/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11126338
Based
We in fact need more CO2 for more vegetation growth. It will also increase oxygen with co2 which contributes to mammal biodiversity and health.

>>11126341
This. And it won't even get hotter because the diminishing heat effect of CO2 pretty much stops entirely by 400ppm.
Warmer would be better to though.
We'll need the plant growth with the shorter coming growing seasons.

>>11126379
I don't know if it stops it just depends on how quickly plant life can absorb it and other increases in CO2. during the Cambrian explosion where we had our most biodiverse ERA in the geological record it was at 4000 parts per million

>>11126338
>You see Ivan If we trick dumb Americans into ignoring climate change they will work for the glory of the Soviet Union.
Go home Vlad.

>>11126404
Just annex Canada, Jim. You'll be fine.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

>>11126469
what a broken af site.

We simply don't understand things well enough to say if it will be a problem. It's entirely possible that the climate change will just make Earth much more cloudier which will regulate the temperature increase.

The coastal regions in India and SEA will be ravaged by floods and cyclones, and it'll be like the Syrian refugee crisis except a hundred times worse. The amount of people living in these areas is enormous.

Ironically, the people who don't want to stop this development are the ones who are more opposed to taking refugees than anyone.

Pssst! So dudes. We change from denying to embracing?

>to debate where god/aliens/climate change exist you must first define god/aliens/climate change
The global freezing/warming goalpost was moved to climate change. Desertification through slash and burn techniques might have a non-zero and static effect on planetary temperature, if only in that region. Of course the "climate changes" there, but it's not a doomsday boil to death Venus 2.0 scenario.
>>11126718
Natural disasters aren't increasing in frequency or severity.

>>11126731
i never denied it, this has been my position all along.

>>11126732
>Natural disasters aren't increasing in frequency or severity.
At least provide a meta-analysis that backs this up as it goes against every paper and article you find on the internet.

>>11126744
Got it from this fine propaganda piece

>>11126744
>>11126751
whoops wrong picture

>>11126732
>Natural disasters aren't increasing in frequency or severity.
never in human history have there been fewer deaths from natural disasters. whether or not they are more or less frequent doesn't matter. our "environment destroying" technology protects us and will continue to do so. only getting better in the process and eventually we'll become masters of the environment itself. fuck nature, love technology.

>>11126756
To be fair, there are better response times, rescue operations, structural engineering regulations and international aid organizations that would mitigate loss of life as per your picture.
Now, a caveat, if the planetary crust was destabilized like some science fiction scenario, then there would be more "natural disaster" deaths, but blaming volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and even tsunamis on "climate change" is disingenuous.
Personally I think that increased human development/proliferation may and will negatively affect individual personal happiness, even without the climate change bogeyman, but that not necessarily scientific.

>>11126756
Holy shit, you must be the dumbest motherfucker on the planet. Or the most dishonest one.

>>11126773
>child mortality going down everywhere as technology develops over time
thanks for furthering my point, now go hug a tree. maybe next time don't post something so self-defeating while calling others dumb motherfuckers.

>>11126769
there are two curves, climate-related (blue) and non-climate-related (red).

>>11126753
/pol/tard-made edit doesn't count for a scientific study, anon

>>11126773
That image would only really be useful if it had mortality rate at 1900 or around then

This is just suggestive and therefore useless for the critcism youre trying to make of the anon you replied to

>>11126797
unless he can post something showing that climate-related deaths rates are increasing he has no argument. they are going down and will continue to do so approaching 0.

>>11126785
>I'm a dumb motherfucker.
OK, let me explain to you how this works. In the early 1900s the Haber-bosch process was invented which was a boon to farming and agriculture around the world. This allowed the mass production of food allowing excess which made transfer of food from one place to another to avoid drought related deaths possible. But what happens when everywhere gets hotter at the same time? What happens when the places of large production can't compete with rising temperatures?

>>11126809
>But what happens when everywhere gets hotter at the same time?
so then canada and russia will be able to produce crops all year round. ok not a problem.
>What happens when the places of large production can't compete with rising temperatures?
greenhouses.

Climate change should honestly be seen as the greatest achievement of the human race, not just as some doomsday boogeyman. We should be proud, not angry.

>>11126813
The soil under the ice in Siberia and Canada is not suitable for mass crop production.

>>11126817
canada mass produces a lot of crops during the summer invalidating your point once again though.

>>11126813
>I don't know how greenhouses work.

>>11126338
>>climate change is driven in part by humans
>true
WRONG

>>11126820
not an argument.

>>11126818
Global warming doesn't change the angle of the sun dumbass, they can only grow far south.

>>11126831
for now, as global temperatures rise everywhere winters will be warmer too. eventually temperate enough to grow crops all year round in places where they couldn't.

>>11126828
So your defense of what happens when it gets hotter is greenhouses. Unfortunately greenhouses make it hotter. That's why they call it the greenhouse effect.

>>11126842
>never heard of a/c

>>11126837
Are you saying that eventually global warming will change the angle of the sun?

>>11126846
that isn't what i'm saying at all. you have terrible reading comprehension and comprehensions in general.

11126338
>climate change is inherently a problem

I've got evidence of three extinction events which would suggest otherwise.

We can't feed and shelter the people we have now with the abundance of life and climate on the planet. It is just bad management to deny that we are going to be better off with less everything.

But why would you expect good management from capitalists....

>>11126850
So Are you unaware of how plants derive their energy?

>>11126861
>I've got evidence of three extinction events which would suggest otherwise.
species go extinct all the time, most of the species that ever existed are extinct. there is no reason to shed a tear over the fate of the five-assed mouse frog.

>>11126868
>i never heard of uv lights

>>11126875
You would need UV lights spanning the entirety of canada and siberia.

IPCC are self-proclaimed experts on global warming who invite those of like mind enforcing that the industrialized world is the cause, all in aim so that the middle class and poor pay the toll for carbon credits $$$. Let's all remain stupid and watch some more Inconvenient Truth.

>>11126877
not really, crops grown under uv lights have higher yields than sunlight. but i would like to see our plant covered with our structures leaving no space for any nature whatsoever. just one giant ecumenopolis.

>>11126875
>>11126845
So the solution to global warming is massive amounts of energy spent on producing and powering enough A/C to cover all the world's farmland and/or enough UV lights to cover all of Canada and Siberia.

How are you going to power this massive project?
How are you going to fund this massive project?

>>11126338

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

>>11126894
nuclear, the necessity will fund it. ;^)

>>11126899
>New study
>From 2015
>With data from 2008
Wow I'm very impressed.

>>11126910
Global warming was a joke until liberals started taking it seriously, crying about the poor polar bears. So NASA smacked them right in the face - the polar bears are not so poor after all. Retrospective studies can go back to 2008 and beyond.

>>11126921
Where the fuck do you think polar bears live?

>>11126773

Clear correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and decline of child mortality between 1800 and 2015.

Using Al Gore's logic and cherry picking data points: lower child mortality causes global warming.

>>11126927
or global warming causing lower child mortality.

>>11126718
Turd worlders will always try and make excuses to live off our welfare systems. As it stands today almost half of India's young people would move to the US if they could

>>11126496
found the snowflake

>>11126926
I stand corrected. Thank you.

>>11126753
old RSS is bullshit, it was shown to be so in March 2016.
Only morons like you refer to it anymore.

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m50s


Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment
Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz
Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, California
(Manuscript received 23 October 2015, in final form 22 February 2016)

>>11126931
Read a book
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU

>>11126837

>american education
>thinks heat makes plants grow

lol

>>11126949
>there is no sun in canada during winter
it's not all the territories.

>>11126338
Enjoy all the people from the red areas going to all the blue ones.

>>11126954
sweet, all that cheap land i bought will be extra lucrative.

>>11126951
I am Canadian. Some 10 years ago I drove down to California. Had a Subway sandwich. The girl asked me where I am from. I told her we live in igloos, its so nice to see that people live in houses in the USA. She believed it.

If only global warming came to Canada... the snow would finally melt and we could live in houses like our American friends.

>>11126341
>>11126379
Dunning Kruger Effect in full force right here.

>>11126899
Also NASA:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2015/28aug_greenland

>>11126921
>climate change was a joke until recently
yikes how wrong can you get lad

>>11126338
Africa is going to have its teeth kicked in, while it adds 4 BILLION more people to the continent.

Africa will be the worse dystopian nightmare anyone can imagine.

>>11126902
so your solution to global warming, is instead of limiting emissions now, do nothing for 50 years, then spend trillions upon trillions of dollars on the most expensive source of electricity, possible so we can grow the same crops we're growing now?

>>11126751
Skip 6 minutes in, retard.
https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg

>>11126732
>The global freezing/warming goalpost was moved to climate change
Wrong. Even in 1954 there was a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change"
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

>>11126751
>Human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere
>Ignores that natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit, while humans don't.

>CO2 lags temperature by 800-2000 years
Of course it does, if orbital eccentricity causes insolation to increase, then warming starts the feedback loop between warming and CO2 evaporating from the oceans. The climate has never had humans dump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus we have never seen CO2 start to increase before temperature, until now! Do you think climatologists don't already know this? Do you not realize that without this feedback loop you cannot explain the Milankovich cycle? No of course not, you have no idea what your idiotic memes are even implying.

>The models are wrong
Actually the data is wrong. Several sources of error were discovered in the satellite techniques since 2009 and they are now much more in line with the instrumental data. To see how well the IPCC is doing I suggest you look at current updates:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

>Ice core samples indicate warm periods long before the Industrial Revolution
Local samples, not indicative of a global average temperature.

And last but not least another fraudulent graph, using flawed, cherrypicked data and not even showing surface temperature.

>>11126890
>the middle class and poor pay the toll for carbon credits
Nice fear mongering but this doesn't actually happen under proper carbon pricing.

>>11126899
>To measure the changes, Zwally and his colleagues used NASA and European Space Agency satellites that fired lasers at specific spots on Antarctica's ice. Those beams would then reflect back to the satellites at slightly differing times, indicating the altitude of various points on the ice sheet. This process required calibrating the satellites by firing lasers at a flat "reference surface"; Zwally's team chose the still waters of the Southern Ocean.

>But some scientists said this measuring method isn't exactly reliable. For one, those waters aren't always still, and they could've been covered in ice. Also, the 2015 study yielded results that flew in the face ofpast measurementsmade by another NASA tool, theGRACE satellites, which record the changing mass of ice based ondifferential tugs of gravity on the spacecraft as they pass over the planet.

>Further, even if scientists accept the study's findings regarding altitude changes in the ice sheet, it's still unclear what's causing the rise: ice or snow? Zwally's team claimed it was ice, an assumption that necessarily meant their estimates for the continent's total ice gains were going to significantly higher, because ice is denser than snow. Again, this finding was disputed by subsequent research conducted with the GRACE satellites that found ice gains in East Antarctica during the study period to bethree times smaller than the amount suggested by Zwally's team.

>>11126338

no idea what this meme chart is based on but it's obviously nonsense, fossil fuels already fall out of fashion, much of Canadian and GDP is based on fosile fuel production,
Nations like Netherlands and Denmark are barely above sea level. These nations might even cease to exist. I am sure this will have an negative effect on GDP.

>>11127210
It's the last step of the denialist mindset.
>sure global warming is real and bad but technology will fix it
Ignoring the fact that technology can already fix it and instead opting for delay.
>Fuck renewable energy, how will we balance the grid with solar and wind.
Only ever dealing with the problems you know and ignoring the fact that the "solution" after everything is already fucked is 100 times harder than the solution currently.

>>11126753
You probably aren't aware that CO2 can either preceed or lag warming depending on the stage of warming

Climate happening is changing! Wake up, sheeple!

>>11126338
>false

Wrong.

>>11126753
a lot of those plots are pretty bullshit. Like top left is meaningless, just cause something is small in concentration doesn't mean it can't have a large impact. Center-right bar charts are missing a line of best fit. "change over the last 18 years"? give a bigger time scale. Etc

>>11126341
>>11126379
>I don't know how the carbon cycle or ecosystem change works

>>11126379
to
too

learn the difference if you don't want to come across sounding like a moron

>>11126753
>that total malicious interpretation of the GISP2 dataset
Nauseating

>>11126899
It's a well known observation that due to circulation patterns of the ocean and atmosphere Antartica is somewhat buffered from the rising temperatures. Not so with the Arctic though

>>11126921
"No!"

>>11128405
damn that's pretty much exactly spot on

>>11128121
All of them are bullshit. /pol/ info graphics are exclusively about preaching to the choir.

>>11128589
Done by Exxon in the 80s no less

>>11126751
>>11126753
These are such bullshit holy shit

>>11126338
Lol, predicting GDP into the future. And prescicely quantifying the effect of cc.

Why do you people even accept climate hoax? You piss on psychology because only 20% of its results are reproducable, yet accept climate scientists who essentially make up shit on the fly? What gives

>>11126338
It's a problem for some countries, which won't like that it's a problem for only them. You know what'll happen.

So many pussies scared of CO2, it doesn't get much more pathetic than that

>>11126718
It's because they are stupid enough to believe people will just lay down and die instead of being vicious monsters who are willing to slaughter families for scraps of food.
They are like saying "who cares if there is a nuclear holocaust I have a bunker" while the doors to their bunker is wide open and it's impossible to be closed.

>>11126338
>they are trying to find another reaon to transfer money from white countries to shithole countries
fuck this gay world

>>11126338
Are you talking about spacial or temporal changes in climate?

>>11127478
/thread

>>11126931
>almost half
more like over half