/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15552680
>How come climate models include terms for piston and turbine engine respiration, but not for plant and animal respiration?
They do, that's where the whole "cows cause methane vegan is good for the environment" comes from. You could've at least chosen a better bait.

>>15552680
Biotic respiration is carbon neutral because the carbon was fixed from the atmosphere by plants. Engine respiration is burning fuel that was sequestered underground and effectively removed from the carbon cycle. The only cases where biotic respiration can influence the greenhouse effect is when other forms of carbon with a greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide is produced such as methane from cows as >>15552691 pointed out.

>>15552824
What about when plants consume CO2 and energy to produce sugars, effectively reducing the amount of heat in the earth system?

>>15552838
Plants are basically carbon neutral, they take co2 from the air and then die and rot or get eaten and release the co2 that way. Some of the co2 does get incorporated into the ground and some plants produce things like peat that stores it in the longer term but you are more right than wrong if you just assume there are no plants and they have no effect.
Also plants are included in models.

>>15552838
It's balanced exactly by the decomposition of those sugars. That's why a mature forest is carbon neutral. You should be more suspicious of new narratives and slogans that attempt to refute the established science. They're usually created by people who have a financial interest in convincing people that the science is wrong or flawed.

>>15552838
that doesn't count because it doesn't fit into the fraudulent global warming political narrative that the sºyence sºygoys all want to shill.

>>15552883
>>15552886
Sounds far-fetched. Doesn't pass the smell test really.

>>15552909
Your ignorance is your own problem. You asked a question, got an answer, and now you're deciding to ignore that answer because it conflicts with your beliefs. Why bother asking the question if you prefer your ignorance?

>>15553009
The answer was clearly wrong, if fossil fuels are organic in nature then plant growth cannot be carbon neutral

>>15552887
>that doesn't count because it doesn't fit into the fraudulent global warming political narrative that the sºyence sºygoys all want to shill.

>>15552909
>>15553593
Then don't ask questions you don't want to hear the answer to. What separates hydrocarbons from other organic matter is that they were dead plants/plankton sequestrated away in a low oxygen environment in large quantities over millions of years until they became coal, oil, and gas (depending on what depth they were buried).

>>15553607
how can hydrocarbons be of biological origin if they're found on other planets that have no life?

>>15554813
Umm... BECAUSE THEY JUST ARE OK?!!?!?!?!

>>15554813
because of radiodating; we can tell how old something is based on it's percentage of certain radioisotopes, a fairly well understood topic. We can date oil patches on earth to the same periods of time large quantities of microscopic algae were present on earth according to the fossil record, which can be dated similarly. Planets with longer hydrocarbons are of particular interest for potentially hosting life for this reason, and small chain hydrocarbons considered possible seeds for life.

>>15554813
>hydrocarbons of biological origin
Because they have similar chemical compositions. The most common elements in life by total mass are Carbon Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. The same things you find in coal, oil, and natural has
>if they're found on other planets
Primordial methane in the outer solar system doesn't preclude it from it occurring because of biological and geological processes on Earth. Particularly as earth lost most of its hydrogen early on after the sun ignited with the majority of what remains is in earth's water.

>>15555269
>Particularly as earth lost most of its hydrogen early on after the sun ignited
This is untrue btw. Deep-earth hydrogen pockets have been tapped for a few years now just like natural gas. It's clear that free hydrogen exists at depth and performs chemistry to make hydrocarbons.

>>15555290
I haven't seen anything to indicate that they outmass the hydrogen in the earth's oceans, at most I've heard of a trillion tons or so which 5 oom lower than what's in earth's water.

>>15554822
this, but more emphatically

>>15552883
Plants release co2 and take in oxygen during the night.

>>15556563
so does ur mom

>>15553607
burning oil and coal is carbon neutral, we are returning the carbon locked away millions of years ago to the atmosphere.

>>15556860
carbon based life needs to have access to carbon to exist, only an extremely low iq idiot would want to starve us of precious, life giving co2

>>15557221
The problem is that CO2 isn;t the only thing that's needed for plant growth and even if it was its not a linear relation.

>>15552680
because they're fake and gay

>>15557221
This post is why kids need to be taught what a false dichotomy is early and often.

>>15557221
Even at twice the CO2 concentration we have today you start to hit a bottleneck in the rate of photosynthesis. Why do you think greenhouses don't run pure CO2 atmospheres but barely around 0.1%? More than that and photosynthesis starts to shutdown. We absolutely do not want to hit the CO2 levels from 500 million years ago lest 90% of humanity starves to death.
We are not at a risk of reaching too low of a CO2 concentration. Even if you somehow removed 100% of the CO2 from the atmosphere in this instant a lot of it will get replaced by the CO2 stored as carbonic acid in the ocean.

>>15556860
What does the temperature and the CO2 level hundreds of millions of years ago have to do with the planet today?

>>15558264
>We are not at a risk of reaching too low of a CO2 concentration.
Not anymore. When (if the figures are assumed to be correct) the CO2 levels were like 180 ppm, that was pretty close to the level at which many plant species struggle with photosynthesis. Thankfully, the industrial revolution and hydrocarbons rescued the Earth from this state of CO2 depletion.

>>15558283
You're right, we almost steered right into mass extinction from the CO2 levels dropping so drastically. The industrial resolution saved our asses, could you imagine what today would look like with mass extinction?

>>15558283
>>15558292
It was so close!!

>>15558296
unrelated but I really like how they used year 0 to label the x-axis

>>15552680

>>15558283
>180 ppm
The last time the CO2 levels were even close to that was during the last ice age. For the last few thousand years the CO2 levels were very stable above 250 ppm and very slowly rising. We were never at risk of CO2 depletion.

>>15558296
If CO2 is going to cause global warming then how do you explain the dramatic historic changes in global temperature over the timespan depicted on your graph? CO2 was steadily in the 260-280 ppm range the whole time, but global temperatures changed substantially regardless

>>15552680
wypipo don season dey turbofans

>>15558379
There's no y axis?

>>15558379
>CO2 is the only factor influencing temperature!
Nobody claims that
>temperature can change without being influenced by CO2 therefore CO2 can never influence temperature!
Non sequitur
Also that's a really shitty plot. Could you not afford to post one with labeled axes and units?

>>15558379
>all of the world's great civilizations have coincided with global warm periods
>thats why global warming is bad
but also
>the christian dark ages!!!
>christians are evil
>thats why we need the climate to be the same that it was during the christian dark ages!

>>15558272
Wow you really are lacking conceptual thought huh. It's to demonstrate how all that old life that used to exist as algae turned itself into oil that we're putting back out.

>>15558794
CO2* not life, I'm stupid

>>15558782
Good point, if warm periods bring civilizations to maximum flourishing then we should be warming things up if we can

>>15558379
>no x-axis
>no y-axis
>popsci labels like "Dark Ages"
This is /sci/, fuck off.

>>15559506
Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow faster, makes life easier and better for every living creature on the planet

>>15560542
*In highly controlled conditions rarely found in nature

>>15560582
No, also in nature. It's the reason why old growth woods are so coveted for their lumber; the lower CO2 concentration means the trees grew more slowly and thus are denser and the lumber is of higher quality.

>>15560582
>he doesn't know about prehistoric giant trees

>>15560602
>>15560604
Neither of you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

>>15560954
It's a spambot.

>>15560959
Yeah the global warming shills are all spambots. It's a shame the mods don't do anything about them.

>>15559506
>if we can
we can't, co2 is not a greenhouse gas

>>15560975
Obvious spambot

>>15561392
>Imagine being this retarded

>>15561392
>absorbance spectra aren't real
You're autistic

>>15561427
name any molecule or atom that doesn't have an absorption spectrum
>zOMG!!! everything is a greenhouse gas

>>15561442
Oxygen is a piss-poor greenhouse gas. So is nitrogen.

>>15561456
So is CO2, Mars has over 2000% more CO2 per unit surface area in it's atmosphere than Earth does and Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, not even on a dead planet like Mars. On Earth CO2 catalyzes photosynthesis, which causes solar radiation to be absorbed by plants without ever being reemitted, so CO2 acts as a coolant.

>>15561476
>CO2 per unit surface area
That's not how the greenhouse effect works. Watch Sabine's latest video, it's actually good at explanation this.

>>15561476
>On Earth CO2 catalyzes photosynthesis
Please define the word catalyze for use, I'm sure this will be funny.

>>15561476
>Mars has over 2000% more CO2 per unit surface area
No, since mars' atmosphere is only 0.6% the pressure of earths
>CO2 catalyzes photosynthesis
Bro what do you think a catalyst does?

>>15561476
this, CO2 is a coolant in organic systems, if it were not then organic hydrocarbon fuels could not have any stored energy

>>15552883
>>15552886
>plants won't respond and adapt to increased CO2 levels because they just won't okay!!! look at this graph that takes the most extreme possibilities and assumes the growth rate will continue! LOOK AT THE LINE GOING UP! ARENT YOU SCARED YET!?!?? give me money

>>15562331
>He thinks evolution happens in less than a century
Everyone point and laugh.

>>15562314
Nonsense

>>15562331
CO2 is already increasing, where are the adaptations anon?

>>15562393
look in your local CO2 enhanced greenhouse, plants are already adapted to high CO2 levels, at CO2 levels below 1000ppm they are terminally hungry for more CO2

>>15562402
I'm familiar with the concept, notice that whole "toxic" part of the high end concentration? Why haven't they adapted to survive that yet if we're raising them in enriched CO2 already, surely by now they'd have improved.

>>15562379
yeah plants need to evolve over thousands of years to take advantage of more co2 that's why nobody injects extra co2 in to closed environments to make plants grow bigger and faster and more productive

>>15562406
how many lineages of plants specifically adapted to be raised only in co2 elevated greenhouse environments are there? oh 0

>>15562402
Oh so plants are only adapting to higher CO2 concentrations in highly controlled conditions, like what >>15560582 said.

>>15562407
Those closed environments are highly controlled to maximize plant growth. Nature is not. Drought, excessive rains, unseasonal heat waves and cold snaps will all kill plants that have not adapted to deal with these conditions, and those adaptations will not happen overnight (or ever)

I will never get co2 niggas

Like do yall get high on oxygen depletion to be like this

>>15562422
>>15562423
>plants can't take advantage of more of their main source of energy except in this one specific case because... THEY JUST CANT OK!!!

>>15562435
>Plants don't actually have to grow in in real conditions, CHUD!
>The real world behaves ideally at all times!

>>15562443
>life will literally be wiped out if conditions aren't ideal!
>because an ideal condition for the environment is totally a thing that exists and life doesn't adapt to the conditions it gets whatever those happen to be, that's not how natural selection works at all, trust the science chud!

>>15562435
You should look into the law of the minimum. Plants need more than carbon dioxide to grow.

>>15562445
>>life will literally be wiped out if conditions aren't ideal!

>>15562445
Cope harder, retard

>>15562445
>life doesn't adapt to the conditions it gets whatever those happen to be, that's not how natural selection works at all
Even of cases of Punctuated Equilibrium adaptations still take thousands of year, go sneethe elsewhere

>>15562409
Exactly, and we've been raising them in CO2 greenhouses for almost half a century, where are the fucking CO2 adaptations?

>>15561442
So you think every atom and molecule has identical absorbance spectrum?

>>15562435
Please explain the three types of C4 photosynthesis before you talk to me about plants using carbon dumbfuck, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>15561442
Nice goalpost shift, anyway nobody is claiming it's the existence of absorption spectra, it's the magnitude. Any new goalposts to shift to?

>>15562448
>>15562450
>>15562451
>>15562453
>>15562455
>>15562460
thanks for the buffet of (you)s. Sorry for touching your nerve lol. Now go pretend the sky is falling some more and that the environment was totally static before we evil humans came along with our original sin and did things totally outside the scope of nature which we aren't a part of. You're so objective.

>>15562462
>I'm retarded and have no argument so I'll pretend I won and flee
We accept your concession.

>>15562462
>I have no points or position at all, but if I act smug I win the argument
Trolling is >>>/b/ that way dumbfuck

>>15562464
>>15562465
my point and position is and was that life uh finds a way, that the environment changes constantly, that it's been through way fucking worse than elevated CO2 levels, and that this shit has always happened and will continue to happen until the sun swallows the Earth. which is exactly what you faggots say except when you want to scare people.

>>15562468
Oh your position is staked in being a 100% black and/or white take instead of having nuance or understanding, THAT explains it. Have fun being stupid on purpose.

>>15562470
>>I'm retarded and have no argument so I'll pretend I won and flee
I accept you concession. :)

>>15562468
>Unironically quoting Jurassic Park
We get it. You have no idea what you're talking about and you're embarrassed that you humiliated yourself.

>>15562474
>>>I'm retarded and have no argument so I'll pretend I won and flee
I except you're confession :)))))

>>15562473
>have no argument
see
>>15562406
>>15562455
>>15562460
Go sulk over in >>>/pol/ now about how soience is so cucked because you got BTFO

>>15562478
BTFO by people denying the existence of natural selection and evolution? I think you're the ones that belong on /pol/

>>15562477
You know this board is anonymous, right? You don't have to be this embarrassed. Nobody knows who you are, even if you've proven that you have the wit of a boiled potato.

>>15562477
>confession
Lol. Is English your second language?

>>15562493
tell us all more about how macroevolution doesn't exist when it conflicts with your doomsday scenario and how I'm the one embarrassing myself by acting like life is capable of surviving climate change - since of course, as all records show, that never happened before we started building combustion engines.

>>15562503
>Evolution happens instantly, just believe me, bro
Again, you don't need to be embarrassed that you spoke on a subject you know nothing about. Everything is anonymous. All we know is that there is someone out there that is as retarded as you, we don't know that it is you because we don't know who you are.

>>15560954
>I can't link this article because 4chan thinks it's spam
>We show that elevated carbon dioxide has had a strong and consistently positive effect on wood volume
Why do I even bother arguing with russian shills anyway

>>15562800
>I have no argument
We know.

>>15562804
who are you quoting?

>>15562810
You, who has no argument.

>>15562800
To show the rest of us honest anons what the truth is. If you let the shills stop you from posting, they win. Just ignore them and continue to post the proof that AGW is false and CO2 is beneficial.

>>15562964
>I have no argument

>>15552680
>Does anyone even know the daily or annual totals for plant and animal respiration?
lots of self identified experts posting ITT, so far only >>15560542 has posted anything near a quantification

>>15563770
Plant and animal respiration does not contribute to net emissions, unless you're looking at changes, for example due to reforestation.

>>15563788
so what you're saying is that you want to assert knowledge of the topic, but you have no numbers to back up your claim and that you can't do math

>>15563824
What I'm saying is that I won't fall for your pathetic sealioning attempt. Next you're going to ask for numbers for fungi. How much CO2 comes from asteroids? You'll ask for numbers until I'm tired and then pretend you won because at some point I'll stop googling the numbers you're perfectly capable of googling yourself. If I tell you to go fuck yourself now, the outcome is the same, but I can go swimming and have a nice day rather than look up numbers all day for you.
If you don't provide the numbers and ignore the fact that everything in a closed loop is irrelevant for global warming, you're not interested in a discussion. Your main goal is to waste my time. So, fuck off.

>>15563849
so you're admitting that you've never seen any numbers and would need to look them up, but are too lazy to do so and that you were lying when you tried to assert that you knew what the numbers were

>>15563863
No. I'm telling you to go fuck yourself. Big difference. Also, I'd look up numbers even if I think I know them before I use them. Even simple things, since it's a very avoidable mistake.

>>15563849
Based

>>15562474
>>15562470
Climate change might kill off a bunch of species, but humans won't be among them. This is why climate crisis activists whatever are just control freaks. Piss off with your climate laws, if you think the sky is falling, go deal with it yourself. Assholes.

>>15563849
>sealioning
Anyone who uses this word outs themselves as a shill.

>>15562435
You do realise that plants also need sunlight and water, right? Photosynthesis will not increase unless all factors are increased. Droughts are far more damaging than any potential gain from increased CO2. Increased CO2 works only if you also account for the other factors, like enough water. Also, if greenhouses are so good, why are not all plants grown there? Almost as if different plants were adopted for different environments and require different conditions for maximum growth.

>>15565337
The real threat of climate change are refugees. In US currently there are around 3 million Indians. Now imagine that three years in a row India gets massive droughts destroying all harvest or massive monsoons that destroy all the architecture. Now one billion of them come to US.

>>15565464
What forces your government to allow them into your country? Nature?

>>15565467
Declining birth rate

>>15565468
That's incoherent.

>>15565469
>birth rate declining
>future workers therfore declining
>need to ship in immigrants to make up the difference
Can you tell me what you would've felt like if you didn't eat breakfast yesterday?

>>15565473
You know that you're making a bullshit argument, right? The job market is the most screwed up it's ever been, with a huge number of natives unable to get jobs because of scab immigrant labor. We're in the exact opposite of the scenario you're imagining, and forcing mass labor oversupply is the cause of cratered birthrates and economic depression not the solution.

>>15565476
Birthrates are dropping because of the mass feminization of men, the future workforce is the one in danger not the current one. You sound mentally deranged and confused. Have you taken your meds today?

>>15565482
I'm sure this kind of shilling works on someone, but it's hard to imagine who.

>>15565458
>Droughts are far more damaging than any potential gain from increased CO2.
If, hypothetically, CO2 actually did make the planet warmer, that would also make the planet wetter. Droughts would be a thing of the past.

>>15565337
This is predicated on if it's even real or not. It shows perfectly that even if global warming was real (which it obviously isn't), climate cultists would still be desperate karens.

>>15558379
>ate cycles
what, like a feeding schedule???

>>15565697
Based on the model "I just fucking made that up"

>>15565947
>"i dont know anything about the water cycle"
Thanks for letting me know, but I could already tell.

>>15561476
>On Earth CO2 catalyzes photosynthesis
No, it does not. CO2 is one of the reagents of photosynthesis. Why would you say something so stupid? Are you trying to troll with mock stupidity or something?

>>15565697
>>15565950
>Imagine being this retarded

>>15565464
Walls have existed for many thousands of years. Guns are even more effective.
Some countries even have moats around them.

The only reason why migrants are an issue is lack of political will to shoot migrants. Don't bitch about how mean that might be, the government steals from people to fund itself and goes to war all the time.

>>15565952
He's mocking delusional Warmists by making them think.

>>15565952
he's a false flagging leftoid
ignore him

>>15562503
>tell us all more about how macroevolution doesn't exist
yeah this is cringe, the IFLS crowd has no issues with throwing their belief in evolution out the window when evolution conflicts with one of their other """""scientific"""" beliefs. they're just leftist political activists who have no real interest in science at all, they're not on /sci/ to discuss science, they're here to promote their political agenda

>>15561476
this

>>15563926
>emotional basket case loses it's mind and starts spewing profanities when it sees it's implanted worldview debunked

>>15561476
>fraction of the sunlight received
>almost no atmosphere to hold heat
>no hydrosphere
>no fauna or flora of any kind
Remind me again how did you justify this comparison?
And the greenhouse effect on Mars is estimated to be around 6 K so you're just lying. CO2 is a greenhouse gas by the virtue of its absorbance characteristics.
>which causes solar radiation to be absorbed by plants without ever being reemitted
Also false. Most of the energy captured in the chemical bonds by plants through photosynthesis (a small fraction of the total sunlight received by them) is later released through plant's respiration and then later on through decomposition after its death. The total reduction in heat is really small and all the other effects simply dwarf it in magnitude.

>>15561476
>CO2 per unit surface area
Please explain why this is the sole quantity for the greenhouse effect.

>>15569425
geometry

>>15565482
We want to increase white birth rates then. A white country is objectively better by most every metric. The idea of a host population being intentionally decreased to minority status is remarkable considering the host population has no say in the matter. There is a reason immigration is generally a one way street from brown to white civilization. Do white people deserve the right to self determination and control over the country their ancestors built? The answer for every other group is a very obvious yes.

>>15569463
This. Apparently the climate studies curriculum doesn't teach about mean free path.

>>15565473
Or you could stop interfering in things, allow the population to decline to whatever rate nature demands. Adding niggers to the pile will won't solve the problem. Not only will you be dependent on other nations for tax slaves, but those nations are themselves experiencing population slowdown.

Bureaucrats need to fuck off.

>>15570420
they dropped that from the climate science curriculum in favor of critical race theory

Lets assume climate change is happening at a significantly higher rate than what believe has happened in the past.
Lets assume climate change is a result of human actions.

Please list the things you believe will happen as a result of climate change. Tell me which ones will impact humans. Tell me which of those negatively impact humans.

What negative things to humans will climate change create that you believe gives justification to use the state and policymakers to change human behavior?

I personally, so far, do not believe the government should be used to force people to change their behavior to alter the course of climate change.

>>15569242
cognitive dissonance makes people angry. when a global warming hysteric is shown the flaws in their own reasoning they experience those types of emotional meltdowns

>>15571971
>Please list the things you believe will happen as a result of climate change.
Civilization and nature will thrive in ways that no man has ever before witnessed due to the influence of higher CO2 levels. An acre of land will feed 8x as many people as it previously did, a square mile of nature will have 8x as many wild creatures living in it, some of them being the edible and delicious variety

>>15569463
>>15570420
That wasn't the question he asked.

>>15573893
>there's only one variable in the system
I don't know how to break this to you but that's not really true.

>>15573893
Why do activists hate seeing nature thriving? I thought green meant ecology?

>>15565464
the pieces of garbage who import browns do it to secure their voter base, and it costs tons of money, of which they still have an excess. They will change their tune the very fucking second the money actually starts running out and importing more starts negatively impacting their personal bottom line.

>>15573893
Easy way to get an idea how likely that is, would be to figure out how much more biomass there was in the Devonian. About 10x as much CO2 then.
See this image:>>15556860

>>15574016
Please tell me what additional variables you know of that would affect >>15573893 's claims.

>>15565458
>Photosynthesis will not increase unless all factors are increased
>Droughts are far more damaging than any potential gain from increased CO2
picrel
>Increased CO2 works only if you also account for the other factors, like enough water.
Yeah of course they still need enough water you fucking idiot that's like saying CO2 kills plants because you put a potted plant in a sealed chamber full of CO2 and nothing else at all and watched it die
>Also, if greenhouses are so good, why are not all plants grown there? Almost as if different plants were adopted for different environments and require different conditions for maximum growth.
"durr, why people grow plants in the dirt instead of building climate controlled structures over every single crop field on earth"
And yeah sure plants generally want more sunlight to go with more CO2, or rather having more available CO2 increases the plant's capacity to photosynthesize with incoming sunlight, and increased sunlight increases the plant's capacity to absorb and bind CO2, but saying raising one without the other will have no effect at all is just plain retarded. Even without any adaptation, raised CO2 levels can increase a plant's tolerance for heat and light significantly, allowing plants to grow in places previously too hot or exposed for them.

>>15574458
>Yeah of course they still need enough water
plants that have access to increased levels CO2 are able to root deeper to access the water they need. the plants' roots are made out of atmospheric CO2 and solar energy, so with more CO2 comes more root mass and that increased root mass can access more deeply stored moisture

If a giant asteroid causing global wildfires and a 20 year global ice age could only kill 75% of life whats the worst a little warming could do? Nothing we do could ever possibly match or exceed that.

>>15565697
Some areas will be drier and some will be wetter. But biodiversity has always been higher in warmer periods in earths history

>>15574311
Do you not see the problem yourself? Does it really need to be explained?

>>15574673
>biodiversity has always been higher in warmer periods in earths history
Explain the declining biodiversity we're observing at the moment.

>>15574981
The decline that has literally nothing to do with warming, which is caused by filthy thirdies eating everything that moves?

>>15557223
>its not a linear relation.
correct, plants grow in 3 dimensions. doubling atmospheric CO2 makes plants grow 8x as fast

>>15574990
No, not that one, but the mass extinction that comes with acidification of the oceans and global warming, both effects of the raising CO2 levels.

>>15575087
>the mass extinction that comes with acidification of the oceans and global warming
>>>/lit/ or >>>/x/ seem like good choices to talk about fiction.

>>15575087
Sea shells existed in the Devonian. CO2 then was at least an OoM of today's. Try again climate alarmist.

>>15574915
Yes, you made the claim, back it up.

>>15575084
That makes no sense. Actual observed relation of CO2 concentration and rate of photosynthesis is less than linear.

>>15575566
It isn't so much about the levels but the rate of change that leaves the fauna no time to adapt evolutionary.

>>15574981
I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with chinks and koreans dredging every square inch of the ocean floor and eating every single thing that comes up

>>15575988
Why would they need extra evolution to adapt to the time period in which they first emerged?

>>15576271
Because traits and adaptation get lost over time when no longer advantageous. A drastic change in environment in a century or two is quicker than what many species can adapt to before going extinct.

>>15576282
The species people falsely believe will go extinct are ones whose allegedly deleterious traits have gone unchanged since the Earth's CO2 level was orders of magnitude higher.

>>15558379
That graph shows that higher temperatures are good for humanity. Why are the global warming faggits against having a climate thats better suited for humans? Are the global warming faggits stupid or evil?

>>15577332
That graph doesn't have x or y axes, doesn't explain what is shown (temperature? Where?), contains debunked effects like the "medieval warm period" which only was a local effect or "dark ages" which is popsci nonsense, and its statistical analysts consists of a picture of the sun and a line seemingly connecting peaks. And you ask why people don't take it seriously? Are the global warming deniers stupid or evil?

>>15577376
you clearly have an emotional investment in this issue and have no interest in participating in a rational, science based discussion on the topic.

>>15577531
>a rational, science based discussion
>again, no y axis

>>15565467
foundational christian values
and the knowledge that trying to forcefully stop a few 100 million desperate people from emigrating will force you to commit atrocities on a scale not yet seen with the added bonus of your own system probably buckling under the onslaught anyway
the whole
>lets just close up shop and let them die lmao
idea doesn't work in practice

neither does unlimited immigration to be sure but it does kick the can a bit further down the road, something politicians are indeed forced (or maybe encouraged) to do all the time

>>15575988
Perhaps there will be a small minority of shelled creatures that will by chance have the right adaptation ready to go, when those without are removed, the others will take up the slack. Ocean is a big place after all.

>>15577612
>foundational christian values
The USA government is run by jews and atheists

>>15578449
>The USA government is run by jews and atheists who are in the process of trying to complete the genocide of the white christian population of the country
same as what happened in the ussr after the jews took over.
coincidence?

>>15552680
because global warming is fake news

>>15558406
>Nobody claims that
Yes they do, the global warm faggots all insist that the world is going to end in two weeks because of rising temperatures, they've been pushing that lie since the 1980s

>>15581216
You made up some delusion of what I said. Read carefully.

>>15577541
you clearly have an emotional investment in this issue and have no interest in participating in a rational, science based discussion on the topic, thats why you're nitpicking rather than addressing the meaning of the data

>>15582739
>meaning of the data
What data? A plot without any data points?

>>15552680
>ain't no racist whitey gonna tell me where i can and can't walk
>i'll walk as close to the engine inlet as i want too
>we wuz kangz back in africa

>>15583938
Do you remember boomers seeing image macros and saying "this is a meme". This is the equivalent. Someone who has no clue sees some colourful lines and says "this is a data"

>>15565473
>create an oversupply of labour
>cost of labour goes down
>youth unemployment goes up
>upward socioeconomic mobility nosedives
What, you think jobs just pop out of thin air?

>>15584658
They literally do. You can pay anyone to do anything.

>>15584698
>just pay people to not do anything useful
That's just basic universal income with extra steps.

>>15585048
Then do that. The point is that jobs are literally created out of thin air and there are tons of useless jobs where nothing of value is created except a paycheck for whoever is working that job. Only simpletons jerk off "job creators".

>>15585489
Proliferation of make-work rather than resource-productive work is a signal of societal collapse.

>>15585489
That's actually terrible. What use are those jobs? They are literally useless.
If you want basic universal income then advocate that instead. Deluding people that they provide value when they don't does nothing good to society. Their time would be better spent if they got that money for free.

>>15585504
Communists always pretend that make-work is valuable.

>>15585494
>>15585504
>Immediately goes back to jerking off "job creators"
Again, useless jobs already exist and, again, you can literally pay anyone to do anything. In fact, "job creators" are just people who are in a position to financially exploit the labor of other people. They wouldn't "create" the jobs if they didn't have tangible rewards for doing so, whether that comes in the form of profit, tax breaks, public perception, social favors, ect. All jobs already exist as things that can to be done to help accomplish a goal. You don't need to suck off everyone who makes money by formalizing the existence of a job and takes most of the value created by the laborer.

>>15587066
What the fuck are you even talking about? I think you are arguing against a point nobody made because I said nothing about "job creators".
Also I'm not the other guy. I'm >>15585048
and >>15585504
and made no other posts just fyi.

>>15569071
yup

>>15581216

>>15585489
>"job creators".
Bill Gates created jobs for people like Jeffery Epstein and his crew of underage prostitutes

>>15589086
Can you repeat this claim in your own words? I have a feeling that you're ESL or retarded.

>>15561637
>No, since mars' atmosphere is only 0.6% the pressure of earths
The partial pressure of CO2 on Earth is about 0.3 mm Hg. The pressure of the Martian atmosphere (95% CO2) is 4.7 mm Hg. So it has much more CO2 than Earth. It's also farther from the sun, so you need to take that into account.

>>15591228
How many times do you want to repeat this nonsense?

>>15562422
No. He said they have ALREADY adapted to those higher levels. Plants grow faster in higher CO2 concentrations out in the wild too. That's why the planet has been greening in the past century.

>>15591246
u can't even do basic math lol
>its thinks its an expert in science but it can't even do math
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

>>15591255
"u" can't even spell "you". Or understand that the partial pressure alone doesn't cause the greenhouse effect. If all the CO2 is right at the surface of the planet it won't help much. Without much of an atmosphere, there's not much greenhouse effect, even if the PaRtIaL pReSsUrE is higher. Do you really believe what you're writing here or are you a troll with an exceptional stamina and patience? If you get paid, that's really the only situation in which I wouldn't feel sorry for you.

>>15591246
I just got to this thread. Mars has way more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth. You're saying this is nonsense?

>>15571971
Texas will get hotter. For that alone, it must be stopped. This state is already two degrees shy of hell as is.
Also, there is nothing wrong with a carbon tax. When the market fails to assign a cost to a good, it's the role of the government to correct that using taxation. Otherwise it distorts the market.

>>15591284
>>15591255

>>15591302
>This state is already two degrees shy of hell as is.
You kind of make me want to burn more fossil fuels now.

>>15581216
>>15589086
Not sure if this is a retard or an ESL. In both cases, the prediction is not that nations will be wiped off the earth by 2000 or within 5 years. The prediction is that without changing course within that time, those disasters would strike at a future date. Unspecified in the headline.
Either way, you are a retard for only being able to parse information in extremely small quantities. Verification not required.

>>15591267
Both concentration and path length matter, but concentration is 15x higher on Mars. Is the atmosphere of Earth 15x taller?

>>15591302
>Also, there is nothing wrong with a carbon tax. When the market fails to assign a cost to a good, it's the role of the government to correct that using taxation.
>>>/pol/

>>15591302
>there is nothing wrong with a carbon tax
Taxation is theft. Theft is immoral. Carbon taxes are immoral.

>Texas will get hotter.
By how much? Please provide an explanation for the mechanism of action.

>When the market fails to assign a cost to a good
The market does not assign value. The price is decided by what people care about. If people don't care about CO2, then by definition it is not a problem.

>it's the role of the government to correct that using taxation
The government is a gang of criminals who extort and murder people as their sole source of income. They are evil and they have no justification to exist.

>Otherwise it distorts the market.
A market unmolested by the government is a free one. The government taxing it is distortion.

You are either evil, or have been brainwashed by 15 years of state education.

>>15591328
>Is the atmosphere of Earth 15x taller?
Depends on the exact definition, but I'd say it's about 100 times taller (slightly higher scale length but only 0.6% of the density)

>>15591347
>The market does not assign value. The price is decided by what people care about.
I wanted to tell you to go to /pol/, but high school might be a better place to return to.