many years of school.

>>10182997

>“The world is heading towards a post-antibiotic era in which common infections will once again kill. If current trends continue, sophisticated interventions, like organ transplantation, joint replacements, cancer chemotherapy, and care of pre-term infants, will become more difficult or even too dangerous to undertake. This may even bring the end of modern medicine as we know it."

Director General of WHO addressing the United Nations on the topic of Antibiotic resistance in April 2017/

>>10182997
If you have seen academia from the inside without wearing rose-tinted glasses, you'll have little faith in our "climate scientists".

Hell, I've even published a crappy paper on CO2 reduction in a top-quartile sustainability journal, even though I know CO2 is a ruse.

>>10175274
>>10175418
While well intentioned, this curve is dishonest because the blue curve has 120yr average while the red and orange curve is annual. It makes it seems like the rate of warming is unprecedented. See >>10183054

To compare apples to apples you need to run 120yr average on the red and orange curve as well

In my region, it was -18 recently. Whereas when I was a kid, 20 yrs ago, it used to be around zero.

>>10182966
but MUH CO2

>>10182966
yes you’re right, and all of that still is less damaging than burning coal you fucking imbecile

>>10183069
This is why they had to change the name to "climate change".

Assuming we removed the atmosphere could that prevent climate change?
I'm worried that even after total removal industrial processes will produce new atmosphere though so it'll probably need to be a continuous process. A better alternative might be a very large solar shade to obscure the entire earth and freeze it to near absolute zero and that might be easier than shipping all the atmospheric mass using mass drivers or rockets.

There is not any extraordinary climate change going on

>>10183090
Removing the atmosphere would cause much more climate change.

>>10183035
sounds as serious as bird flu and mad cow

>>10175036
>Very Optimistic:
The majority of the heavily industrial nations and other polluting nations realize the threat and start working against it. We stay below the 2 degrees mark.
>Optimistic:
One part of the biggest polluters in the world will work against the threat that is the climate change. Major ecological problems do occur, but international aid is helping to contain it.
>Neutral:
Only a small fraction of nations are committed to finding a solution for this problem, short-term profit remains the goal for the world economy. Major ecological catastrophes will force poorer nations to either adapt to these changes or fail at the test of time. Humanity as a whole will survive and adapt as well.
>Pessimistic:
The projects that are meant to contain the changing climate do fail due to the lack of governmental support. Shortages of food and water in poorer regions will lead to brutal wars, industrialized nations will start isolating themselves, since no one really wants to waste resources on ending wars or accepting refugees if you are in the middle of a crisis yourself.
Humanity will eventually overcome these obstacles and adapt to the new climate, but at a great cost.
>Very Pessimistic:
Nobody is able to contain climate change nor is anyone actually interested. Shortages in food and water will lead to major wars that in turn lead to more refugees which in turn lead to more civil unrest and that will be the cause for more wars. We enter a dark age of famine, hatred, regression and darkness.

>>10175036
>hecked
That's right reddit goyim, mind your tongue while using our jew funded 4channel site. No "F-bombs" my little sissy goy!

>>10183035
so what's this fear mongering about over population and climate change? we'll literally start dropping like flies once again in a few decades

>>10183098
But the climate will change once and then its pretty much Moon-like serenity broken by occasional volcanic activity.

>>10182882
It kills the most people per unit of power produced, even in the developed world.

>>10183066
>the blue curve has 120yr average
No it doesn't.

>>10183094
There is.

>>10183094
the good people of the carolinas, houston, new jersey and the Caribbean would like a word with you fren

>>10175274
>intentionally deceptive graphs are trustworthy.

Everyone should be worried about it, but here's some solution proposals, and if these don't work we all just kill ourselves:
1. set off a bunch of nukes in an unpopulated area (antarctica for example) to cause a nuclear winter just big enough to cancel out the warming
2. move everyone inland as fast as possible, hope the coming extreme droughts don't render agriculture impossible
3. everyone become primitivists like the unabomber, cut the power lines, everyone fights all at once to determine who will be the fittest hunter-gatherers to populate the new post-apocalyptic world
4. build a nuclear pulse propulsion generation ship and send it to the nearest habitable planet to ensure the human species survives as the earth becomes uninhabitable
5. rebuild the amazon rainforest by setting up a perimeter and killing everybody on sight who tries to cut stuff down, simultaneously terraform the sahara, the co2 would get sucked up by all the trees and shit

>>10179951
How exactly would that kill everyone? I don't think you understand just how fucking huge the Earth is. There are whole continents without a single nuke plant.

>>10184399
Nuclear winter is a myth, totally unfounded. The firebombing attacks in WW2 put just as much soot in the air, and did not cause a cooling event. Further, blocking incoming light doesn't actually solve anything because it reduces crop production just as much as heating does.

>>10175036
Very hecked. Not as hecked as Guy McPherson says; we won't be extinct by 2030. But it's gonna get bad. Like, millenia-long Great Depression bad.

>>10184422
>firebombing attacks in WW2 put just as much soot in the air
As much as what?

>>10184511
As a large number of nukes going off.

>>10182966
>Wind and solar make up 1% of the world's energy despite all the fuss and subsidies.
Power stations are long-lived, and energy companies are generally conservative as hell. And while they make up a small slice of current generation, both wind and solar make up a very large fraction of all new electrical generation.

>And if anthropogenic impact is bad, why is the anthropogenic impact of wind and solar ignored?
It's not. Both are heavily studied.

>If we were reliant on wind and solar and just found coal, we would probably be insisting on switching over in order to "save the environment".
That's complete bullshit. Even ignoring AGW, the local impacts of coal power on air and water quality are enormous.

>>10184403
We're not doing anything to decommission our nuclear plants in the near future, but if you conservatively estimate that the majority of them -do not- melt down catastrophically when the collapse happens (due to crop failures perhaps), you might still have 50 or 100 nuclear plants spewing ionizing radiation into the atmosphere and oceans, and the winds and currents would carry it around the globe (look at Chernobyl, where fallout was deposited hundreds of miles away).

For a lot of those nuclear plants, there wouldn't be anyone to respond and dump sand on the reactor; nothing to contain the damage.

Ionizing radiation is generally bad for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation#Health_effects

>>10184342
How is the graph intentionally deceptive?

>>10175036
It isnt real

>>10175036
Wait for Jesus to return and rule the ones left alive. We should rejoice, fore we are the lucky ones. Youre blind if youre still a non-christian

>>10184422
it has to go up in the stratosphere, you absolute shitstain
ww2 stuff stayed below 15km, in the troposphere

>>10175036
>hecked

exactly how much cum do you gargle on an hourly basis

>>10182882
>>10182711
>>10182668
holy shit, this must be a troll
I thought I was still at /pol/ for a moment

>>10182767
Actually switching to a green economy will save prosperity. Pollution makes life miserable. Effects of climate change already hurt the economy. Wildfires, floods, drought, crop failures, etc.

>>10184931
Not for me, I put all my money in oil stocks.

>>10185735
so sorry for you, you should have put your money in renewable energy instead

>>10175036
Not very. Plenty of time to move over to green energy.

>>10178847
Why even do that?
For every little bit we do and for every new tech our population continues to swell with filthy low IQ fast breeding third worlders.
The elites tell us we need them.
If we just had less of us then more of us could have a better life with less impact on the planet.
There would be enough resources for everyone and more could be put toward advancing as an intelligent species.
The best answer is depopulation.

>>10182350
>>10182376
All we need are a couple million MG42s at the borders.

>>10175036
here is picture

>>10184931
dotting the lands with wind turbines and solar panels IS pollution.

>>10188258
it's less polluting than other power generators

>>10188258
how? this looks comfy and clean

>>10188129
couple of drone swarms will do

>>10188451
>>10188129
Do you really believe guns can stop heat, drought, water, hurricanes, etc?

>>10176753
>become a vegan
tesring up natural habitats and rainforests to plant onions and palm oil plantations is worse than grass-fed beef or free range chicken.

>>10188435
The solar panels are made in China using a volatile process that generates pollution during their creation.
Solar wind farms although viable are limited.

>>10188659
How much pollution? What kind of pollution?

>>10188740
>The next step, however—turning metallurgical-grade silicon into a purer form called polysilicon—creates the very toxic compound silicon tetrachloride. The refinement process involves combining hydrochloric acid with metallurgical-grade silicon to turn it into what are called trichlorosilanes. The trichlorosilanes then react with added hydrogen, producing polysilicon along with liquid silicon tetrachloride—three or four tons of silicon tetrachloride for every ton of polysilicon.

>Most manufacturers recycle this waste to make more polysilicon. Capturing silicon from silicon tetrachloride requires less energy than obtaining it from raw silica, so recycling this waste can save manufacturers money. But the reprocessing equipment can cost tens of millions of dollars. So some operations have just thrown away the by-product. If exposed to water—and that’s hard to prevent if it’s casually dumped—the silicon tetrachloride releases hydrochloric acid, acidifying the soil and emitting harmful fumes.

>Toxicity isn’t the only concern. Making solar cells requires a lot of energy. Fortunately, because these cells generate electricity, they pay back the original investment of energy; most do so after just two years of operation, and some companies report payback times as short as six months. This “energy payback” time is not the same as the time needed to recoup a consumers financial investment in solar panels; it measures investments and payback times in terms of kilowatt-hours, not in terms of money.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think

>>10188629
climate change will be positive to many countries.
As to guns-they are for stopping people, not weather

>>10189116
>to many countries
>small positive effect on poland, ukraine and russia and a neutral effect on canada and Scandinavia

>>10188785
You didn't answer my first question.

>>10189133
plus Baltics, Chile,Belarus,Switzerland,Czech Republic,Germany-yeah that’s many

>>10189469
I'm sorry but I can't quantify it, but it does exist both in toxic byproduct and energy spent creating said panels.

>>10189893
It's probably negligible compared to the effects of fossil fuel production, transport, and use.

>>10189881
Please remove Germany from your list. This year we had a foretaste of what climate change means for us. Sunny summer was nice, but drought was killing Germany's crops. https://www.dw.com/en/drought-killing-germanys-crops/av-44829775

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-registers-record-low-rainfall/a-46510847

One of the longest dry spells on record has left part of the Rhine in Germany at record-low levels for months, forcing freighters to reduce their cargo or stop plying the river altogether. Parts of the Danube and the Elbe — Germany’s other major rivers for transport — are also drying up. Some inland ports are idle, and it is estimated that millions of tons of goods are having to be transported by rail or road.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/04/world/europe/rhine-drought-water-level.html

>>10188220
cute

>>10175635
>he's infected with toxoplasma

>>10190904
>Sunny summer was nice
No, it was fucking terrible