/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12579530
Chief driver is world population growth. Wind turbines and batteries aren't going to make 15 billion people sustainable.

>>12579530

Lots of dikes since the models show ice melting is going to happen anyways. Also, hope you aren't dependent on snow packs for water because you are screwed. Be hopeful you live in a food exporting nation that can just grow their own food when food prices skyrocket and countries start hoarding.

People won't die directly from it, but you might have massive migrations and wars starting because of it though.

According to the geologic record, the times that the Earth was the warmest and had the highest CO2 concentrations were also the times when life was more abundant and prosperous. Cold times have always been a bane on life.

>>12579985
Could you tell me what modern species existed back then? How about industrial agriculture? How did our current staple crops like rice corn and wheat do back then?

>>12579530

Worst case scenario you're looking at is acidification of the oceans leading to the demise of most sealife in the world and desertification of huge amounts of amounts of land reducing arable land and reducing worldwide food production by 50%. Not world ending but expect a fuckton of the global human population to die off. Not just for third world countries either but first world ones are gonna be hit pretty hard too.

>>12580026
Desertification is largely a meme, increased temperatures mean more precipitation from a faster water cycle.
Anoxic ocean is pretty scary though

>>12580026
What kind of lands will remain arable?

>>12580038
anoxic ocean isn't necessarily the end, there are plenty of fish in lakes and rivers that can breathe air, as well as all the ocean mammals. when shit hits the fan, they'll eventually repopulate. a lot of shit will be gone, but we'll have a future ocean of porpoises, lungfish, and carp. maybe octopi too since they can already technically breathe on land by circulating water through their gills, which could hypothetically get enough oxygen via the air to maintain breathability.

>>12579530
global wamring is a scam we've been at 400ppm CO2 for a century, much lower in all previous history bar mass extinctions.
Stop beliving fairytales, we'll be fine.

>>12579530
Somewhere between; 'real bad' and 'even worse.'
Like, we're a mass-extinction event.

>>12580026
Desertification is a retarded meme. Like rains will just stop falling because heat.

>>12580167
I don't see how that image is wrong. We never reversed global warming by 2000 and scientist's predictions have been confirmed, a few of them well ahead of schedule.

>>12579530
>It seems like we have no chance of slowing down the global industrial machine
It's a shame, because if you look up a lot of the models they all admit that we can actually turn this all around if we took action to get a handle on our industry.
All the models predicting doom and gloom have the assumption that we will continue to prioritise economic growth no matter what.

>>12580190
20 years before that it was we're heading to an ice -age!

>>12580196
Found the big-oil propaganda shill.

>>12579978
>Be hopeful you live in a food exporting nation that can just grow their own food
I wouldn't be hopeful.
If you're a food exporter like Australia or NZ, you're getting invaded by China, or having your food sent to the US first, and prices will continue to skyrocket for the domestic consumer.

>>12579530
this shit makes me want to fedpost so hard, how we basically get consigned to a shit future or extinction because of a few selfish fucks at the top

>>12580045
>ocean mammals
Ocean mammals feed on fish, which breathe water.

Besides, anoxic ocean isn't just about completely suffocating 99% of fish species, it'll also lead to acidification which will kill off most hard shelled mollusks. The only possible species I can see in the ocean is jellyfish, they've been blooming more lately. In all likelihood by 2050 jellyfish will probably be 70% of the life in the ocean, with some of their predators, phytoplankton and some other hardy fish species which could survive up to that point.

As long as the Earth will develop interesting and varied complex life after humanity bites it, I'll feel fine. Shame about all the amazing organisms that are going to go extinct because of our negligence, though. Sucks real bad.

>>12580188
On Venus, the rain falls, but evaporates before falling to the ground.

>>12579676
>Chief driver is world population growth. Wind turbines a

>THIS

>>12579530
Pump saltwater into the endorheic basins, and productive reflexive surfaces from the salt.

>>12580396
productive = produce

>>12579676
>Chief driver is world population growth
Incorrect, it's how we produce energy. If we used clean sources of energy and doubled the population, emissions would decrease. Removing population growth on the other hand would leave emissions exactly where they are.

>>12580356
the average temperature here will never rise above 100°C, I guarantee you

>>12579985
The problem is not simply about being warm or high CO2, it's the rate of change being extremely rapid. High rates of climate change are associated with mass extinctions, not abundance.

>>12580007
>Could you tell me what modern species existed back then?
cockroaches
>How about industrial agriculture? How did our current staple crops like rice corn and wheat do back then?
industrial society and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

>>12580038
>Desertification is largely a meme, increased temperatures mean more precipitation from a faster water cycle.
That's a massive oversimplification. There will generally be more precipitation where precipitation is already high, but dry areas will become drier due to Hadley cell expsnsion.

>>12580167
>we've been at 400ppm CO2 for a century,
Why are you lying?

>much lower in all previous history bar mass extinctions.
Whose history?

>>12580501
Check on the Ted on this guy!

>>12580196
Why are you lying?

>>12580510
That graph only goes back 400 years. Stretch it out to 5 million and then we can start talking.

>>12579530
slightly

>>12579530
It won`t be an existential threat to life, humanity or human civilization but the rapid change of habilitization zones will mean severe social problems that could lead to millions of dead and social crisis worldwide.

>>12580733

>>12580737
hmm but animals are adapted to modern temperatures and they will die of when it gets warmer, right?

>>12580746
No. They will just change their habitat.

>>12580753
sometimes they cannot find colder habitat, also it is not easy to change habitat, it requires adaptation-evolution that lasts many generations

>>12580759
Many species will go extinct, yes. But life and human civilization will continue. Climate change is no apocalypse. Still, it would be better if we take control over the climate and shape it to our benefit.

>>12580489
Research the life stage of a star. I guarantee it will pass from 100ºC.

>>12580356
Earth has no enough carbon or methane to ever develop Venusian states. It will sooner be burned by the sun or be dismantled by posthumans.

>>12581018
It is at that moment, that life will be possible only on Titan (moon of the planet Saturn).

>>12581330
Or more likely in space habitats. But I predict that is more likely that in the next 100 millions of years posthumanity will have converted the sun into a stellar engine, lifted all necessary mass and become a digital lifeform that spreads multiple galaxies and in a billion years will have colonized the local supercluster.

>>12580714
>That graph only goes back 400 years
Yes, more than enough to disprove your lie that "we've been at 400ppm CO2 for a century."

>Stretch it out to 5 million and then we can start talking.
Why? So you can pretend humans existed 5 million years ago?

>>12581343
>converted the sun into a stellar engine
Type Star Trek

>>12580486
you are a retarded fuck, man. What about the food for the +100% of population

>>12581742
Are you blind? Less than 15% of emissions are from non-energy sources. So doubling population would still result in a reduction of emissions by 70%.

>>12580486
Still incorrect. The main thing is massive consumerism in wealthy 1st world countries

we're literally living in an interglacial period, meaning a temporary warm season during an ice age, and yes we are currently in an ice age in case you didn't know, this interglacial period or warm season, separates the glacial periods when the temperatures drop really low and the ice volume goes up all around the planet, and why am i saying all of this? because guess what, before every new glacial period starts over you get a gradual global temperature increase, meaning it gets warmer and warmer before everything freezes for thousands of years again. and there's more, usually an interglacial period lasts for approximately 10,000 years, and guess how long our current interglacial has been going for? 11,700 years. so, all things considered, it's much more likely that we are seeing the natural transition to the next glaciation than an artificial warmth process

>>12581854
pic related

>>12581776
Incorrect, it's how we produce energy. If we used clean sources of energy and doubled consumption, emissions would decrease.

>>12581854
>because guess what, before every new glacial period starts over you get a gradual global temperature increase
No, that's what occurs at the beginning of the interglacial period. That occurred about 10000 years ago. The temperature then slowly decreases back into a glacial period. Instead, we are warming at a rate 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming. There is nothing natural or cyclical about this.

>>12581858
That's fine, but your graph doesn't have temperatures past the 1800s, and it's not even global temperature.

>>12581761
>15% of emissions are from non-energy sources
so 85% of emissions are from energy sources
>doubling the population would result in a reduction of emissions by 70%

how in the fuck does that follow, again?? nevermind.. don't bother answering.
jesus christ its just more delusional ramblings from another deluded growth monger cultist LOL it's fucking comical at this point... like listening to some priest telling a little boy that diddling them is part of god's plan.

>>12579530
>What will the world look like in 50 years?
Same as today as far as climate is concerned.

>>12581904
>so 85% of emissions are from energy sources
More.

>how in the fuck does that follow, again??
100-85+15 = 30

>>12581909
Source?

>>12581911
oh.. i c
when you put it that way...

You are still a FUCKWIT RETARD KYS

>>12580356
So you are saying the oceans will boil over and we will live inside a cloud of supercritical water?

>>12581926
So you agree dirty energy is the main problem and not population growth.

>>12581854
>gradual global temperature increase
human-caused global warming is in no way gradual

>>12581926
you need to be an adult to post on this board

>>12582026
There is zero temperature increase but there should be. Global warming will A C C E L E R A T E the weather. Prepare to have more rain and bigger rivers along with that heat

>>12581950
I'm sorry the system of believes you've developed to rationalize your gluttony is completely antithetical to anything science and even downright insulting to anyone with a modicum of intuition or common decency, but anyway I'm going to try to broaden your horizons with a simple equation that is no doubt considered blasphemy by members of the delusional economics cult

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT

in conclusion, i don't agree with people like you on anything. I think you're all just a bunch of primitive psychotic fucking orcs.

>>12582051
Even if you're right, no one's going to listen to you if you're an insufferable cunt.

>>12580356
Water has a latent heat of vaporization. It cannot evaporate faster just because the weather is hotter, it needs a steady energy input from the sun, which is constant at any local temperature. Whats going to happen is the evaporation will saturate the air with vapor until a new equilibrium is found with more humidity at a higher temperature. So hot and humid like the amazon.

>>12580486
Every time we've come close to our ability to feed ourselves, a new invention or technology has appeared that has allowed us to increase agricultural production. There's no reason to believe this will not continue. We already have a huge excess of food, we just don't distribute it well or we waste it on feeding livestock which is calorically non-productive, requiring 100,000 calories of plants to produce 1,000 calories of consumable meat.

>>12582075
Thats a dangerous slippery slope.

>>12582067
If people insist on shitting all over their own kitchen table because "an insufferable cunt" told them not to, then that is their prerogative.

>>12582075
>There's no reason to believe this will not continue.
Clearly you've looked into these matters thoroughly, and are indeed a very deep thinker.

LOL

>>12582051
great post, thank you. We should start improving the world by killing the retarded fag you replied to

>>12581901
>That's fine, but your graph doesn't have temperatures past the 1800s, and it's not even global temperature.

wut, it literally says in there 'thousands of years ago', it goes from 450,000 years ago to today, and yes it is global temperature, why the fuck would anyone evaluate 500,000 years of american temperature lol

>>12582134
Its impossible to measure the temperature from centuries or milennia ago. I know about the oxygen isotopes methods, complete bonkers. Tree rings method is also inaccurate.

>>12579530
It will be fine, we're actually still in an ice age.

The only "bad" thing is for city planners and businesses who will suffer from flooding. But as a species it will do fucking nothing to humans and won't even impede our continued advancement.

>>12582197
It would do you good to study the work of this heretic, consumer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Georgescu-Roegen

>>12582169
I agree the tree ring method is unreasonable, but the oxygen isotope/ice core method is fairly reliable.

>>12582047
>There is zero temperature increase
Source?

>but there should be.
Source?

>>12582051
OK, but none of that responds to what I said. The problem is dirty energy. We are already capable of replacing it. Population growth is not the primary factor behind global warming.

>>12582234
So let me get this straight, heavy oxygen evaporates less from the ocean and light oxygen evaporates more, rains are enriched with light oxygen. This is somehow an accurate proxy for (global) temperature measurements?

>>12582253
Take your thinly veiled nuclear shilling elsewhere. Maybe make another thread?

>>12582267
>nuclear shilling
Nuclear is legitimately the best chance we have at converting to clean energy. It has a much higher power yield than solar and wind. Why are you against it?

>>12582134
>wut, it literally says in there 'thousands of years ago', it goes from 450,000 years ago to today
No, ice core data ends in the 1800s. Ice at the top of the core is not usable.

>and yes it is global temperature, why the fuck would anyone evaluate 500,000 years of american temperature lol
No, they are the temperatures in two locations in Antarctica. Why are you just making shit up?

>>12582197
>It will be fine, we're actually still in an ice age.
Humans have always been in an ice age, how does that make unprecedented warming "fine?"

>>12582273
He's against anything that allows humans to flourish. He will blame any problem on growth. It's a pathology.

>>12582273
Until fusion becomes a thing. Nuclear sux. Get over it.

>>12582826
Better than fossils. Until we get fusion (SPARC and other seem promising) its our best source.

>>12582917
Still worse than wind though.

>>12582988
Solar is better than wind.

>>12582790
Non-renewable resources
EROEI
These things are reality.
Whatever psychotic infinite growth doctrine you need to believe in to justify your bloated, self-indulgent lifestyle is not.

>>12583269
>Non-renewable resources
>EROEI
>These things are reality.
OK. How does this make growth bad?

>Whatever psychotic infinite growth doctrine you need to believe in to justify your bloated, self-indulgent lifestyle is not.
Where did I say anything about infinite growth?

>>12579530
Evolutionary developed drives toward maximal reproduction and self-preservation are helluva drugs. My bet is on; this place will get as bad as possible until we're literally teetering on causing our own extinction.

>>12583204
Depends where. Wind should work well in Antarctic dry valleys where the katabatic effect rules. Of course you wouldn't rely on solar there - that would work well for Atacama. Baja California too I expect.

It will get so bad esteemed cities like New York and Los Angeles will be destroyed, truly a tragic loss

>>12579530
Literally fucking nothing will happen. It's genuinely all bullshit. Remember we're supposed to have already lost all coastal cities. The minor temperature rises we are having is just normal solar activity variation (cycling), and we've had more extreme in recorded history.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Climate doomsday cult were to blame issues from our massive overpopulation on 'global warming', if/when they finally come.

>>12583614
>Remember we're supposed to have already lost all coastal cities
No we aren't. Some sensationalist politician or newspaper may have said that but no peer reviewed paper has ever made that claim (feel free to find a paper that does say that). The changing climate has not only followed scientific models very accurately but in some cases exceeded the rate of warming predicted

>>12583643
>sensationalist media and politicians

Look for published papers that make those claims based on empirical evidence, I promise you will find nothing

>>12582067
>ewen iw you'we wight, no wone's woing to wisten wo wou iw you'we an inswuffewable wunt!

>>12582781
Ice cores are bullshit. At least as a proxy for temperature.

>>12583269
EROEI is cope. Doomers reject perfectly good energy sources for irrelevant tangential reasons. Any EROEI above 1 is good to go.

>>12579676
Exactly this, but you rarely hear it. Only the symptoms are addressed, not the cause. Stop over-breeding, tards.

>>12583639
>My model is so accurate it exceeds accuracy
There is zero warming.

>>12583654
So you recognize global warming is bullshit? Good

>>12583643
>As is customary in military and defense-related projects, the authors describe a worst case scenario (not a prediction) for abrupt climate change," the company said. "They note that 'the purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable—to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on national security.' Contrary to some recent media coverage, the report was not secret, suppressed, or predictive.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4379905

>>12583614
>Remember we're supposed to have already lost all coastal cities.
Source?

>The minor temperature rises
Not minor.

>just normal solar activity variation (cycling)
We are at a grand solar minimum. According to the solar cycle, we should be cooling. Why are you lying?

>we've had more extreme in recorded history.
Like what?

>>12584195
Because?

>>12584206
Why are you lying?

>>12584210
No, he's saying that article is bullshit.

>>12581928
>>12582069
the greenhouse effect can destroy the atmosphere and in this way the water will evaporate into outer space

>>12584551
Earth would need 100 times more methane/carbon for that to occur.

>>12584489
Because oxygen isotope ratios are useless as a proxy for temperature

>>12584499
Every article that embarrasses you doesnt count amirite?

>>12584551
Take your meds dumb cultist

>>12584495
>look at this drawing
1 degree? And whats the margin of error? Who compiled these temperatures? Where? On an airport tarmac? On the geophysical sciences building roof? On a forest? Underwater? Pure garbage. Imagine believing anyone took accurate temperature readings worldwide! in 1840.

>>12583204
>>12582988
Solar and wind don't produce no VARs. You no can run big motor thingies and no run transmission for bigly distance. You both dumb shits that post repuketate rhetoric from you faggot political agendas. Solar and wind can't run industry.

>>12579530
I've let my car idle outside for hours every day ever since Al Gore invented Powerpoint just begging global warming to wipe out the coasts.

>>12584651
How exactly does bad reporting embarrassing me? If anything, it embarrasses you since you posted it without checking its credibility.

>>12584646
The data disagrees. Also, the ice cores we're talking about use deuterium, not oxygen isotopes.

>>12584641
A huge volcanic eruption, which can cover the entire atmosphere with smoke, is enough to cause the greenhouse effect. With the greenhouse effect, the clouds keep the surface constantly increasing in temperature. Rising temperature, greater evaporation.

>>12584655
>Take your meds dumb cultist
did you skip school or never go to school?

>>12584667
>>look at this drawing
Who are you quoting?

>1 degree?
More.

>And whats the margin of error?
Pic related.

>Who compiled these temperatures?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

>Where?
Everywhere.

>Pure garbage.
Your baseless opinion is irrelevant.

>Imagine believing anyone took accurate temperature readings worldwide! in 1840.
There's no data for 1840, no wonder you spout false claims. You can't even read a graph.

Feel free to present your data showing "zero warming." Until then, you're a proven liar.

>>12579530
>global industrial machine

What's fueling that is basically people who are either uneducated, mentally ill, unsettled, lazy etc. By helping people, you can massively make huge portions of populations be sensible with their habits, it will benefit them too if the help is done right.

>>12584873
Cope. Your kind has been promising fire and brimstone for 40 years.

>>12584896
You can't measure temperatures by measuring isotope ratios. Dumbest shit ever. Prove me wrong.

>>12584954
I have a master in physics, dumb doomsday cultist

>>12584997
>Berkeley earth, founded 2010
Negro you have been shilling this garbage for 40 years

>>12584997
Garbage measurements from 1905 done on the roof of a student's dormitory in England. Nobody was measuring temperatures with any accuracy even 100 years ago. Much less globally.

>>12585001
No I haven't. Try again.

>>12584997
Your data is garbage and always has been. Nobody was measuring global temperatures with any accuracy 150, 100 or even 50 years ago.

>>12585035
You are still doing it. Just in this thread you said the oceans would boil over. You really have no shame.

>>12585004
>You can't measure temperatures by measuring isotope ratios.
You can and we have.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance

Loser.

>>12585014
No idea what you're talking about.

>>12585025
>Garbage measurements from 1905 done on the roof of a student's dormitory in England.
That's a nice story.

>Nobody was measuring temperatures with any accuracy even 100 years ago.
But they were. Cry more.

And yet again you fail to present any data. Liar.

>>12585041
>Just in this thread you said the oceans would boil over.
No I didn't. Can't stop lying can you?

>>12585085
No they were not. Im not going to rely on the word of some british explorer that hung a mercury thermometer at a hut in Congo in 1885 as SERIOUS DATA. Im more willing to trust geophysical data however all geophysical methods are garbage too. Oxygen isotope ratios? LMAO

>>12585037
>Your data is garbage and always has been.
Wrong. See >>12584997

>Nobody was measuring global temperatures with any accuracy 150, 100 or even 50 years ago.
They were. You have no argument. Liar.

>>12585037
Retard

>>12584942
The Permian extinction was similiar but earth did not turn into a Venus 2 0.

>>12585139
LMAO you actually believe people did accurate global temperature measurements in 1900. Across all continents, in water, on the atmosphere, across all seasons. Who exactly funded this epic data gathering operation? Nobody. Its always done on the roof of the students dormitory in Oxford.

>>12585122
Luckily your ignorant opinion is irrelevant to science.

>>12585152
You've had several posts to explain why the data is "garbage" and you've failed every single time. Having a tantrum is not an argument.

>>12584200
You cant have significant growth in wealth if EROEI is too close to 1. Feudal agriculture had an EROEI above 1.

>>12585155
Science is not a person. Science doesnt care. Its not my fault you have blind faith in dumb tales you read in a book that you can't verify. Have you actually studied the temperature records? The methodology? The weather stations? Each of them for hundreds of years. LMAO you know nothing. You just found a graph with TEMPERATURE UP GUYS and you BELIEVE it and that's the full extent of your fake science.

>>12585162
I gave you my explanation. You dont even know where the data came from but you will defend it with religious zeal because it says "DATA" on page 1.

>>12585164
Too close to 1 is problematic but you doomers think EROEI 10 is bad. You think anything is bad except for the richest shallow inland Saudi oil wells.

>>12585122
So what about the data from the past 30 years you retard?

It will literally kill humanity, the earth will be fine.

>>12585169
>Science is not a person. Science doesnt care.
Correct, where did I say anything to the contrary? Not only are you a liar and incapable of making a coherent argument, apparently you can't even read correctly.

>Have you actually studied the temperature records?
Have you?

>You just found a graph with TEMPERATURE UP GUYS and you BELIEVE it and that's the full extent of your fake science.
No. Berkeley Earth, a group of skeptical scientists formed with the specific purpose of testing the validity of the temperature record, compiled the data. Get over it, you fucking crybaby.

>>12585186
That i can trust more. But still fake. You know what's so great about the scientific method? You dont have to trust authorities, you can check everything in a lab. Too bad nobody can check which fucked up massaged numbers came out of station #15 in Congo in 1985. Sorry pal, if i can't check it myself i dont trust it. Im willing to believe geophysical data though.

>>12585178
>You dont even know where the data came from
Berkeley Earth does. You don't, yet you make up stories about it as if that's an explanation.

>>12585198
>Skeptical non-biased scientists
>Berkeley
LMAO

>>12585213
Oh so you BELIEVE them? You are a Believer? That's ok, i too believe in things.

>>12585212
If you can't check it yourself you don't trust it eh? Have you ever been to Africa? How can you be sure that exists?

>>12585216
You are literally a brainlet

>>12585212
Nice solipsism, retard.

>>12585216
Please show how they're biased.

>>12585219
Retard, you don't believe empirical science. It either succeeds or fails.

>>12579530
It makes me so mad how the people in power don't give a crap at all. Xi has a daughter, Putin has kids, Trump has grandkids, etc. These guys do realize their kids/grandkids are going to suffer from global warming just like the rest of us, right? Same for oil executives, they have kids/grandkids too; why aren't they trying to solve global warming, if only for their own families' sake?

>>12585302
These guys are rich and powerful. They're going to get on their respective space programs rocket and live out the rest of their days on Mars

pee pee poo poo

>>12585178
Even if you’re right why not err on the side of caution

>>12585010
> I have a master in physics
(Seems like a master of politics).
So master! Do not suggest using medicines (take it yourself), but show your wisdom to us. At what point do you disagree?

>>12585010
>I have a master in physics
>a master
Sure you do, kid.

>>12582075
or, a lot of people died.

>>12585144
Whether the impact will be exactly as it was 5 million years ago is not yet guaranteed, but the consequences will surely continue to worsen - with severe impact on coastal cities, agricultural production, water supply and more. Remember that in the Permian period, there were no human beings.

Mother Gaia is dying we have to save her.