/sci/ - Science & Math

CONTINUED
But why should I care about it? I live in Ireland I’d love it if it was five degrees warmer or so,it would be less DEPRESSING here seven months of the year. They say it was even hotter than five degrees warmer in ancient Roman times and briefly in the middle ages where wheat was grown in Iceland and grapes were grown in England Naturally. And guess what? The men were grand! I’ve also read a couple of articles over the last few months that said that if the world became warmer by five degrees it would finally be possible for ships to travel in through the arctic circle in the north. Imagine the new trade deals and fresh possibilities that would come from something like that?
So no I don’t want the world governments shutting down everything and getting sucked into economy killing ‘green deals’ and trying to get rid of diesel cars that work fine and forcing us to purchase expensive ‘clean’ cars. By the way have you ever stopped to think about where the electricity for the electric cars is made? They have to BURN COAL to create it! I swear the climate change prophet of doom zombies can’t even fucking think for themselves. They’re too stupid to. And just think for a minute as Western countries become less competitive other countries with malevolent goals are becoming more powerful and more competitive. Just think about it.

Is there a point to this monologue?

>>11998387
Finish reading it and you'll see that I'm saying there's no point doing anything about it. It's going to end up being a benefit if anything.

>>11998373
>>11998376
Yeah thats kinda my take on it too. Its real and it will effect some parts of the world negativly, but there are just way more pressing concerns right now, for example dysgenics and demographic replacement

>>11998373
My primary concern isn't some sort of extinction-level event so much as the long-term consequences for the developed world when poor equatorial countries become uninhabitable. Refugee crises due to low-intensity warfare are already becoming bad enough. What happens when they completely run out of water and arable land?

>>11998395
>It's going to end up being a benefit if anything.
Yeah, well the vast majority of the world doesn't live in Ireland. You can try to convince yourself "it'll be good!" all you want, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that Global warming will be a net negative for humanity. Hope you'll enjoy your new African demographic, you're going to be getting a lot more of them in the coming years.

>>11998409
This guy gets it
*pats on the back*

>>11998416
Do you know the fable of boiling frog? If it really starts happening that fast there will be backlash against it, better than being replaced slowly over decades. If there is no backlash, end result is the same anyway

>>11998410
>>11998416
The demographic changes will be the chief concern. I think if we let effected countries borrow what they need off us and we offer our support then we'll be able to help them get through it. Ireland has a good thing thing where people just forget about us so perhaps the refugees won't effect us that bad, and we can just make it so we only bring in the highly skilled ones if any.
We can make laws and the really great hings about laws is that people have to follow them or else they'll be punished.

>>11998433
I doubt it will be in the hands of Europeans to decide whether the Africans come or go. Your leaders aren't going to send them back to die in their drought ridden homelands, that will be your downfall.

Hope you now realize that whatever happens in your country of Ireland is irrelevant, completely so. What really matters is the rest of the world, North/central American breadbaskets will get destroyed, Ocean extinctions, massive refugee and humanitarian crises (which Europe will inevitably be forced to take in). If you thought 2015 was bad for immigration, you haven't seen anything. There will be billions of people in Africa vulnerable to climate change in the not-too distant future. Say goodbye to most of your coastline and food security as well.

>>11998463
>North/central American breadbaskets will get destroyed
Yeah, but most of central Canada will see huge increases in crop yields to counterbalance the loss in the American South, and the northern half of the American great plains shouldn't be too heavily impacted.

>>11998469
Canada has shit soil quality, in fact most northern countries have bad soil, it turns out Taiga environments don't store nutrients in the ground like plains. The gains are completely paltry compared to what the US will lose, not to mention Mexico. Claiming that Canada, Russia, Sweden or whatever will be able to recoup the massive losses predicted for countries closer to the equator is complete cope.

>>11998469
>Yeah, but most of central Canada will see huge increases in crop yields
This.

>>11998463
>Europe will inevitably be forced to take in
Wrong.
>Say goodbye to most of your coastline
Overexagerated

>>11998373
climate change isn't a problem unless you live in the wrong place.

>>11998463
I will never understand this argument. Borders can always be closed if need be, we also have mediternian sea so its way easier than for example US/mexico border. There is just lack of political will at the moment. You are forgetting that 2015 almost caused EU to fall apart and what you are describing is much worse so it would dramatically change things.
Also how is it over fault that they wont stop procreating. They say Nigeria alone will have over billion people by the year 2100. If they had 100 million people instead their enviroment might have the capacity for it. But they chose to be r-strategist and somehow Europeans have to pay for it

>>11998499
lmao, you guys have already taken in how many? I remember seeing a statistic that about a fifth of all German school age children are foreign born. Despite pressure from the public your leaders are STILL letting in a net positive of immigrants, are you guys suddenly going to change in a few years? Europe doesn't know what it's in for.

>>11998504
This. So much.

>>11998504
irrelevant. They can be contained, but Global warming is rendering where they live inhospitable, you would think they would want to go somewhere a little more hospitable huh?

>>11998515
in the next few decades: western yurop will be a turd world region, murrica will be burned down by rioting niggers and baizuo. russia, china, and india will take the world stage.

>>11998533

>>11998502
Where do you think the vast majority of the world's agriculture comes from?

>>11998545
>percentage of labor force engaged in agrobiz
>same as output

>>11998545

>>11998551
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_producing_countries_of_agricultural_commodities
Many top exporters are red countries anon. Face it, the world will be in dire straights agriculturally, your meme northern countries are literally nothing compared the output of the south.

>>11998567
>Cereal First Second Third
>Barley Russia France Germany

>>11998567
>economics are stagnant
>new businesses never open

>>11998558
Wheat is not a drought tolerant crop. By 2050 it'll all be confined to northern Russia.

>>11998580
problem?

>>11998570
When is the last time you ate barley? It's not a highly demanded crop for food.

>>11998585
Yeah, the world will be a terrible place if we let global warming go unmitigated. It's practically guaranteed whether you want to believe it or not. Your cushy celtic country won't save you, remember that.

>>11998587
>Wheat China India Russia

>>11998538
Ireland will be based forever by the very nature of our being

>>11998587
significant amounts of agriculture are devoted to feeding animals. there are hundreds of billions of cows, chickens, and pigs that are bred for human consumption. if basedbean crops fail say goodbye to your steak and bacon.
fish farming is unironically the future, i can elaborate on this if needed

>>11998600

>>11998598
western yurop is doomed eventho it doesn't have to be, but the world isn't that cucked everywhere.

>>11998605
Please do, last time I checked most fishing is unsustainable. That combined with the dropping blood oxygen content of ocean fish, I highly doubt fishing has a future.

>>11998612
Stfu

>>11998545
That doesn't mean agriculture couldn't become mainstream up north again. There's nothing stopping them in the event of a hotter world, especially with newer and better farming techniques.

>>11998605
>fish farming is unironically the future
Oh dear. Let me hear what you have to say at least, before I finish you.

>>11998626
>>11998660
Modern fishing is unsustainable because of the simple reality that it has not undergone the radical changes that farming underwent with the Industrial and Green Revolutions. From the 1700s, livestock raising has effectively become an industriao mechanism, look at the factory farms that make chicken nuggies for an extreme example. Using science and industry, we have made the land itself more productive, in order to make animao husbandry more productive.
In contrast, our methods of fishing have become more advanced, but the raising and feeding of fish via the marine ecosystem has remained unchanged. This is why fishing is unsustainable, because it is applying industrial methods of capture and killing to a fundamentally primordial habitat and population. Cows and chickens have been bred to give us more meat, but the fish we eat today are the same fish we ate in the Bronze Age.
But fish farms hold promise. For most of history, man got his protein from fish, not meat; fish are far more efficient mass-wise for protein since they are effectively all muscle with little skeleton. Rather than eating bugs in our future, we should retain our dignity and eat farmed fish instead.
>>11998653
Higher average temperatures mean hotter heatwaves. I recall this or last summer Siberia had extended heatwaves above 100*F. But I think heat is still underestimated. Projections for CO2 levels by the end of the century without significant limitations to emissions are somewhere in the 700 ppm range or higher. All of human existance we were around 200 ppm, right now we are at 400 ppm. 700 ppm hasn't been seen in the past 10 million years, if not more. Not to mention that water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas, and as temperature increases evaporation increases which creates a positive feedback loop. I don't think humanity will end since we're very perservent, but the west and industrial civilization certainly may not survive.

>>11998791
>Projections for CO2 levels by the end of the century without significant limitations to emissions are somewhere in the 700 ppm range or higher.
That will be good for plants. It will be a new Cambrian explosion.

>>11998823
except to accomodate the expansion of deserts and the aforementioned deforestation of land to make farmland will erase any gains in carbon absorption
also plants didn't exist during the cambrian explosion so i'm not sure if you're retarded or baiting

>>11998871
Takes one to know one

Reminder carbon dioxide is plant food and it will do no harm to the planet.

I used to believe quite strongly that climate change was an existential risk. But....
Consider the way the uber-rich conduct themselves nowadays: mega mansions, private jets, all of that. In addition, the megacorps that run the world (Exxon, Google, Amazon, the Chinese state owned companies, etc.) don't seem to care about the effects of global warming. I can accept that Western nations and companies are short-sighted by the nature of their democratic systems, but what about China? That country thinks about events 50+ years in the future. Why aren't they going all out to mitigate global warming if it's an extinction level threat?

I think global warming is a bad thing, and we'd all be better off moving to renewable energy. But the actions of those in charge suggest to me that while it may cause many problems, global warming is not even close to the doomsday event some people say it is.

>>11998920
China is trying, but they recognize that their population is far to large to support with renewables, hence the extermination camps.

>>11999032
There are not enough Uyghurs in China for such a program to make an appreciable dent in the country's population. Those camps are built to handle Muslims, not global warming.

>>11999054
2 million phones were disconnected from China last year.

>>11998920
I think most world leaders will not be alive in 50 years, so they might not see a problem with global warming.

>>11999032
>China is trying
Oh dear. I'm sorry to tell you that they are definitely not

>>12000410
ha! fooled I see
Xi Jinping literally banned Peppa pig, how could you fall any of China's transparent lies. Dense

>>11998373
>To me the scientific evidence is undeniable

>>12000505
I'm open to changing my mind if the facts of it change. What do you do?
Do you information about climate change that nobody else knows and you don't believe it?

>>11998889
Reminder that ignoring global warming and ocean acidification doesn't make it go away.

>>12000597
What's so bad about ocean acidification? Nothing we can't fix right?

>>12000608
>What's so bad about ocean acidification?
The destruction of ecosystems we rely on.

>Nothing we can't fix right?
How?

>>11998373
Scientific facts. The demons and gods are frozen in antarctica. OP is brainlet.

>>12000608
No you can't fix it, coral bleaching and whatnot. It's just makes the ocean gross.

>>12000617
>How?
With technology and capitalism

>>12000623
That doesn't explain anything. What technology? The only solution that actually exists is to mitigate emissions.

>>11998416
Why do we have to let them in? The MG42 exists for a reason

>>12000654
>The only solution that actually exists is to mitigate emissions.
No one is going to do that so you have to come up with a better solution.

>>12000700
It's called a diet, fatty

>>12000819
Takes one to know one

>>11998373
Pretty sure most people think climate change happens. Everyone knows it was hot during the dinosaurs and then there was an ice age and now we're here.

Point is, at what rate. Everyone is telling me humans are speeding it up at absolutely fucked rates, and to prove that they promised me twice in my lifetime that NYC would be under water by now.
So at this point I'm out.
I still do my part because I like clean air and clean parks/neighborhoods and whatnot, but I can't argue for you. Get your shit together and your story straight and your solutions in order. Because it really is starting to look like a tax hike scam.

>>12000654
>the only solution is to mitigate emissions
Based
We either all pollute less
Or we have less of us polluting

>>12001108
Is that why a diet is such a foreign concept to you?

>>12001379
Yikes!

>>12000597
What are you going to do about it anon? Can you save us?

>>12000654
>mitigate emissions
will cost about 30 trillion to the global economy by 2100
> iron fertilization
costs much less. Sure its not an at source sollution, but how the fuck are you going to convince people to reduce their living standards to the tune of 30 trillion?

>>12001553
Based.

>>11998373
Climate change
Sure its real. But it would happen even if humans were not in the picture. The entire geographic history of earth is evidence of that.
Man made climate change is real too. But its a function of population a la energy consumption.
You can't control that.
Nor can you reverse it without radically reducing the population.
For the record marching in the streets bloxking roads and mass transport does jack shit for the environment.
Where are these people now anyways? Eating mcdonalds and buying new hipster masks and alcohol non degradable wipes that end up in landfill I bet.

>>12001877
Last point
Environmentalists at no stage have agreed or stated what an ideal environment is.

>>11998373
>and that’s despite 97% of climate scientists saying that the earth is slowly getting hotter every year
this is not true. Where this number comes from is gathering a bunch of abstracts from papers, then applying a specific and biased definition for climate change to see if they agreed. Spoiler alert, it's total bullshit.
Here's a video debunking a lot of climate change myths. Enjoy.
https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU

>>12002290
I see

>>11998376
When American and Chinese breadbaskets collapse world war III will be inevitable. Your pathetic country will end up as a fucktoy for whoever arrives first. Have fun.

>>12001880
The stable climate all of human agriculture relies on is pretty great.

>>12002290
>tony heller
Damn you still post this guy after he got his asshole gaped in the marketplace of ideas multiple times by potholer?

>>12002290
It's interesting how many graphs he presents that supposedly refute climate change, but literally none of them refute the core point: CO2 increases Earth temperatures. Burning is influenced by agriculture, also, he just so fails to mention that his data on fires were cherrypicked from places which experienced the 1930s American dustbowl, which is a pretty big blowout to any credibility I would give to this guy. It seems

>>12004945
His graphs are there to refute alarmists claims like "wild fires up" and "sea levels rising". He doesn't deny that co2 is a greenhouse gas that can heat up the earth, though he does severely criticize the data management of the instrumental record done by temperature stations.
>he just so fails to mention that his data on fires were cherrypicked from places which experienced the 1930s American dustbowl
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, the data is from the usda so it should be fairly accurate, and I am pretty sure the data started being collected in 1926 if you mean the start date.

>>12004917
what potholer did was pick out small parts of heller's argument then make that the whole video and supposedly debunking the whole thing. He never addressed the data tampering which is heller's main argument. He also never responding to his live debate challenge, I've seen potholer deflect on this countless times even when being asked directly. Sad!

>>12005710
Sea levels are objectively rising, there's just no question about it so the guy must be a quack if he thinks he can refute it with some youtube video

>>12005716
Watch 5:19 of the video to see what he actually argues.

>>12005729
If it's not "yes, yes they do" then hes wrong. And no I'm not going to watch a fucking youtube video, if he has an argument I'm sure he can back it up with actual science.

>>12005743
Okay then if you want to be like that I'll paraphrase. Sea levels have been rising at the same rate ever since they have been recorded at 1850, so it is not due to human activities which climate alarmist push. Moreover, sea level changed dramatically 16000 years ago and has been relatively constant since 8000 years ago.
The point is not that sealevels are rising, it's that it's not due to human activities and new york won't be underwater.

>>12005751
That's wrong, sea level rise is accelerating and it's direct consequence of climate change which in turn is caused by human emissions. 1850-1950 sea levels rose by average of about 1mm a year, today they are rising about 3mm a year, but if he has actual evidence to the contrary then you could post it for him

>>12005766
This is the graphic used in the video. It clearly cannot be explained by climate change.

>>12005777
should specify human caused climate change

>>12005777
>takes one station instead of a larger data set (or the actual satellite data on it)
I believe in the industry they call this one a "cherry pick", even that one shows 3mm a year and

>It clearly cannot be explained by climate change.
It can be with human action, you will understand if you know where that tide gauge is.

You can take a wider look here, you will see clear acceration on various time scales
https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/sea-level-changes/
Or browse the source material directly here
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/

>>12005818
You are correct that it is only one tide gauge in new york, however it should be enough to show that new york won't be underwater. He's another tide gauge graph.

>you will see clear acceration on various time scales
It only shows a clear acceleration after 1800.

>>12005864
>shows clear acceleration after 1800
It's almost as if it's accelerating based on some factor like global temperature rise.

>>12005877
>It's almost as if it's accelerating based on some factor like global temperature rise.
which is supposedly because of co2 levels produce by humans through emissions. Most emissions were released after 1900, not before steam engines because popular.

>>12005891
Which is why it was raising only about 1mm per year from 1850 to 1950 and is now going along at 3 and accelerating.

>>12005894
You can look at various graphs on the noaa website, I have not found any in the US that show a clear upwards trend. All of them very stable.

>>11998376
Bruh, of course how you produce your electric power matters, environmentalists have been saying that for a long time, which is why they are pushing for renewables and, if they are not spooked, for nuclear power.

>>12005901
They need to be pushing for natural and nuclear, not renewables. The only green energy that is actually good is hydro, the rest are too unreliable to use even with a massive power storage infrastructure.

>>12005926
meant natural gas and nuclear