/sci/ - Science & Math

Large parts of the world, particularly some of the most dense population centers on Earth, will become uninhabitable by humans

>>10928342
plants need water, plants need under +35C temperatures

because all of human life depends on like 10 species of inbred plants which haven't even existed more than a few thousand years, and have absolutely no idea how to survive outside their extremely specific temperature range

>>10928348
>source: my favourite flavour of the year doomsaying politician

>>10928357
I was basing that statement on the presumption that the OPs version of events was what would happen.

>>10928342
>concentration of CO2 is the only parameter that matters

>>10928357
>source: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/
now where's yours you fucking retard?

>>10928354
We have plenty of water and like I said, increased CO2 levels increases the optimal temperature.

>>10928356
Listen here you uninformed parroting retard, what I stated were facts for all C3 plants which are 95% of all plant life. Fuck off back to the dark ages with your climate cult religion of impeding doom.

>>10928362
There was no version of events, I simply stated facts about CO2 levels. So what version are you talking about?

>>10928374
Please provide your citation for the optimal temperature range for feed corn, wheat, basedbeans, and rice.

>>10928374
>increased CO2 levels increases the optimal temperature.
temperature is not the only relvant factor

>>10928348
>humans can survive up to 60,000ppm atmospheric CO2
sure, if you like being a vegetable

>>10928372
My source for what, fuck wit? Unlike you speculatory circlejerkers I stated only well documented scientific facts about plant life and if you don't know those facts you have no right to talk about climate change. The reason I ask for a source is because every cunt says something different and what you gave me isn't even a source.

>>10928384
so you can't provide it? ok I'll assume you're talking out of your ass like the retard you are.

>>10928384
>entire AR5 report
>not a source
seems like someone's been huffing CO2 >>10928382

For over the past ~800k years the climate on the planet has been on a cycle of glacial interglacial cycles where the atmospheric CO2 concentration has not risen up over 300 ppm.
Why are you posting dishonest bullshit hypotheticals? Even if plants can survive at higher CO2 that would cause a major upheaval of the planet's climate.

>>10928389
>links to the sixth report
>wants to reference the fifth report
ahhh, so this is the power of climate doomsaying

>>10928396
my bad assuming you were capable of navigating a website, clearly you've never had internet in your trailer park before.

In my country the government recommends CO2 doesn't reach 1000 ppm at workplaces with 2000 ppm being the legal limit.
Watching the natural CO2 ppm steadily climb towards 1000 is creepy.

>>10928398
how the fuck do I know what you want me to look at if you don't reference it, retard? You expect me to understand who goes through the mind of a brainlet who falls for fearmongering power grabbing political bullshit?

>There is further observational evidence since AR4 that response to a change in CO2 depends on plant type: C3or C4(DaMatta et al., 2010). The effect of increase in CO2 concentration tends to be higher in C3 plants (wheat, rice, cotton, basedbean, sugar beets, and potatoes) than in C4 plants (corn, sorghum, sugarcane), because photosynthesis rates in C4 crops are less responsive to increases in ambient CO2 (Leakey, 2009). The highest fertilization responses have been observed in tuber crops, which have large capacity to store extra carbohydrates in belowground organs (Fleisher et al., 2008; Högy and Fangmeier, 2009). There is observational evidence, new since AR4, that the response of crops to CO2 is genotype specific (Ziska et al., 2012). For example, yield enhancement at 200 ppm additional CO2 ranged from 3 to 36% among rice cultivars (Hasegawa et al., 2013). FACE studies have shown that the impact of elevated CO2 varies according to temperature and availability of water and nutrients, although the strong geographical bias of FACE studies toward temperate zones limits the strength of this evidence. FACE studies have shown that yield enhancement by elevated CO2 is limited under both low (Shimono et al., 2008; Hasegawa et al., 2013) and high temperature. Theory suggests that water-stressed crops will respond more strongly to elevated CO2 than well-watered crops, because of CO2-induced increases in stomatal resistance. This suggests that rain-fed cropping systems will benefit more from elevated CO2 than irrigated systems.
tl;dr whether a plant benefits from higher CO2 depends on the plant and where/how it's grown

>>10928342
>Duuuur only CO2 is a factor and CO2 doesn’t affect any other factors

Shit post

>>10928403
You probably huff 6 times that in your car on the way to work. High CO2 makes you sleepy/unproductive, it won't kill you. 60,000ppm is when it will kill you.

>>10928406
apparently clicking on the massive link that says impacts adaptation and vulnerabilities is far beyond your cognitive abilities. Are you sure you aren't living in an environment with ~1500PPM CO2? your cognitive functions seem to be far below the baseline currently.

>>10928414
yeah i love it when we have to give doctors supplemental oxygen so they don't fall asleep while treating patients

>>10928384
>well documented scientific fact
>but obviously, I cannot provide any scientific source to back up said fact
>balls on your court kiddo
faggot

>>10928425
one would think the better documented the fact the easier it is to provide a source.
unless...

>>10928416
>deciphering which report I want to read to find out how half the world is going to get flooded from a 2% increase of water in the ocean and make everyone homeless
still don't see that link, nigger. Not searching through 1000s of words of bullshit just to find what obscure conjecture you're referencing from some government grant sucking parasites.

>>10928425
>>10928427
lmao, imagine being such a brainlet you can't even google a basic highschool biology fact. want me to provide sources on 2+2=4 as well? Fucking retards.

>>10928414
>>10928419
even in major cities like boston and NYC measurements rarely even reach 500PPM even near crowded streets.

>>10928444
it was a joking hypothetical

>>10928441
>hurr, durr, I'm a retard
you have to be 18+ to post in here

>>10928444
How the fuck do you come up with that shit and not get anything on this?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920910001021

>>10928450
>huurr durr I don't have an argument
>just screech about completely irrelevant things until the nonbelievers go away

Did you ever read about what went on while the atmosphere was "optimal for plant growth"?

>>10928444
https://www.sae.org/news/2017/04/co2-buildup-in-vehicle-cabins-becoming-a-safety-issue

>>10928451
>>10928462
this explains some people on the road I guess.

>>10928459
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene
>At the beginning of the Eocene, the high temperatures and warm oceans created a moist, balmy environment, with forests spreading throughout the Earth from pole to pole. Apart from the driest deserts, Earth must have been entirely covered in forests.
>Polar forests were quite extensive. Fossils and even preserved remains of trees such as swamp cypress and dawn redwood from the Eocene have been found on Ellesmere Island in the Arctic. Even at that time, Ellesmere Island was only a few degrees in latitude further south than it is today. Fossils of subtropical and even tropical trees and plants from the Eocene also have been found in Greenland and Alaska. Tropical rainforests grew as far north as northern North America and Europe.

Wow it sounds absolutely horrible. Icey wastelands replaced by lush forrests? Disgusting.

>>10928374
>We have plenty of water
at 450ppm/+2C the subtropics' (lat 23...40) rainfall fails by 50% to 75%
With the current pace of co2 increase we'll be there in the early '30s.

>>10928489
What are you saying?

>>10928482
>Model simulations of peak carbon addition to the ocean–atmosphere system during the PETM give a probable range of 0.3–1.7Petagrams ofCarbon per year (Pg C/yr), which is much slower than the currently observed rate of carbon emissions.[23] It has been suggested that today's methane emission regime from the ocean floor is potentially similar to that during the PETM.[24] (One Petagram of Carbon = 1 gigaton of Carbon, GtC; the current rate of Carbon injection into the atmosphere is over 10 GtC/yr, much larger than the Carbon injection rate that occurred during the PETM)
Much faster shifts means much less time for life to adapt, not to mention the fact that agriculture didn't exist at the time, which is what we're most worried about.

>>10928497
If that's what you're worried about I don't see how it's a problem. With the current level of technology we can easily control and aspects of the agricultural cycle that we need to. Even in an apocalyptic ice age scenario we'd probably be fine as a species over all. I don't see how that's really an argument.

>>10928489
interestingly enough most rainfall originates from plants, during the Eocene the climate changed slowly allowing rain forests and jungles to expand which increased rainfall. Thanks to humans this absolutely won't happen and widespread desertification is very likely.

>>10928514
>With the current level of technology we can easily control and aspects of the agricultural cycle that we need to.
you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about

>>10928482
>Cenozoic
retard
Also,
Go live near the equator faggot

>>10928514
jesus christ you know literally nothing about agriculture. At least read the fucking Wikipedia article or something city boy

>>10928514
Can't wait for yellowstone to erupt and see you dying while muttering "b-but muh average"

>>10928482
>What’s the Permian-Triassic mass extinction

>>10928517
I do, nigger. This year it's been unusually cold. I guess we need to switch back to worrying about global cooling again.

>>10928530
ah the eternal weather is climate anecdotal argument, so glad you boomer retards found /sci/ I love laughing at your ignorance.

>>10928516
>>10928521
>what's a green house for 100

>>10928525
>extinctions happened so carbon is bad
fuck off, retard. Every epoch marked by large concentrations of CO2 has resulted in large explosions of biodiversity. Just because some unrelated shit like a meteor or a volcano erupts doesn't make CO2 bad you brainlet.

>>10928539
>if the weather changes we're doomed
what about controlling the weather on micro scales for farming
>ANECDOTAL ARGUMENT HAHAHA BOOMER RETARD MY ARGUMENT IS WAY BETTER THAN YOURS!!111!

>>10928550
>what's a green house for 100
a building that makes it warm inside

>>10928550
>dude just control the weather
...

>>10928530
>This year it's been unusually cold
>unusually cold
huh, since you obviously don't care/are affected by it, I guess unprecedented shifts in weather patterns have literally no bearing in anything and literally no one else in world cares about it as well.
Climate change debunked!

>>10928516
>>10928521
>controlling the weather on the microscale is completely unheard of
>what's a green house for 100

>>10928525
>extinctions happened so carbon is bad
fuck off, retard. Every epoch marked by large concentrations of CO2 has resulted in large explosions of biodiversity. Just because some unrelated shit like a meteor or a volcano erupts doesn't make CO2 bad you brainlet.

>>10928539
>live near the equator lmao
I do, it's cold
>ANECDOTAL ARGUMENT HAHAHA BOOMER RETARD MY ARGUMENT IS WAY BETTER THAN YOURS!!111!

>>10928564
if you seriously think we can build enough air conditioned greenhouses to match current food production you know even less about agriculture than i thought you did

>>10928564
>With the current level of technology we can easily control and aspects of the agricultural cycle that we need to.
>=greenhouse, lol!
anon, I...

>>10928559
>unprecedented
no

>1970s
>the globe is cooling down, we need more government regulation!
actually it's heating up
>2000s
>the globe is heating up, we need more government regulation!
>2019
it's cold this year
>this is proof of global warming!
wtf is wrong with you people? At least get your story straight.

>>10928570
retard

>>10928567
>airconditioning
We weren't talking about heat, retard, we were talking about an iceage. Too much heat is never going to be a problem unless you're about to tell me CO2 is going to raise the global temperature 20C. Apparently you know even less than a primary schooler learning to read. Try again next year.

>>10928569
not an argument

>>10928572
>source: my ass
>trusting people who post static images as gifs

>>10928579
>Too much heat is never going to be a problem unless you're about to tell me CO2 is going to raise the global temperature 20C
Pretty strong statement could you provide a citation for this?

>>10928583
or you could reverse image search it like a non retard.

>>10928497
>>10928514
you brought up an iceage AFTER someone else raised the problem of adapting agriculture to warming, so fuck right off

the warming we as a species will experience in the next century will be enough to shift growth zones away from the equator and make all the other conditions (drought/storms/etc) less favorable for growth

>>10928583
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

>>10928584
>provide evidence for a negative
umm, no? Maybe you should provide evidence for how increasing crop yield and arable land is going to somehow kill us all.

>>10928593
> increasing crop yield and arable land
could you provide a citation for this?

>>10928570
Nigger, the whole problem with climate change is unprecedented change in weather patterns. And global warming refers to the average surface temperature of the earth rising, 'globally'. If it's unusually cold in your fucking porch, well, it's been unusually hot in other places of the earth.
>hurr, why should I care, I'm completely fine
Because some other time, your porch will be unusually hot and another place will be unusually cold.
The stability in seasonal weather change patterns is what ensures proper crop harvest since people know how and when to plant and harvest and how to take care of it properly.

>>10928599
>doesn't know basic highschool biology
>didn't even read the op
it's time to stop, nigger.

>>10928607
calling it basic doesn't change the need for a citation, if it's so basic it should be trivial to provide it. so please do

>>10928607
>trying to btfo everything with "highschool biology"

>>10928609
>>10928613
since you retards don't understand basic biology I'll give you a wikipedia article. Try to understand this:
>more CO2
>more good
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#Carbon_dioxide_levels_and_photorespiration

you're being trolled retards

>>10928622
but we're mostly worried about the effects of temperature could you provide citations for that?

>>10928622
>what are limiting factors
>what are byproducts
>what is an open system
>what are independent and dependent variables

>>10928493
rainfall fails = crop yields drop
not exactly rocket science

>>10928643
That's exactly what that means. Aquaphors aren't magic.

>>10928342
>>10928374

Kill yourself

>>10928622
Let me guess, you also think shit like oxygen/water/vitamin poisoning are gobermint hoaxes?

>>10928630
I don't care what you're worried about, not the point of the OP, sweetheart. Try your fearmongering bullshit in your own thread. Since you are retarded though, I'll throw you a bone. Temperature reduces the ability of the plant to differentiate between CO2 and O2 increasing the photorespiration. Like I said in the OP, this is offset because of higher CO2 levels and allows an increase of 6C at 1200ppm. Which is higher than anything we're going to see.

>>10928634
>what is an argument

>>10928643
you haven't explained anything. Your comment is barely passable as English. What is a rainfail? What causes it? What the fuck are we going to be at in the early 30s?

>>10928564
>extinctions happened so carbon is bad

Strawman. Yawn.

>Every epoch marked by large concentrations of CO2 has resulted in large explosions of biodiversity.

But the Permian-Triassic extinction wiped out the majority of land vertebrates and the vast majority of all marine species. Biodiversity only increases after these mass extinctions because everything else died and there’s a bunch of empty niches.
Temperatures increased by over 5’C during this time and atmospheric CO2 increased by over 2000 PPM due to a massive volcanic eruption called the Siberian traps, along with mass release of methane, another potent greenhouse gas, from the seas.
I dunno man sounds like rapid climate change is bad for ecosystems

>>10928592
>put myth in the title to dunk on those climate non-believers
>stick some advertisements at the end to rake in more money because the government gibs aren't enough
classic climate """journal"""

>>10928656
read nigger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorespiration

>>10928665
>CO2 increased by 2000ppm
>fuck tons of methane
>only increases temperature by 5C
>we should be worried about an 80ppm increase during the most industrial part of human history and then extrapolate that out for the next 1000 years even though we're going to run out of fossil fuels in 50 years
I dunno man, sounds like a load of speculatory masturabation.

>>10928676
read what, nigger? The part I've already addressed about temperature increase?

>>10928686
>only increases temperature by 5C

It’s actually 8’C but I gave you a lower figure to be nice.

>we should be worried about an 80ppm increase during the most industrial part of human history and then extrapolate that out for the next 1000 years even though we're going to run out of fossil fuels in 50 years

We have centuries of oil in reserves, actually. You’re lying. It’s too obvious you’re a troll so I won’t bite anymore.

>>10928668
>can't refute the content so he feebly attempts to attack the source
typical

>>10928697
>centuries of oil in reserves
that's not what your buddies were saying in the green new deal or the paris accord.

>>10928698
I don't have anything to refute. I'll accept your garbage journal because I don't care enough to actually look through the hundreds of pages of wasted time these people spent "disproving the myth of global cooling". Instead I'll laugh at the pathetic money grubbing that's all too common in the current research industry.

>>10928656
>What is a rainfail
the amount it rains per year.
are you an idiot?

>>10928717
>that's not what your buddies were saying in the green new deal or the paris accord.

Not an argument.

>rainfail=/=rainfall
Try to learn to read sometime.

Anyway, it's been fun laughing at you delusional anti-science brainlets who tricked yourselves into thinking you actually LOVE SCIENCE because a politician told you the world is ending and they need more of your money.
I'll just leave this here before I go.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

>>10928737
>'MUH CONSENSUS' isn't an argument all of a sudden
ok buddy

>>10928717
Glad we've established there was never any kind of scientific consensus on the topic of global cooling therefore all your opinions on the topic are invalid.

>>10928741
have a nice trip back to moscow

>>10928746
>all my opinion on the topic of global cooling which was only mentioned once in response to a strawman
okay I can live with that, now try debating the actual OP you retard.

>>10928753
>actually believes in the debunked russian conspiracy
lmao you sure to LOVE SCIENCE don't you?

>>10928760
you've provided no citations for the effect of rising temperature on current agriculture so there's absolutely nothing in the OP to debate

>>10928775
>you've provided no citations for temperature effects on crops for an OP about CO2 effects on plant life

>>10928760
пpocтo нe хoди бoльшe вoдки для вac

>>10928781
Increasing CO2 significantly alters the climate on earth. You can't disregard these effects when discussing the topic.

>>10928342
>all plant life is the same
L0Lno fgt pls

>>10928746
>there's no consensus on a topic
>therefore nobody is allowed to accept any premise related to it
I'm not even him but your professor isn't quoting scripture to you m8.

>>10929248
I'm majoring in theology :)

>>10928356
Only the standard cultivar's are relatively inbred we still have a massive source of landraces and old heirloom types and just more types that people have made these are all resources we use to alter the plants to be more adapted to different conditions

Plants have adapted to preindustrial temperatures, you can actually use stomatal density as a climate proxy. So, any advantage gained by increased CO2 concentrations will be eliminated by increased temperatures. Only plants adapted to hotter climates will benefit, which is bad for biodiversity, which is what we seek to protect. Actually we seek to preserve preindustrial ecosystems. But not necessarily the literal ecosystems, more like the exact species in their proportions.

This is a dumb thread full of dumb people. In a few decades most places are either going to be too wet or too dry to plant crops outside. On the bright side, if the pollinators don't go extinct you can enjoy slightly improved yields from the CO2 on all the indoor crops. Unfortunately the massive cost of moving agriculture indoors and all the extra man-hours it requires will make produce much more expensive anyways, so you'll never see any benefit from it.

if you debate with denialist retards, you already lost.

is unbelievable how far some people can go to defend their way of life. let's say that by some miracle the only countries that are affected by climate change are in the equator, everybody in ASEAN, Sub-Saharan Africa and central america would become refugies, if they have nowhere to go, expect a good chunk of the population dying from famine, entire economic activities from said countries would disappear, a lot of resources, mines and biodiversity gone forever.
Society as we know it would fall like a house of cards, I can see a couple dozen of countries doing relatively fine but from famine comes disease and from this comes civil war. I hope I knew better, but we're uncivilized beasts when it comes to disaster, it will only get worse, a whole lot worse before countries that have lost incredible amounts of people get back to their feet.

>>10928342
Absolutely incredible. How could the environmental scientists working on this topic have missed it all these years? Anon you truly are a genius!

plant growth rate is also proportional to c02 concentration. Making the relationship between atmospheric c02 and vegetation a second order kinetic growth model meaning planting trees solves climate change not billions in tax
methane from agriculture contributes more to anthropogenic greenhouse effect more than c02
99% of agricultural methane can be cut by adding 2% seaweed to cattle feed

ain't no cattle dollar though, there's only the petro dollar

>>10928741
>I'll just leave this here before I go.
Holy shit you're pathetic. You needed to imply that your source contradicts what everyone else is saying, because you know that if you explicitly stated what conclusion you're drawing from it you'd get laughed at for misrepresenting the paper.

>>10929277
Welp, I'm sold. The science is settled, I should go pay more taxes so we can change the weather.

>>10929277
Welp, I'm sold. The science is settled, I should go pay more taxes so we can change the weather.

>>10929410
>>10929528
>I refuse to think about free-market solutions to an actual problem because I'm too obsessed in owning my opponents to care.

>>10929760
free markets got us in the problem in the first place and cannot fix the problem without making them non-free markets

>>10929309
>everybody in ASEAN, Sub-Saharan Africa and central america
But those countries are worthless. If all people inside those countries died, the world would be better off.

>>10929764
>cannot fix the problem without making them non-free markets
An unexpected bonus

>>10929326
>there's only the petro dollar
the spice must flow

>>10929778
well true but don't tell the free market boosters that

>>10928348
Should I feel guilty if I wouldn't give a shit if all of Hong Kong died?

>>10929903
yes, because it means you lack basic human empathy

>>10929909
You gonna cry?

>>10929764
Free markets are the reason we're not dying at 40 and have electricity and more than one set of clothes. If climate change is the price of industrialization, it is a price worth paying a hundred fold. And if or when the problem actually manifests itself in reality (and not in constantly failing predictive models that are trotted out to support taxation and corrupt politicians' pet projects), the free market will deal with that as well.

>>10929909
Do you feel bad constantly knowing that somewhere in the 3rd world, a little Mogambo dies every few minutes? Your life must be perpetual misery, surely.

>>10929933
you will, one day

NEXT ICE AGE WHEN?? FUCK THIS GAY EARTH

>>10928348
maybe they shouldn't live somewhere inhospitable to humans? lmao

>>10930626
evwywon wiww feeew baad anoud demselves wike meeee

>>10930721
was to be in 25k years, but GW is pushing it off
https://youtu.be/ztninkgZ0ws?t=10m

Let's imagine all the climate scientists are wrong. What would we lose by trying to move to clean energy and limiting fossil fuels? What are you fighting for exactly? Inaction isn't a very noble goal.

>>10931156
Koch brothers lose their empire.

>>10931156
>What would we lose by trying to move to clean energy and limiting fossil fuels
Massive amounts of money, and as a consequence, reduced quantity and availability of goods and services.

Stop using the Pascal's wager bullshit on this, it doesn't work.

>>10931700
That's incorrect. Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels even with the massive subsidies that fossil fuels receive. Even if no legislation is passed these welfare queens are already on the way out and letting them continue to do business while they suckle at Uncle Sam's teat costs the healthcare industry a shitload of money. Let's give them a helping hand, eh?

>>10929800
debased post nixon property of the united states federal reserve

>>10930601
>And if or when the problem actually manifests itself in reality
It's manifesting in reality already, the problem is that by the time the damage is done there isn't going to be much to do.

Currently the only "solution" the free market Is giving is an individual one, "just move closer to the Poles and on high ground bro", which also implies nobody else but a few have the same idea, in which case we revert back to living up to 40 and One set of clothes.

>>10930601
>Us not addressing the problem isn't us failing at thinking long-term, it's totally because it's not an issue.

>>10931241
David Koch donated 150 million to the hospital that treated Ruth Bader Ginsberg's cancer.

>>10931156
No one disagrees with that basic premise. Literally no one. The problem is that people disagree about the specific actions that are being proposed.

>>10931706
What the fuck are you talking about? Solar panels can't even pay for themselves.

>dude scientists are all in a secret cabal to get us to invest in clean energy because, uh.... reasons!

>Those oil and gas megacorps who we have leaked emails of speffically showing them funding efforts to spread misinfo about climate change are TOTALLY trustworthy and don't at all have any possible motives to be lying

I'll never understand this

>>10932222
>It's manifesting in reality already
Ah yes, you can see the climate apocalypse all around you. Humanity is dying by the millions as we speak.

>>10932227
There doesn't appear to be a problem.

>>10932312
>scientists are all in a secret cabal to get us to invest in clean energy because, uh.... reasons!
Politicians, not scientists, are trying to get us to invest in clean energy. But I'm sure politicians are a more noble and honest sort of person than corporate execs.

>>10932365
>not scientists, are trying to get us to invest in clean energy
That's bullshit.

>>10932297
>No one disagrees with that basic premise. Literally no one. The problem is that people disagree about the specific actions that are being proposed.
This guy over here >>10932365 seems to disagree.

>>10932365
>Politicians, not scientists, are trying to get us to invest in clean energy.
And do what, you twat? I don't see anything even remotely resembling a Big Solar/Big Wind around, so It ain't because they get financed by them.
Also, are all climate scientists paid off? Like, from denialists to confirmers?

>>10928342
>60000ppm survivable
Survivable but miserable.

>>10930601
>constantly failing predictive models
nope, models work fine

>>10932297
>What the fuck are you talking about?
>Solar panels can't even pay for themselves.
How high are you right now?

>>10928342
Consider following: The more carbon the crops have, the more sugars they produce. The more sugars they produce, the less concentration of other nutrients will be there. We already have shittons of calories in our diet, but we lack the nutrients, hence we´ll be fucked.

Another consideration: CO2 dissolves in water, water organisms are very sensitive to change in acidity.

From your misuse of the term "liberal", one can assume you are an American which would correspond to the stupidity of your post.

>>10928372

You should try reading the actual reports. They're not the same as the summary for policymakers. The last 2-page summary was edited, iirc, 1600 times by the policymakers themselves.

>>10928395

800,000 years is a short period of time, in the longer geologic context. Look at the last 500 million. Not only have CO2 and temperature both been much higher, they haven't even tracked together very well. The correlation is actually poor if you look at more than a snapshot.

>>10928497

No. Ice cores don't give you the temperature for October 15th, 74 million BC. You get a wide error bar, which gets wider the further back you go. If the error bar shifts up 0.1C over 300 years, that doesn't mean the temperature went steadily up. There could be all sorts of fluctuation in that time and you'd have no way of knowing.

The fall back argument that the change is faster now has no scientific basis.

>>10928515
>rainforest expands
>this creates rainfall
The causation is the other way round retard. More rainfall leads to bigger rain Forrests.

>>10931156

I'd wouldn't care if any of your proposals made sense. To provide for new energy demand (just new, not existing) each year would require filling up an area the size of Canada within a couple of decades. Not to mention the concrete and steel required to build the turbines, which itself releases CO2, and all the birds and bats killed every year by them.

If you're saying "What's the harm" and there's massive harm that you're not aware of, it might be time to rethink your motivations.

Again, if there was a way to get off fossil fuels tomorrow I'd be all for it. Your solutions just don't work. Can we not have a friendly discussion about what might?

>>10932399
"Big solar" and "Big wind" are just boogeymans that deniers like to throw around to distract from the huge elephant in the room of the coal and oil industry. They like to pull the "no u" move and twist the facts in some way like "fossil fuel companies profit the most from green energy" or "the fossil fuel companies created the climate hoax" when it's all just bullshit. It's part of some divide in conquer plan they started in the 80s, just don't even reply to anons who post stuff like that.

>>10931706
>Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels even with the massive subsidies that fossil fuels receive.

Wrong. Just line up cents/kwh and compare. It's literally the most easily found, most objectively provably true thing in this entire debate that "green" energy costs more.

And it's often not even green. Ever seen a Lithium mine? It looks like those pictures of the Canadian oil sands.

>>10929326
growing plants is almost carbon neutral because when plant die and decompose all the carbon goes back into the air
No amount of tree planting will ever help the climate change situation.

>>10932312

Over a recent 20 year period, Exxon put 20 million toward climate research. Over the same period, the US goverment put 80 billion. A 4000 fold difference.

The point is not that there's a conspiracy. Formal conspiracies probably don't exist. It's simply that interests converge and people are motivated by desire for money and status. Without global warming, all those billions of research dollars and all the interviews on CNN and MSNBC go away.

There, now you understand. That was easy.

>>10932894
>Another consideration: CO2 dissolves in water, water organisms are very sensitive to change in acidity.

The ocean is a massive buffer. Small increases in CO2 will not be dangerous to pH levels. Carbonic acid is weak anyway.

>>10933037
>There, now you understand. That was easy.
No, no I don't understand, you just sort of spouted some inane ramblings about convergence of interests. Your post is literally a non-post.

>>10933037
>It's simply that interests converge and people are motivated by desire for money and status.
Name one famous climate scientist. And no, black science man and Bill Nye don't count.

>>10933037

>>10933045
Ocean acidification is a huge problem

>>10933028
>Wrong
Lol you have no idea what you're talking about.

>Lithium mine
Wew, lad. Let's start by addressing the fact that mining lithium for batteries is less detrimental to the environment than mining for fossil fuels. Now let me remind you that old batteries can be recycled. And before I go, since you are clearly unaware, not all batteries are made from lithium, and greenest materials are also some of the cheapest.

>>10930601
The issue with a "free" market is that it tends to grow. If we keep growing, we're going to continue to contribute to the mass extinction that's wiping out a good deal of the biodiversity on the planet. Why would capitalists do something that's directly against their interests? Markets aren't God.

>>10932995
Completely irrelevant to our current situation. Those epochs developed in a completely different configuration of our planet (different continental configuration and what not). Our biosphere has adapted to the last million year or so long glacial/interglacial cycles.Suddenly dumping major quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere to levels not observed in that time creates a situation that the biosphere or the climate are not in a position to adapt.
>Not only have CO2 and temperature both been much higher, they haven't even tracked together very well. The correlation is actually poor if you look at more than a snapshot.
Dishonest statement based on the low available resolution of climatology reconstructions we have for those factors.

>>10933099
The market tends to grow until it reaches equilibrium with the pressures resisting that growth. This is true for populations as well as production/consumption.

>>10933806
>This is true for populations
Sometimes it is lol

>>10928348
Large parts of the world will become
habitable as well

>>10933841
Always. Once the population runs out of food, or space, or a million other factors, it stops expanding and reaches equilibrium until something changes.

>>10933995
No, generally it crashes. For example deer and wolves. The wolf population burgeons as the deer population grows, then winter starts and most of the deer starve and so do most of the wolves. If you're really generous I guess you could call that "equilibrium".

>>10934345
The crash is part of the adjustment to equilibrium, yes.

>>10933995
No it can overrun carrying capacity for quite a while and new equilibria can be found if the species or environment adapt quickly enough. You're also perniciously equating population dynamics with the behavior of complex economies of scale which is retarded.

>>10934456
It's really not. Losing more than half your population seasonally isn't maintaining an equilibrium.

>>10928348
That sounds great. So the Great Replacement is that of niggers with plants? This sounds like a win-win-win for humanity-the plants-and everyone who doesn't like rape and AIDS

>>10934457
>new equilibria can be found if the species or environment adapt quickly enough
Great, so you agree.

>equating population dynamics with the behavior of complex economies of scale
It's not done in the same way, but a general equilibrium is reached in both cases. Do you deny this?

>>10934469
Sauce on this kind of population dynamic existing over medium and long run timeframes (ie. the kind of time frame where you'd see an equilibrium form).

>>10934498
https://www.google.com/search?q=deer+wolf+population+graph&client=ms-android-google&prmd=inmv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJgNOZ667kAhUNs54KHQPxCDsQ_AUoAXoECA8QAQ&biw=412&bih=604

Take your pick

>>10934504
You got it.

>>10934596
Hmm, that's weird, let's try another.

>>10934601
Well, surely this one will confirm the frequent and cyclic nature of the boom-bust population dynami...oh wait.

>>10931706
>massive subsidies that fossil fuels receive
The U.S. spends $26 billion annually subsidizing fossil fuels.
... on top of that, the trillions of dollars wasted and thousands of lives lost in Iraq Wars I & II.

>>10934596
>>10934601
>>10934605
You must be new to how graphs work. Fewer sample points over longer periods of time hide variations over small timescales. This phenomenon is well known and we'll studied and your ignorance doesn't make me wrong.

>>10934605
>>10934698
Plus this last one is cyclic. It shows one large cycle and a couple smaller cycles

>>10929365
>Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services1,2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.
>increase growing in 25-50% of areas
>decrease in 4%
>CO2 increase explains 70% of the increase "greening" trend.
>climate change itself explains 8% of the increase
>tHiS CONtraDiCTS wut U SaY!11!! HAHAaahaA me LAUFIN aT U SCiENSE!2!!11!

>>10934698
>posts sample graph instead of one made from real data
K

>>10934706
Take a look at the graph, and the behavior of the wolf population relative to variations in the moose pop. There is very little cyclic consistency. Sorry if it doesn't fit your idealized model, but that's how reality works.

>>10934748
There are very obvious cycles in that graph that you obviously don't want to see. Go do some reading instead of yelling at science.

>>10933090
Good thing we have infinite space with which to shit out inefficient "renewable" energy everywhere, isn't it? We'll just have to bulldoze an amazon or two to put down some turbines but it should work out.

>>10934755
With seasonal collapses in the wolf population, no?

Don't be mad that you got btfo, just move on.

>>10933796
as opposed to
>CO2 and temperature does track together because the 100 years of data we have over the 100s of millions of years says so
This is much more honest and trustworthy. Definitely not fearmongering for more government handouts. I'm not saying climate change does or doesn't exist. I'm saying there's not enough data and the consequences are way over blown. AOC saying the world is going to end by 2050? The green new deal perfectly summaries the political aims of pushing this fearmongering. It's politics, power and money first and the environment last. Taxing gas isn't going to make people not use it, it's going to make the government more money so they can push more of their socialist policies. If these clowns really wanted to move away from greenhouse gas producing power options they would advocate for that, but we haven't seen that on the left or the right because it doesn't fit into their current power dynamic.

>>10934759
This is the single dumbest argument against renewable energy. The Earth receives more energy in an hour than is consumed in all forms globally. Using this figure as a rough estimate it would take 112,500 square miles of collector area to replace global energy needs with just solar. That's 0.05% of the total area of Earth, 3% of the area of the US, and about half of the area of urban sprawls.

>>10934748
>>10934760
Imagine being retarded and still thinking you're right.

>>10934760
Just counting the big ones there are six drops in wolf population. Go do some reading and come back with real arguments

>>10934782
Wow that sounds great (nice source). Now where are you going to put all the batteries? What about when we have a really cloudy day or a natural disaster? Have you done the calculations on how many batteries we're going to need to store even a weeks worth of power? How about on the cost of maintenance and repair and the power loss from battery leak? No, of course you haven't. Because you're a potato who just blindly parrots whatever he's told. I bet you think nuclear power is evil too, don't you?

>>10934791
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-potential-of-solar-power-2015-9
It's a very popular fact.

Put the batteries in the cars. Kills two birds with one stone. Cheaper saltwater batteries can be put anywhere, just throw solar panels on top of them and give it a computer to control it. The exact amount of energy storage required depends on the difference in the generation and consumption curves so it's inherently hard to estimate, but these curves can be brought closer together in a few different ways. A DC supergrid would allow excess energy generated locally to be sent across vast distances with high efficiency, effectively extended the production hours and flattening the generation curve. Dynamic pricing for power encourages people and businesses to use power when it's cheaper and automated processes can be set to run during these times which also brings these curves closer together. Besides all that, other sources of renewable energy like wind generate energy at different times than solar or can even be used on demand, further reducing the need for energy storage.

>>10934783
>wolf pop goes up sharply, moose pop goes down a bit
>wolf pop plummets, moose pop goes up a bit
>moose pop skyrockets, wolf pop climbs a bit
>moose pop plummets, wolf pop goes up a bit
Which is a hell of a lot different from this stupid graph>>10934698

Remember, each data point is a year. If you're finding some sort of strong cyclic correlation between these two populations, you are delusional. It is clear that there is more to the fluctuation of these two pops than their numbers relative to each other. For instance, wolves don't only eat moose, and moose don't only die from wolves.

>>10934791
Also nuclear is fine, it's just expensive. I think we might as well use the isotopes we have while we have them, but the cost of building nuclear reactors dissuades private investigators without heavy subsidies. Nuclear can have the fossil fuel subsidies for all I care.

>>10934816
Go read

>>10934816
I don't know where the data comes from. There could be countless other reasons for the variation, such as hunting or the population cycles of different species which also affect the moose and wolf population. The fact remains when moose population increases, wolf population increases afterward and same for when it decreases. There is a complex interplay between various populations and displaying only 2 of them with no other data and then intentionally misinterpreting it is retarded.

>>10934817
It's really not that expensive, especially compared to building 112,500 square miles of solar panels + maintenance + batteries + all the rest of the infrastructure required to make that pipe dream work.

>>10934824
Thats why we see so many new nuclear plants being built and nobody investing in renewables, right? Oh wait, we're seeing the opposite because renewables are cheaper and scalable.

Why are you being salty about this? I already said you could fight fossil fuels for their subsidies. Get those neetbux and make nuclear more than just a meme.

>>10934852
It's not being built because people spaz out about muh Chernobyl. You're actually retarded if you think renewables are more efficient than highly compact energy resources such as coal and high energy dense radioactive materials. I tried searching for you claims but the only shit I found was blog post level garbage about how muh renewables are better than nuclear because it produces a greater share of the US power production (yes, it's apparently an argument from the I LOVE SCIENCE group that because renewables are more shilled for and invested in we should invest in them more because the fact they were invested in means they're better). Also, your fake values from the shitty stylized graph with no source here >>10933090 is an absolute joke and just proves futher that you have no clue what you're talking about. By doing some real research I found https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf, which shows similar values and concludes that renewables are COMPLEMENTARY to baseload generators such as coal or nuclear. Completely blowing out your retarded "argument". It further points out that while renewables; which have been heavily shilled for for the last few decades have also become extremely efficient, nuclear; which has been shilled against since the first meltdown, has been barely optimized due to the retard mob of renewable evangelists screeching about the evils of nuclear.

>>10934769
CO2 and Temperature track together in the 800,000 years of reliable, direct CO2 measurements of the atmosphere as trapped in the ice core records.
Learn to know what you're talking about before talking about politics irrelevant to the science

Here's an interactive program that you can play around with the data.
https://www.co2.earth/co2-ice-core-data

>>10934882
>It's not being built because safety regulations are expensive
That's what I said

>I can't find proof of your claims
Learn how to use Google, moron. If you point out the parts you're having trouble with I can explain it for you using smaller words

>*Autistic screeching noises*
If the data is fake you should be able to post the "real" data, right? Oh, you'd rather attack the source? Oh, AND misinterpret their summary. Bold move there, Cotton, let's see if it pays off.

>>10933016
rain forests pull in water from the ground/rivers etc and then it evaporates out of their leaves over time, causing high humidity and rain
temperate rain forests exist