/sci/ - Science & Math

Whether we are destroyed depends on how we as a collective handle the consequence. Food is going to run out, and unfortunately, globalism is failing, which will most likely lead to WWIII. I give it 200 years to either survive or be wiped out.

Tuesday.

>>10183326
Best estimate, 13 years from now.

>>10183326
Not long apparently
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/index.html

>>10183640
I doubt that climate change is the main reason for that.

>>10183326
Humanity would die a very slow death, and would without a doubt recover. You don't kill off 7 billion creatures over night.

>>10183326
Tomorrow at around 10 a.m.

How many of you believe climate change is noticiably man-made? How many believe we have a rather inconsequential effect on it? Don't bother replying if you're just gonna insult the other side.

>>10183659
Well, it's probably one of several factors (like pesticides and habitat destruction).
Point is that it could kill us.

>>10183326
Shit like this is why no one believes climate change anymore, if its true, why the fuck do they have to lie so much? the highest historical CO2 level is definitely not 300ppm, during the Mesozoic and Palaeozoic Era CO levels were as high as 3000ppm. More recently in the Miocene Epoch only 5 million years ago the CO2 levels were 600ppm, why arbitrarily start at 400 thousand years then claim the maximum in this time is the historical maximum? They could have labeled it properly and not come of as charlatans. If global warming turns out to be real it will have be the worst PR disaster in human history, and all because politicians want to use it to push their agendas instead of presenting the known facts.

>>10183375
>that's what they said 10 years ago.
>that's what they said 20 years ago.
>that's what they said 30 years ago.

Really gets the noggin sloggin

>>10183721
It is obvious this global warming is caused by man, only true brainlets still refuse this. However the consequences of climate change are much harder to predict, as there are so many factors to take into consideration

>>10183326
Cant you just like plant more trees weed and seaweed to make air?

>>10183679
How does one 'recover' from death?

>>10185303
Hasn't the atmosphere changed so much that it's functionally impossible to compare that of 5 mil years ago to 500k?

I agree this does not justify the wording, however. Very misleading.

>>10183326
If we manage to go carbon-free at any point we'll stop it eventually. If not maybe 400-500 years? Really if the tropical and sub-tropical countries can't pass along their pain to the polar countries, the polar countries are going to make out okay for quite a while.

I suspect we will muddle on in our lifetimes with worse quality of life and occasional catastrophic flooding.

>>10183326

Global warming is the science of overstated alarm and understated uncertainty. Mixed in with some fraudulent hack "scientists" that got too far out in front of their skis and can't admit it.

>>10183659
Listen denier, climate change is the reason for everything. EVERYTHING.

>>10183679
Not with that attitude

>>10185309
you always say this, but it's not true.

>>10183326
depends on, if we slow it down it may just kill billions and mankind survives, we already see first effects like wildfires, flooding, drought, etc.

>>10185406
yawn

>>10185507
Climatology is to science what cheese rolling is to sports.

Humans are the masters of solving slow moving disasters
>>10183356
>unfortunately
KYS my dude
>>10185303
For shekels. Control carbon usage and it's pretty much gg no re.

not soon enough

Climate change will just mean Golden Age for Canada, Poland, Russia, Belarus, Scandinavia.
Third World will die off though.

>>10185672
not true, drought, wildfires and crop failures kill your imagined golden age, just ask California

>>10185672
Half of the entire world trying to flee to those places doesn't sound very much like a golden age.
Imagine the refugee Syrian crisis but 100 times worse.

>>10185749
so? 0 x 100 is still zero, and this is the amount of refugees Poland let in

>>10185713
>California fires are due to climate change
You guys are really funny and you just can't see it

>>10183326
Wireless devices will get us first.

>>10185749
That sounds more like a threat than a prediction, eventually if EVERYBODY wanted to go there people would chimp out and stop letting them in, migration is not inevitable as your globalist leaders want you to believe, you cuck.

>>10186459
damn, i believe in climate change but i hate this alarmism
of course im an idiot but i just dont understand how a few C increase in average temperature over the course of decades could destroy the first world

>>10185749
its not true at all that it would be a golden age for eastern europe or for scandinavia. Scandinavia’s soil is really not meant for the kind of staple crops that would have to be grown there and Poland+Russia have seen decreased wheat yields in the last 5 years which will fluctuate over the next century. Really they will just see a lot more normalcy than every other region on earth. Canada is mostly inhospitable wildnerness and bedrock very close to the top soil cover, so same problem as Scandinavia. Its not meant to become a breadbasket. You can’t feed 1 B people with just these nations output and then to add on another 9 B its insane and you would then have to undertake something like perpetual siege state to prevent them from trying to appropriate resources.
>>10186459
this post is so brainlet im not going to explain the causal connection between both panels

>>10185749
refugees are no match for any organized border guard

>>10186500
>>10186500
brings up wheat production, a favorite of climate shills, he doesn't even know the numbers but he assumes wheat production is decreasing because it has too.... WRONG YOU FUCKING RETARD
france: wheat production in 1996 35.9MT, in 2015 42.8MT
germany: 1996 18.9MT, 2016 24.4MT
russia: 1996 34.9MT, 2016 73.3MT
US: 1996 62MT, 2016 62.9MT
italy: 1996 8.3MT, 2016 8.0MT (holy shit drastic decline we bout to starve)
spain: 1996 6.0MT, 2016 6.4MT

WORLDWIDE :1996 578.6MT, 2016 749.5MT A 29% INCREASE. EVEN IF WHEAT PRODUCTION FELL 30% TOMORROW WE WOULD STILL BE AT 1996 LEVELS,i certainly don't remember the late 90s as a time of death if anything we were producing way in excess of what we needed

>>10186500
>Canada is mostly inhospitable wildnerness
Canada produces fuckton of food you dumbass

>>10186500
>You can’t feed 1 B people with just these nations output and then to add on another 9 B its insane and you would then have to undertake something like perpetual siege state to prevent them from trying to appropriate resources.
So the Third World will have to reduce its population, big deal.
What are they going to do? Walk 3000 miles from Africa to threaten Polish tanks and copters with rusty AK-47s?

>>10186500
this kills the climate shills


http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1554/2973#ref-62

In mid and high latitudes, the suitability and productivity of crops are projected to increase and extend northwards, especially for cereals and cool season seed crops (Maracchi et al. 2005; Tuck et al. 2006; Olesen et al. 2007). Crops prevalent in southern Europe such as maize, sunflower and soya beans could also become viable further north and at higher altitudes (Hildén et al. 2005; Audsley et al. 2006; Olesen et al. 2007). Here, yields could increase by as much as 30 per cent by the 2050s, dependent on crop (Alexandrov et al. 2002; Ewert et al. 2005; Richter & Semenov 2005; Audsley et al. 2006; Olesen et al. 2007). For the coming century, Fisher et al. (2005) simulated large gains in potential agricultural land for the regions such as the Russian Federation, owing to longer planting windows and generally more favourable growing conditions under warming, amounting to a 64 per cent increase over 245 million hectares by the 2080s. However, technological development could outweigh these effects, resulting in combined wheat yield increases of 37–101% by the 2050s (Ewert et al. 2005)

>>10186459
Protected status forests have less severe wildfires:

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ecs2.1492

It's due to climate change.

>>10186535
What is 30% of 0 anon?

>>10186512
Once you control for technological advances over that time period you'll see a decrease in yields.

>>10183326
2200 is my guess. Muh 2100 is only shilled because normies can only think future-oriented if it’s within a 100 year time span apparently, not that its working at all.

>>10185458
yes it is. I remember being told 10 years in grade school, 5 years in high school, it became a joke after awhile

>>10187285
Stop listening to idiots then. It's not hard to look up what climatologists are actually saying about the climate.

40 year old engineer wasting time here.
I can remember being told at school as a kid that there'd be no polar ice caps by the year 2000.
I'm not a climate denier but all the models have been wrong so far.

>>10187626
Which models have been wrong?

>>10186486
This

>>10187626
>I can remember being told at school as a kid that there'd be no polar ice caps by the year 2000.
What? The fact the some non-expert somewhere once said something wrong doesn't undermine the conclusions of an entire scientific field. If I claim the Moon is made of blue cheese that doesn't discredit astronomy.

>>10187629

>>10187670
>"Ha! You predicted a more severe warming trend instead of the real warming trend!"
Yep, sure disproved global warming right there.

>>10187660
I pointed out that I'm not a climate change denier so calm down.
The models and projections have been wrong so far.

>>10187670
Yeah see how the satellite record diverges from models around 1998? An error caused by orbital decay was found in 2017 that was cooling the satellite record after 1998:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

Your graph is from 2013.

>>10187670
Oh and the data is misaligned. They aligned it at one point in the beginning instead of standard procedure which is to align on the average of a low variance stretch. This is misleading since it takes any random divergence between the data sets at that particular year and adds that difference to the entire set.

>>10187670
Here's the data properly aligned.

>>10187679
It actually does tho.

>>10187670
Not this crappy thing again. How many times has it been posted now?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

>>10187687
>The models and projections have been wrong so far.
No they haven't. See pic.

>>10187716
I wouldn't know how many times it's been posted but thanks for the info, I'll read it

>>10186522
German here, invading Poland is super easy. Trust me, we do it all the time.

>>10183326
>We all know, that we'll fail to stop global warming, so when will it destroy humanity?
Says you. I'm going to use my scientific ability to save humanity.

>>10187846
That hasn't worked out too well for though has it.

>>10187629

What part of "all" did you not understand, fucknut?

>>10187858
Invading Poland worked perfect. Trying to invade Russia was a mistake.

>>10187285
>non scientists misrepresent the science therefore the science is bullshit
Are you just pretending to be stupid or do you actually believe this?

>>10188599
How do you know all of them are wrong when you can't even give me a single example?

global warming is a slow killer, this makes it even more dangerous

>>10186459
Fire causes fires.
t. Californian.

>>10187626
Hmm. 41 here. The Weekly Reader in elementary school was trying to frighten us about the imminent ice age. Fuckers never could make up our minds.

>>10185357
Don't even have to. Tha co2 will grow the fuck out of our current vegetation. But really, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about... that should make me about as qualified as your average climate scientist.

>>10185303
You're pretty alright anon

What we need to do is cull off the dregs of humanity. Any person below 100 IQ should be culled immediately and without mercy, regardless of ethnicity.
Get back to a society that repairs and re-uses things rather than consumes and disposes.
Get back to having huge sections attached to our houses with fruit trees and gardens.
Get back to manufacturing and using high quality goods that last more than one lifetime.
Knock the money/debt ponzi scheme on the head.
We could build an actual utopia if only we fill in for the now defunct system of natural selection.
3 generations and we'd have a better human race.

>>10183326
How about the drugs in our water supply that can’t be filtered out, Einstein

>>10183640
This study was already proven alarmist. The timeframe is very carefully picked to not factor in yearly variance.

>>10183326
Never. Is just alarmists nonsense.

>>10183640
Ah yes the "something bad happened" so it must be because if "global warming".

>>10185356
Actually only brainless believe it is caused by man.

>>10185406
Pretty much.

>>10185672
Exactly, I don't see why people aren't pushing to make sure to happens.

>>10185749
That's why you block them or kill them. Most wouldn't even make journey in that kind of situation without food or order

>>10187285
Al Gore Miami would be under water by 2010.

He was wrong. Sea levels have not risen at all.

>>10190971
Food packaging and heavy metal leaks needs regulation, not CO2 qoutas. Soon green energy will be viable and more cost efficient than carbon based, really we are all going to be okay temperature wise. With our waste, not so much.

>>10191106
Lmao, we use gas for literally everything. From heating homes, powering cars, and cooking. I doubt it will ever be out of fashion. Gas from compressed and heated coal was already made illegal in the 90’s. Really liberals are rich white people trying to force other poorer people to change their ways to be “greener” when the plants themselves that make those devices are lent more gas power than green energy they generate.

Just don't have kids, especially if you're white.

>>10186500
>Poland+Russia have seen decreased wheat yields in the last 5 years
Why do you lie?

>>10187716
>muh aerosoles
>muh orbital decay

>>10185363
The human race you mongoloid. People will die, humanity will not.

global warming is fake! its chinese bullshit to slow down american industries

>>10191212
You can use bio-gas made from human or animal waste. You can also use excess energy from wind and solar to produce gas.

>>10191483
man stfu with ur science bullshit, biogas is fart n all i knw is that fart stinks and cant produce ennergy Stank

>>10191421
Lmao, there’s no difference. Everything evolved along side us.

>>10191483
“Excess”
The guys fixing the fucking thing drove cars to get there. What power was the plant on that made the big ass turbines? Never mind that the company that built it was subsidized by the government to do it in the first place.

>>10183326
>planet heating up by a few degrees
>kill us all

Kill yourself retard

Daily reminder Earth was so fucking hot one time that greenland latitudes had the same temperature as current Alabama.

Never

N E V E R
E
V
E
R

If you can't understand why then you have less than 120 IQ