/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10442930
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/world-population/

>Climate change only slides into decidedly negative impact territory if it reaches 5-6C, which is at the high end of the IPCC’s projections for this century. Moderate warming of 2-3C may even be beneficial by increasing rainfall and intensifying the carbon fertilization effect, as well as opening up the Arctic to shipping and resource extraction (Our Future Earth by Curt Stager is an interesting counterargument to the current binary of climate change doomerism vs. politicized AGW denial). It will be truly catastrophic only if it goes above 7C, at which point “zones of uninhabitability” will start to spread across the world; above 11C, many equatorial and mid-latitude regions will become uninhabitable. But these are extreme scenarios, if not absolutely impossible ones.

>>10442930
Superintelligent AI is an even bigger existential threat to civilization.

>>10442939
So make a thread for it. Thanks for the bumb though.

>>10442935
My point isn't about climate change though. It's about the change in atmospheric gas concentration and the physiological effects on humans.

>>10442935
(Sponsored by the beef industry. Beef. It's what's for dinner.)

Ocean acidification is another problem of CO2 concentration autonomous from climate change.

>>10442930
CO2 lags behind temperature according to your precious vostok icecore samples. Now fuck off you pseud.

>>10443043
> your precious
>t. retard who doesn't understand that this thread isn't about climate change

Fusion when?
Tell me about carbon capture.
How do we change the habits of an entire global society?

>>10443070
>Tell me about carbon capture.
We're not gonna capture the 30 billion tonnes we're pumping out annually. Science isn't magic.

>>10443043
Why wouldn't they lag? What is your point?

>>10443055
>t. retard who doesn't understand that this thread isn't about climate change

>no it's about CO2 scaring which is why you're pissed that a graph was posted showing CO2 declining.
>waah this Co2 is so bad even though lifeforms other than selfish humans thrive on it.

Now once again go fuck off. Plant some trees or some shit if you're scared of the big bad CO2 boogeyman.

>>10443104
You know you're human and not a plant, right?

>>10443104
CO2 has been below 300 ppm for the entirely of human evolution. It's now, at 410 pm, well off the scale of the graph you posted, which ends well before the modern day.
You calling anything a retard is the most laughable thing I've seen in a long time.

>work in local city hall
>part of my job is to measure indoor climate in our buildings
>government safety regulations state that the CO2 levels should stay under 1000 ppm with 2000 ppm as the legal limit
>mfw the outdoor levels are almost at 500 already

>>10443043
sometimes temperature lags CO2,
other times it's the opposite
https://youtu.be/WLjkLPnIPPw?t=4m50s

>>10443083
True. We must change. Even still, we will have to use the mechanisms of nature to restore balance faster than it would be restored naturally. Maybe some giant lungs strategically placed around the world? What do our current carbon capture systems look like? What might some future ones entail?

>>10443113
>government safety regulations state that the CO2 levels should stay under 1000 ppm with 2000 ppm as the legal limit
Clarification: 1000 ppm is the recommended level for workplaces because it is based on a 8 hour exposure. Having anything close to that outside, at constant exposure, would be awful. But we're getting there.

>>10443128
>1000 ppm is the recommended level
I think the recommended level would be that of the outside.

>>10443108
and what do plants produce?

>>10443112
>CO2 has been below 300 ppm for the entirely of human evolution. It's now, at 410 pm,
And as far as I'm concerned it's gonna balance out again. Like it always has. Correlation=/=Causation, people are getting dumber for far more reasons other than a measurement of C02 in a specific part of the world.
>You calling anything a retard
Which I never did, learn to read.

>MUH IQs
This is so completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
The biggest immediate threats are food and water security, adverse weather dangers, war and immigration.
When you have the US, China and India and the whole southern hemisphere losing 10% to 20% of agricultural yields ON AVERAGE, shit is going to hit the fan.
Realistically there will be war, very likely WWIII and nobody is safe. If you live in a greening country you have the rest of the world eying your food. Good luck saying no to the US and China.
Best case scenario, agriculture is revolutionized, food is rationed out, and we somehow make it through. Worst case scenario, we die. And this is our lives not our children or grandchildren.
Everybody is too fucking scared to acknowledge the dangers in our immediate future. We deserve this.

>>10443133
Recommended maximum* obvs

>>10442930
Nothing can be done

>>10443138
You said it used to be much higher.
I pointed out that yes, but not during any relevant time in history. What's the issue?

>t. retard
>"You calling anything a retard"
>Which I never did, learn to read.
You... you sure about that one?

>people are getting dumber for far more reasons
Well, we don't actually know why. You're almost certainly right that there are multiple issues. But higher CO2 concentrations do appear to cause some cognitive defects on short exposures.

>>10443163
>t. retard
>You... you sure about that one?

Who are you quoting? Do you even know what a "quote" is?

>But higher CO2 concentrations do appear to cause some cognitive defects on short exposures.

Did you also know that mustard gas concentrations also appear to cause some cognitive defects in short term exposures as well?

>>10443181

>>10443138
>and what do plants produce
Oxygen? What is your point? And you didn't answer my question. Do you know that you're a human?

>>10443113

Why don't you add co2 scrubbers to your air handling units?

so should I just kill myself and be done with it? If the planet is simply going to bake itself to death in the next couple decades what's the point?

>>10443581
>Oxygen? What is your point?
>Do you know that you're a human?

So as long as I produce CO2 then a plant will produce oxygen for me to breathe. Also, yes I am a human.

>>10443708
>cutting down rainforests in record numbers
>producing as much co2 as two super volcanoes
Durr dah plants will make it all better :}

>>10443708
>So as long as I produce CO2 then a plant will produce oxygen for me to breathe.
No one is telling you not to breathe out CO2. Nothing you've said points to any kind of relevant conclusion.

>Also, yes I am a human.
So then you should care about what happens to humans and not just pants, correct?

>>10443710
There has been more trees and grass in North America then when it was colonized. Trees do what again?

>Durr dah plants will make it all better :}
They literally do. You know what's really stupid though?

>Don't plant trees, instead take away their food supply

You're not very environmentally friendly.

>>10443724

>Nothing you've said points to any kind of relevant conclusion.
the point is that without CO2 there is no Oxygen. Because what else will the majority of life on the planet eat?

>So then you should care about what happens to humans and not just pants, correct?

Yeah, which is why I produce CO2 for the trees to then convert into Oxygen and Nitrogen. Humans need oxygen and Nitrogen you know. I am doing my other humans a favor by planting trees and producing CO2 for them to grow from.

>>10443753
>the point is that without CO2 there is no Oxygen.
Why would there be no CO2?

Imagine a morbidly obese man being told to go on a diet and he refuses because he doesn't want to starve to death.

>>10443894
>Why would there be no CO2?
I never said there wouldn't be any.

>it's the fat man false equivalency anon

I'm not having this conversation with you again. A planet doesn't look for restaurants.

>>10443933
>I never said there wouldn't be any.
You said "without CO2 there is no oxygen." So what is the point of talking about what would happen without CO2?

>I'm not having this conversation with you again.
Because you have no argument.

>>10443710
Rainforests literally don't matter

>>10443753
Why are you people talking about plants in a thread about the physiological effects of CO2 on humans?

>>10443043
>>10443104
>>10443138
>Being this insufferably Australian

I'm glad your shithole will die first of thirst.

>>10442935
>An analysis of some 730,000 IQ test results by researchers from the Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research in Norway reveals the Flynn effect hit its peak for people born during the mid-1970s, and has significantly declined ever since.
But that's because of low IQ africans and indians breeding like rabbits, not because of CO2

>>10443140
CO2 increases food crop yields you absolute mongrel

>>10442930
Just a quick reminder for brainlets in this thread, 1000 ppm is 0.1% concentration, so going from 400 to 600 would mean a 0.02% increase in CO2 concentration, let that sink in

>>10442930
Its not much tbqh (in global history). We've had CO2 level well into 3000s for most of earths organic history. Its only been under 1000s for the last few million years.

>>10444116
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/35/9326

>>10444131
In other words, humans evolved in and have always lived in a low CO2 atmosphere. Fucking retard. The huge drawdown in CO2 caused by the advent of CO2-eating phytoplankton allowed for the climate necessary for our ancestor mammals to evolve. That same carbon, sequestered at the bottom of the oceans over millions of years, is exactly what is being released when we burn fossil fuels. Except we're releasing it over a few hundred years. Gee, what could go wrong?

>>10444164
Earth is a self-regulating system. Large CO2 = huge forest growths = animal evolution takes place on large scale at rapid pace.

If humans don't make it, fuck it.

>>10442930
Humans survived Toba so shut up.

>>10443938
>Because you have no argument.

There never was an argument.

>>10443993
Sorry I forgot this was a hysteria thread. Continue having your periods, girls.

>>10444175
no it isn’t

>>10444175
So you admit that these massive CO2 emissions will be awful for humans, thanks.

>>10444186
You'll survive torture so shut up and accept it when someone tortures you. What's your address?

>>10444226
>So you admit that these massive CO2 emissions will be awful for humans, thanks.
I didn't. I said earth will take care itself. If humans don't adapt, its a fault of human, not earth's change in climate.

>>10444235
>I said earth will take care itself.
Earth isn't alive, so this is meaningless. Humans are what humans are worried about, not "the Earth."

>If humans don't adapt, its a fault of human, not earth's change in climate.
What is causing the change in climate?

>>10444247
Earth is a living system. A dead planet is a planet like Mars where there's no life there, no internal energy generation. Its core is dead as well.
Meanwhile Earth hosts an active core, a strong magnetic shield, an array of life forms, array of evolution taking place, a self-regulating ecosystem, and so on.
As far as science understands it, every living being on earth is a product of earth.

>>10444275
So you care about whether Earth has life on it or not, but you don't care about humans suffering or not existing? I don't believe you.

>>10443138
We're all gonna die because of fucks like you

>>10444299
No, I said earth is a self-regulating system and takes care of itself. Humans need human intervention.

>>10442930
Where can you live where the CO2 exposures are low?

>>10442930
>OH MY GOD, CO2 CONCENTRATIONS HAVE GONE UP 100 PPM
>HOW WILL PEOPLE EXHALE THEIR 40,000 PPM OF CO2?????

>>10444358
Ugh. Suppose these dangers are actually real, and youre not as right as youve assured yourself to be. How will you feel about your reckless behavior then?

>>10444310
Which is, again, meaningless. Everything is "self regulating" since everything operates according to a certain behavior. If massive changes are part of "self regulation" then so is everything else.

>>10442939
That straight up line on the graph is fake anon. Processing technology is the same as 10 years ago but with bells + whistles.
Well; at least for consumers/slaves.

>>10444505
>dihydrogen monoxide poisoning

>>10444358
>ELEVATED CO2 CONCENTRATIONS HAVE NO EFFECT CAUSE I SAY SO!! FUCK THE SCIENCE THAT SHOWS THAT THESE EFFECTS EXIST!! WHO CARES ABOUT FACTS ANYWAY!?!?!?!?!?

>>10442930
>Flynn effect reversing
Dysgenic immigration.

Plants use co2 as their food, so they will get bigger, so they will produce more oxygen.

Based

>>10443088
Not only is there no proof that co2 causes global warming but there isn't even a correlation between rise of co2 and warming

I've been on /sci/ for the last 10 hours.
It's my first time coming here, and it's fucking shit.
It's the /d/ of blue boards.

>>10442930
the oceans are absorbing it so I'(m pretty sure it wont grow this much

>>10444529
If you say everything is meaningless, then your own comments are meaningless.

Either show coherent argument or don't post.

>>10446656
I didn't say everything is meaningless, you illiterate mongoloid.

>>10446000
>Not only is there no proof that co2 causes global warming
The greenhouse effect is directly observed. You just destroyed your credibility by making outrageous counterfactual claims.

>but there isn't even a correlation between rise of co2 and warming
You just showed there is a correlation here >>10443043! And the causation is proven anyway so correlation is irrelevant.

And none of this answers my question, why wouldn't there be lag between the two trends? The only thing the lag shows is that the initial forcing was not CO2 in the past (it was changes in insolation due to Earth's orbital eccentricity). This does not show that the greenhouse effect was not in effect in the past, so it's irrelevant. On the other hand, the current warming trend was initiated by forcing from CO2, which is why we don't see the same lag.

OP if global warming causes low I.Q. and hinders brain development in the womb does this explain why people who live in hotter climates have lower average I.Q.?