/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15208364
Depends on the severity. A runaway greenhouse effect definitely would.

>>15208398
>A runaway greenhouse effect definitely would.
How so?

>>15208407
The theory is that methane stored in permafrost would turn the Earth into Venus. As human activity increases the temperature of the planet, the permafrost at the edge of the freeze zone melts. The escaped methane makes the planet's temperature rise, which melts more permafrost, leading to more methane release and the whole thing becomes a self reinforcing cycle until all the permafrost has melted and the surface temperature of Earth regularly reaches 400°C.
What I haven't seen explained is why all this methane locked up in the permafrost didn't cause the same greenhouse effect back when the Earth was iceless and that methane was free in the atmosphere.

>>15208437
Because it's actually total BS and there isn't enough accessible carbon on the planet to cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Bear in mind that Venus's atmosphere is 100x denser than the earth's and instead of 4-20ppm CO2 depending on the epoch it's more like 980,000ppm CO2.

>>15208364
The Eocine didn't have a bunch of bald chimps shooting, burning and paving over everything in sight. Just saying.

>>15208437
Yes but that stuff would have been in the atmosphere during the Eocene right? Methane will eventually tun into water and co2 form what I understand. 250 million years ago the atmosphere had 5 times as much co2 and there was still life. How much extra carbon have we burned?

When the 500 nuclear reactors around the world all melt down shortly after full collapse of society... that will fry Earth's atmosphere and it will turn into another Mars.

>>15208437
The methane was not in the atmosphere during the Eocene. It was formed in swampy wetlands and stored beneath the surface. When the swamps froze the methane was trapped.

Methane clathrates beneath the ocean I do not understand.

>>15209046
>Methane clathrates beneath the ocean I do not understand.
Hydrocarbons are a naturally formed substance on every rocky planet we've ever gotten spectroscopy results from, and if I remember right all gas giants as well. It rains hydrocarbons on some of the gas giant moons, and frozen methane is just part of the ice caps of many planets. It's there because it's formed naturally and the ocean is cold enough to freeze it.

>>15208364
what you heard was a form of doomsday cultists. Traditional religion has been discredited and unpopular. The personality type attracted to old religion concepts like gehenna or armageddon moved onto the I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE sect and are the hysterics now "prediticting" the end. The same type that grossly exaggerated the effects of nuclear war like nuclear winter myth just to justify their own subversive, ulterior motives

No, a fucking paper degree does not mean shit in this context. A neurotic religious fanatic with a PhD is still a zealot at the end of the day

As for your problem about global warm weather meme making no sense skip these warmer periods and go straight to the extinction events. It is what I do whenever some hysteric brings up le nuclear war apocalypse. Take a good long moment to think how extreme these were and yet still the biosphere not only survived, but recovered and thrived after conditions normalized. Realistically the only thing that can kill off earths biosphere is a the suns death, nothing less.

>>15208364
>But during the Eocene Earth had practically no ice caps and life thrived. I understand that global warming has the potential to destroy human civilization as it stands now, but could it wipe all life off earth?

It won't, but it will make a lot of species extinct because they didn't evolve to live in the Eocene, not to mention the pressure already put on them by humans.

>>15209065
Ironically, humans did not evolve for Eocene conditions. If some humans have their way, we may become the cause of our own extinction. If climate collapse occurs the biosphere may survive but we will not.

>>15208364
>I've heard lots of talk about global warming wiping all life (or at least all human life) off earth.
By whom? Not scientists.

>But during the Eocene Earth had practically no ice caps and life thrived.
"Life" =/= modern humans. If you plopped any species into a radically different climate, they may go extinct. The question is not whether any life has thrived in a similar climate in the past, the question is whether current life has enough time to adapt to a rapidly changing climate without suffering mass extinctions. And that's exactly what we see in the past during rapid coinage changes. So it's not just the temperature that matters, it's the rate of change.

>what the fuck this schizo blogger told me this schizo thing that he heard some scientists totally say I guess that means science is wrong and I need to listen to more schizo bloggers
Reruns getting pretty tiresome.

>>15209543
What blogger?

>>15208364
unlikely, however we can absolutely take down humanity.

>>15209145
>If climate collapse occurs the biosphere may survive but we will not.
climate collapse lmao

>>15209932
Indeed which one?

>>15210265
The blogger is John Michael Greer, he has some weird ideas. I can't seem to find the exact post but his general point was that Earth wasn't going to get any hotter than in the Mesozoic and talks of all life being wiped out by climate change were bs and that we had a decent chance of survival. I made this post to see if his ideas had any merit.

>>15210397
We have a decent change of survival as a species using technology. What would be necessary would be that if you were lucky your new habitat would be a skyless underground bunker. Most people would simply die off because there aren't enough resources to bury everyone. At this point we may as well go and live on Mars. And if that is the case why wait when we could reduce pressure on Earths biosphere by colonising Mars before we break our environment. Presuming, of course, that you consider the environment is not already broken.

>>15210416
>What would be necessary would be that if you were lucky your new habitat would be a skyless underground bunker.
Are you retarded dude? The entire world becoming a rainforest paradise is a far cry from your nuclear winter scenario.

>>15210416
That's not really my question. My question is, how got will global warming make the earth? Our species has adapted to practically every climate on earth, it seems far fetched that things getting hotter could completely wipe us out.

>>15210422
Obvious you have zero background in agriculture. This is a more interesting angle than the usual threads though so if someone can provide a global map showing temperatures, extreme weather events and rainfall during Eocene conditions it would be very interesting. Maybe the Antarctica, Siberia and Alaska could become pleasant locations. Most people currently live along the equator though. Sounds even more expensive than simply moving planets.

>>15210438
Well, as has already been pointed out, the release of methane which was not present during the Eocene is the cause of concern re a runaway greenhouse effect.

>>15210397
>this schizo blogger said in a post I can't remember that this schizo thing that scientist totally say according to him doesn't actually happen which of course means science is wrong and I need to listen to more schizo bloggers
I was pretty close on that one.

>>15210469
Not what I said at all.

>>15210477
That's precisely what you said.
You took a schizo blogger, who then claimed a schizo thing and then "refuted" said schizo thing that he himself claimed and your premise implicitly trust him more because hes schizophrenic than scientific research for no other discernible reason. Or will you try to source your claims and actually find a single scientific paper that talks of "all life being wiped out by climate change" because if you can't find it, it's because it was made up schizo bullshit

>>15210445
During the Eocene most of the world was covered in rainforests with the dominant plant being tree ferns. The global climate was considered to be essentially homogeneous (not entirely but tropical and paratropical forests dominated every landmass) due to the fossil record showing rainforests and their flora and fauna at all latitudes, which baffles modern climate sois. Antarctica was like Washington State, and the Sahara was like the Amazon. Palm trees grew as far north as Alaska and the world was incredibly wet, likely due to the effects of retained heat on evaporation and precipitation.

>>15210445
During the Eocene most of the world was covered in rainforests. The global climate was considered to be essentially homogeneous (not entirely but tropical and para-tropical forests dominated every landmass) due to the fossil record showing rainforests and their flora and fauna at all latitudes, which baffles modern climate sois. Antarctica was like Washington State, and the Sahara was like the Amazon. The world was incredibly wet, likely due to the effects of retained heat on evaporation and precipitation.

>>15208364
>I've heard lots of talk about global warming wiping all life (or at least all human life) off earth. But during the Eocene Earth had practically no ice caps and life thrived. I understand that global warming has the potential to destroy human civilization as it stands now, but could it wipe all life off earth?
no, life will be fine, a lot of species won't have enough time to adapt, but others will fill in the voids and adapt, humanity will also survive, just not 8 billion of us, unless we figure out some way to have unlimited energy in the next decades our civilization will never reach the level of prosperity we are enjoying

>>15209064
How do we deal with the sun's death?

>>15210503
If anything the carrying capacity of the planet will actually increase. In an Eocene-like climate the fertility of the globe would improve to an insane degree. Every part of every content could become arable with only a little effort.

>>15210483
I'm not making any claims at all. These are just things that I've heard. I'm asking if there's any backing to these ideas.

>>15210508
Well then there are no backing to them, I guess that settles that.

>>15210513
What s the general consensus of what will happen to earth's climate after climate change takes full effect?

>>15210518
We'll have an ice age once the peak hits. We're in the warming cycle of the current ice age.

>>15210518
You can just go read some of the papers on the topics that interest you. I would start at IPCC synthesis reports as they are aimed at politicians and as such are non technical and simple to read. It's not hard and if you find it overwhelming you don't really need to know, your time is probably better spent doing something else.

>>15210520
>>15210530
I've done a bit of reading and James Hansen claims global warming could make earth uninhabitable to human life, is there good evidence to back this up?

>>15210530
>I would start at IPCC synthesis reports as they are aimed at politicians and as such are non technical and simple to read.
Literally the worst possible resource to get actual science on the topic.
>verification not required

>>15210520
Do you think humans are having an effect on the climate? Or do you think this is all natural?

>>15210537
Is there good evidence to back up what you said actually exists?

>>15210537
James Hansen is a serious charlatan. In order to con congress into believing him he scheduled his 1988 "global warming" testimony on the hottest day of the year and sabotaged the air conditioning unit with the help of an accomplice to make it seem like the earth was already in some extreme climate condition (it was just hot inside the stuffy capitol building).

>>15210540
Hes not looking for actual science, he wants entry level blog that can answer some google tier questions he has.

>>15210547
The IPCC will only give him wrong answers.

>>15210543
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3785813/

>>15210555
That's decade old research. It's already very deprecated and not taken seriously.

>>15210547
Why are you making these assumptions about me? There is no need to overreact to these questions.

>>15210558
In this case it seems like mainstream science is backing up what the schizo blogger said.

>>15210576
What do you mean? All science regarding past epochs suggests that warmer epochs were better for life.

>>15210579
Yeah that's what the blogger was saying.

>>15210505
Build a Dyson swarm of reflectors around a nearby young star and reflect it's light to Earth.

HA HA I found the blog post
https://www.ecosophia.net/the-future-is-a-landscape/

>>15209145
>the biosphere may survive but we will not.
The real tragedy is that BIPoC folx will struggle the most

>>15210552
You are free to suggest a better entry level access point for our clueless friend.

>>15210555
I think you can find that that paper doesn't seriously suggest the planet will turn uninhabitable considering the assumptions it makes.

>>15210576
It really doesn't.

>>15210561
It's quite simple, your question is answered by simple google search, the fact that you didn't perform that and instead came here to be retarded either means you are actually tarded which means you need to have your hands held e.g you probably aren't looking or couldn't make use of a real paper or are acting in bad faith, I choose to assume your motivations to be clean in which case entry level stuff is what you ought to go for. Furthermore you are clearly not interested in technicalities of climate change or modeling but more abstract level questions, when someone says science you reply with "but like what does that actually mean" which again implies you are interested in high level political answers not technicalities.
Furthermore, I don't personally consider suggesting a research paper to start out with as "ovvereaction" when asked about science, I struggle to find a logical explanation or a scenario where that would be the case.

Methane Clathrate Gun has been debunked btw

>>15210597
blogbros... not like this

>>15210605
I'm asking on 4chan because I like to see a wide range of answers that I can't get from google. I'm perfectly capable of reading scientific papers and I'm the only person in this thread that has linked to one.

>>15210615
And you got your answers in said paper that blows you out. What's the issue.

>>15210615
Look just eat the fucking bugs, alright?
Christ

>>15210619
"Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans"

>>15210584
Oh yes then he's right.

>>15210626
Thanks that's why I made the tread. I don't know why people are acting like I'm being malicious.

>>15210625
Well you can accept that or post a paper that provides different analysis. I fail to see your point, I don't think anyone actually thinks all fossil fuels will be burned and even in that very sentence it acknowledges your original claim to be wrong. Hell most of the planet already is uninhabitable by humans

>>15210633
I'm not making a point.

>>15210648
Which is my point. See how easily you got blown out, that's the result of not having any ground to stand on, take this lesson to your heart.

>>15210652
I'm almost certain you're just looking for an internet fight. I'm here to ask questions, not engage in internet drama.

>>15210493
Strange and interesting.

>>15210507
Actually very few of our food staples are suitable for tropical conditions. The bulk of our calories come from grains which grow better in arid conditions (mildew, root rot etc) and most of our livestock is better off in more temperate conditions for similar reasons. I mean we could perhaps adapt and start farming buffalo instead but that comes with complications.

This scenario does not account for additional warming resulting from the additional methane compared to the Eocene.

>>15210693
>and most of our livestock is better off in more temperate conditions for similar reasons.
This is why Brazil is raising cattle in the Amazon, I assume?
Seriously learn something about food crops lol.

global warming is fake news

>>15210693
Corn can be an incredibly adaptive crop due to it's high biodiversity. It was historically grown from Quebec to south America, I wonder how it will fare in the future.

>>15208364
>. But during the Eocene Earth had practically no ice caps
Polar Ice is a rarity on Earth. Only existed in the last few hundred thousand years.

Earth is in a cold spell right now, not Ice Age, but between them, and much cooler than normal global temperatures.

Humans need to release more sequestered C02 to warm the planet up to normal levels so as to sustain more life.

>>15210493
So does that mean that higher average temperatures don't result in more extreme climates, but rather promote both cold and hot arid climates to approach an equilibrium?
I knew about green Antarctica, but never really thought about it in context of global climate. Since it was still at extreme southern latitudes, it had the same long dark winter nights, but warm air and ocean currents must have kept it comfy through that part of the year.
So no arctic air to speak of. Were there any significant deserts around at all, or did the humid atmosphere just result I'm enough precipitation to keep everything green?
The map with all these shallow seas in between landmasses certainly looks like drier continental climates were a lot more rare

oh no, 0.6C since the late 70s which were a local temperature nadir, whatever will we do

>>15210968
assume trends continue linearly to infinity, earth on track to become fusion-capable plasma on the surface

>>15208398
>runaway greenhouse effect
Fear Porn.
Cannot happen. It is against the laws of thermodynamics and nature.

>>15210957
>So does that mean that higher average temperatures don't result in more extreme climates, but rather promote both cold and hot arid climates to approach an equilibrium?
Yes. Interestingly you can see that in modern weather patterns. Hurricane and tornado frequency and intensity are both declining.

>>15210957
>So no arctic air to speak of. Were there any significant deserts around at all, or did the humid atmosphere just result I'm enough precipitation to keep everything green?
>The map with all these shallow seas in between landmasses certainly looks like drier continental climates were a lot more rare
Dry climates didn't emerge until the end of the epoch when cooling produced deserts.

>>15209145
>the biosphere may survive but we will not.
No way.
Sure billions would die but all of us ? Impossible.

>>15210990
sure radiation is proportional to the 4th power of temperature, but trace atmospheric gases are just that potent man

>>15211016
Omugherd! How much taxes and freedom should I give the government to fix this?

>>15208364
i don't think we could wipe all life on earth, even if we tried. microbes can be found kilometers under the surface.
at worst, we'll just kill off anything bigger than a roach (think of all the cool animals you know about) and make life miserable for us.

>>15210993
Fascinating, and makes a lot of sense. Higher energy levels in a system resulting in higher homeostasis and stable feedback loops.
Could we geoengineer a similar climate? Deglaciating Greenland and Iceland, reforesting as much dryland as possible, increasing terrestrial water storage and evaporation... What else?
Coastline settlements would be screwed of cause, but it sounds like it could 20x the carrying capacity of the ecosphere.
>>15210996
>deserts didn't form until the planet cooled
Funny

>>15208364
Life thrived because it evolved in that environment. The temperature itself is not the problem, it’s rapid change.

>>15210697
Sure, and here in Australia we raise beef in arid conditions. It comes with problems. Just like in Brazil.

>>15210715
Corn probably would be suitable however it's not especially nutritious and has much lower protein content than wheat which makes it an unsuitable product for bread.

>>15210520
>we'll have an ice age while we're in an ice age

>>15211172
Rice, barley, sweet potato, taro, cassava...

>>15211187
>ice age
>rapid warming
>peak of warming
>rapid cooling
>new ice age

>>15211190
You're describing glacial periods, although your didn't even get that right. The cooling isn't rapid. Ice ages last millions of years. Not to mention that current warming is completely against the cycle you described since interglacial warming ended 10000 years ago. We should be slowly cooling, not rapidly warming. Moron.

>>15211199
You're monstrously full of shit.

>>15211188
Out of those crops I only rate sweet potato, which will rot in constantly damp soil. Rice paddies produce methane. The other crops you mentioned are unpalatable. I hope you don't like bread.

>>15211223
>Rice paddies produce methane.
Who fucking cares, retard?

>>15211227
Lol. I guess I made the mistake of posting in another moron circlejerk thread.

>>15211235
No please entertain me. Why is a natural product of the environment evil and wrong?

>>15211199
>We should be slowly cooling
That would be bad, mkay?
>>15211199
>warming
Good for life. Cold is bad. Got it yet?

>>15211251
cause racism or homophobia or extremism or something.

>>15211156
>Life thrived because it evolved in that environment. The temperature itself is not the problem, it’s rapid change.

>>15208364
>I've heard lots of talk about global warming wiping all life (or at least all human life) off earth.
From which sensationalist talking heads have you heard that tripe?

>>15211135
desert means dry, not hot - higher atmospheric temperatures means more atmospheric water

>>15208364
Global warming doesn't exist. Reject the lies don't argue them.

>>15211251
Go huff some, then come back and post your experience.

>>15208364
If industrual civilisation collapses the consequences on the environment would be catastrophic. So much polluting and toxic shit will be left to rot and poison the planet.

>>15211258
>That would be bad, mkay?
Not as bad as rapid warming.

>Good for life.
Idiotic generalization. Food is "good for you" but overeating is not.

But thanks for admitting your initial bullshit is wrong.

#ISupportUkraine

Humanity wouldn't be wiped out either

We should release more co2 to wipe out the British.

>>15211223
>muh bread
In tropical climates, you go for tree crops. Fruits and nuts. With things like breadfruit, plantains, taro and yes, rice, you can also make flour for baking. Bananas are incredibly productive in general. Also beans and squash.
For animal protein, you can go for aquaculture with fish and crustaceans. Also poultry and even grazing sheep, goats, pigs and cattle isn't a problem.

>>15211823
That's the worst part about global warming, Britain will still be above water.

>>15211344
>Global warming doesn't exist. Reject the lies don't argue them.
THREAD/

When you're thinking about our earth's climate millions or billions of years ago you have to take other stuff into consideration:
>landmass that changes
>earth rotation being faster in the past
>sun less bright in the past
and so on
It just gets very complex, especially if you go way back in time. Gases like co2 is not all that's going on.