/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15996551
This is why periods of increased CO2 correlate with higher temps in the fossil record but they don't in the modern age: because humans have cleared away so much vegetation. Crop fields don't count. Neither do tree plantations. These aren't real ecosystems and they don't manage water the same as natural ecosystems. The weather extremes, especially the high summer temps and low winter temps we've been seeing the past few years are indicative not of global warming, but of global desertification. This is how deserts operate, not moist habitats. Moisture moderates seasonal temps. And most moisture on land is affected by access to oceanic influence or massive amounts of vegetation.

>>15996551
You're disregarding the fact that increased atmospheric CO2 allows plants to sequester solar energy in chemical bonds at an increased rate, which cools the planet.

>>15996555
organized agriculture manages water better than natural ecosystems

>>15996551
Wrong. CO2 is poison to plant life. Photosynthesis cannot occur above 120 degrees.

>>15997482
That presupposes that CO2 must lead to temps above 120 and will therefore kill plants, which is exactly what OP is arguing against. You can't argue against someone by presupposing that they are wrong (except for proof by contradiction, but that doesn't apply here).

This thread was made by retards for retards.

>>15997477
>organized agriculture manages water better than natural ecosystems
Retard.

>>15997514
My theory will be vindicated and someone else will claim credit for it. Then everyone will act like it was self-evident. I don't care, because I love for what comes after all that: your extinction.

>>15997553
your appeal to nature is a fallacy, which is why you can't back it up with a coherent argument.

>>15997613
Your appeal to neoliberalism is a sign of severe mental illness.

>>15997925
That soil is absolutely begging for more carbon

>>15998063
More like more cover so it doesn't lose all its moisture.

>>15998114
Really, it needs both. I'd recommend at least and inch of compost and a thick mulch of hay (or straw if you're cheap). There's too much clay in that soil not to increase SOM if you want to retain yield.

>>15998232
its fine, the plants root down further than the top 5mm of soil, you have no idea what you're looking at because you've never grown a plant in your life

>>15998455
>No O horizon
>A horizon has so much clay and so little humus that it's cracking
>Stunted plants
Lol okay, retard.

>>15998576
you have no idea what you're looking at because you've never grown a plant in your life

>>15998455
I'm from northern ohio. It's (you) that has no fucking clue what you're talking about. Even at maximum output, these crop fields are still losing massive amounts of topsoil to erosion because there's nothing holding the soil in place and they're dry as hell because there's no soil cover of any kind.

>>15998598
We get it, you have a vagina. Now shut up. Having a pussy and being defiant doesn't make you an expert on a subject.

>>15998607
ohio is a decrepit shithole full of idiots, thats why you're so stupid.
why would anyone even mention that they're from ohio?

>>15998455
>>15998598
>>15998666
Textbook projection.

>>15998666
You are so stupid. California?

>>15998666
It's also one of the most important states for agriculture. It also has one of the worst track records for environmentalism in the country.

>>15998797
So you're saying that environmentalism does nothing whatsoever to boost agricultural productivity.

>>15999079
These are two different issues. Not sure what point you're attempting to make.

>>15996551
>Oxygen is animal food

And you're a fucking idiot.

>>15996551
I can't prove you wrong because you're exactly correct.

>>15999475
What is your post even supposed to be?

>>16000513
>co2 is plant food

You're a profoundly stupid individual

>>16000532
>co2 is plant food
Yes, what the fuck does this have to do with your temper tantrum about oxygen?

>>16000544
>co2 is plant food
>oxygen is animal food

is the kind of thing that a clowntard fuckwit says
kys, you malignant cancer

>>16000547
The only one that mentioned oxygen is you, retard.

>>16000551
>Imagine being this retarded

>>16000612
>I don't have any rebuttal of what OP actually said, so I'll imagine that he said something else and make fun of him for saying that thing that he didn't say.

>>16000679
OP's post is garbage that he could easily look up and doesn't apply to the modern warming trend. Be less of a retard.

>>16001043
What warming trend?

>>16001171
The global one we caused and are making worse. Go be a retard somewhere else.

>>16001180
Holy shit dude, coloring everything red makes things real hot!

>>16001271
It must be physically painful to be as stupid as you.

>>16001280
Shut up, woman. I'm tired of hearing your imitation sex speak. There is only one sex: male. Women are an accessory like a tumor.

>>16001180

>>16001362
Take your meds.

>>16001370
>He can't read a graph

>>16001180
Nice pictures, now where is the falsifiability in the theory?

>>16001180
When were thermometers invented?

>>16001375
Can you?

>>15996551
>water vapor and CO2 are greenhouse gases?! WHAT?!

>>16001400
CO2 is a nearly insignificant greenhouse gas it's so weak. Water vapor and various types of cloud cover are VERY strong greenhouse materials.

>>16001377
What do you think that means, and why do you believe that climate science is unfalsifiable? I'm genuinely curious.

>>16001382
At the start of the universe. Google "temperature proxies"

>>16001387
Why would anyone care about the climate half a billion years ago when hominids and their food have adapted to the current climate? You at least understand that rapid changes in climate are always associated with mass extinctions, right?

>>16001420
Depends on its quantity in the atmosphere. Snowball Earth is said to have melted mainly due to CO2 spewed from volcanic activity based on geological records.

>>16001875
>Why would anyone care about the climate half a billion years ago when hominids and their food have adapted to the current climate? You at least understand that rapid changes in climate are always associated with mass extinctions, right?

>>16001890
>moving the goalposts
NTA, but hardly. Homo (as well as many other currently living organisms) didn't exist 58 million years ago during PETM, so a sudden (i.e. centennial) increase of average global temperatures by 8K would (or will) be absolutely devastating.

>>15997477
>organized agriculture manages water better than natural ecosystems
you should die

>>16001890
The irony. You responded to a post demonstrating that there is modern warming. You moved the goalpost to "it was hotter half a billion years ago" and now you're bitching about that being a completely irrelevant statement and implying that there's no issue with rapid global warming.

>>16001909
>>16001917
So we've gone from debating whether humans cause climate change to, when confronted with evidence that yes the climate can change rapidly, to worrying about its effects on humanity.

We might as well just drop the mask completely and admit you don't care about science, you just care about politics.

>>16001909
no it wouldn't, those type of temperature shifts happen regularly.
>i believe in evolution
>except when it comes to global warming
>in the case of global warming its impossible for animals and plants to evolve to meet the challenges of a changing environment
>because reasons and stuff or something
what kind of retard logic is that?
how did life survive the last dozen ice ages and the warm periods that followed?

>>16001923

>>16001923
I didn't track your exchange with the other anon, but I'm pretty certain there's nothing to debate.
Also, it's you who brought up irrevelant politcs just now, not me.
>>16001932
>those type of temperature shifts happen regularly
Over geological, not ecological or even human, timescales. It's not that it's just warming, it's the speed of it relative to ecosystems-relevant timescales.

>>16001923
The fact that you keep trying to move the goalposts and deflect is very telling.

>We might as well just drop the mask completely and admit you don't care about science, you just care about politics.
Projection.

>>16001932
Lol no. Why don't you at least put up a graph that doesn't end at 1850?

>>16001947
>it's the speed of it relative to ecosystems-relevant timescales.
nice goalpost shift, but the animals and plants you're feigning concern about already survive annual and interday temperature shifts far in excess of 8º so if the same thing were to happen over the course of several centuries, which it won't, they would be able to adapt.

>>16001958
Daily and seasonal temperature changes aren't climate. This might be the dumbest thing I've read on this board since a very long time.

>>15996551
but we have less vegetation than we did before, yet according to your theory we see more humidity. Why?

>>16001875
But you HAVEN'T adapted to the current climate. This is one of the biggest foundational lies of climate alarmism. Humans are tropical animals. That's why you have to wear a coat for half the year to live in this "ideal climate" you think the entire fucking world needs to be covered in. And you only have to go back 125k years to find a climate 4° C for the planet. Somehow every coral reef didn't die. Somehow even modern humans survived it. Odd.

>You at least understand that rapid changes in climate are always associated with mass extinctions, right?
No they aren't. And I assume you're attempting to use the Late Pleistocene as a proxy for this. Bad news, retard. Humans did that one. Overkill is real. You don't have to like it. Facts are facts. Not only did climate change not kill most of the Pleistocene megafauna, it didn't even kill Woolly Mammoths. That's why they survived into historical times on Wrangel until humans found them. Woolly Mammoths could still live on Earth now, in many places literally exactly where they used to live like Northern North America and Northern Eurasia.

>>16001882
Let's do an experiment. Get a CO2 tank and let it leak into your house until there is a steady supply of whatever ppm of CO2 you think is enough to save on heating costs. What you'll notice is there is no amount that suffices because CO2 is shit for trapping heat. Now take exactly one 10 minute hot shower. The entire floor will now feel more comfortable and you can turn the thermostat down. Water is one of the best thermal regulators we have access too. And funny enough, the planet is covered in it. But you know what isn't? Farmland and concrete cities. Miles of state highways. Superfund sites. Abandoned quarries (that aren't filled with water). Humans are literally aridifying the entire planet.

>Snowball Earth is said to have melted mainly due to CO2 spewed from volcanic activity based on geological records.
Really hard to say that far back.

>>16001909
See: >>16002158 MODERN HUMANS existed during the last interglacial, which was WARMER than this one.

>>16001932
>i believe in evolution
>except when it comes to global warming
This is a gross misrepresentation of liberal views. They also don't believe in evolution when it comes to race or sex.

>>16002158
>Really hard to say that far back
It's almost like they can tell from gasses and compounds trapped in rocks what the atmosphere and landscape was like at certain points in Earth's history, you fucking dipshit.

>>15996551
yes thats how global warming works

>>16001956
Hilarious you talk about projection and then accuse other people of moving goalposts as well.

This graph has yet to be addressed
>>16001387
What is so abnormal about current warming patterns? If anything the climatic stability for the past 10 thousand years is absurdly abnormal. What kind of SUVs were they driving in the Pliocene or Eocene? Oh wait, you don't have an answer for that, you're just a fucking retard like >>16001935 who belongs to a cult.

>>16001420
co2 doesn't condensate and fall out of the atmo based on temperature. h2o does.

And another thing, why do we just ignore that this climate alarmism is something new and revolutionary? We've had malthusians claiming that the planet is dying since the 1700's.

>>16001947
Climate warmed faster 12,000 years ago. That's why there's a global flood myth. And unlike the "8 cm" sea levels have supposedly risen in the past 150 years, sea levels then rose a METER per century, which living people could watch happen over their lifetimes.

>>16001982
But high summer temps are, right?

>>16002009
>yet according to your theory we see more humidity
We don't. I don't even know how you came up with that.

>>16002162
Can you? Just because you can appeal to authorities doesn't mean those authorities are right. Anyone who says they know what the fuck was going on over a billion years ago is a fucking idiot and a pretender. We only have the vaguest idea of what happened that far back and we've reconstructed the situation as best we can. The truth is nobody knows what put an end to the Huronian or Cryogenian. If volcanism was occurring beneath miles of ice, I assure you the heat and water vapor both from the volcanoes AND the water vapor and clouds being created by melting miles of ice would have been what did it, NOT CO2. To argue that a mild increase in a trace gas had more of an affect than global volcanism releasing superheated gas, lava and all manner of infernal bullshit which is simultaneously creating massive clouds of water is just batshit insane.

>>16002168
Your point?

>>16002169
Don't mention Malthus ever again. Your kind are too stupid to even understand overpopulation while you whine about a 100 fucking trillion immigrants in every country then wonder why every civil service is broken and the price of everything is retarded.

>>16002199
Oh, you're right, some random guy on 4chan said otherwise so I better drop everything without doing any further research on my own like I've been doing. Please neck. Everything about you is based on speculation without a single source to balance it.

>>16002249
You should. I'm smarter than both you and you're whore bought and paid for "experts".

>>16002199
>Don't mention Malthus ever again. Your kind are too stupid to even understand overpopulation while you whine about a 100 fucking trillion immigrants in every country then wonder why every civil service is broken and the price of everything is retarded.
As said before, you don't care about the science. You just care about politics.

>>16002313
*laugh track* bazinga

>>16002313
I care about both. You care about neither. All you care about is doing what you're told.

>>16001875
>At the start of the universe. Google "temperature proxies"
Proxies are unverifiable BULLSHIT.
>I have a gram of glacial sediment representing 1500-3000 years ago and there's a slightly different ratio of pollen than we find today
>here's 1500 years of temperature anomaly

>>16001982
No, they're not. But animals, just like humans, don't experience or adapt to "climate", they don't live or die in some abstract average of conditions, they adapt to weather.
You cant have it both ways.

>>16002009
>but we have less vegetation than we did before
Wrong

>>16001370
>Look ma, I posted it again
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2ZF0KS/

>>16002470
No that's correct. We definitely have less vegetation than we should.

>>16002472
How does that disprove what he said?

>>16002491
"We have less vegetation than before"
And
"We have less vegetation than we should"
Dont have the same meaning, yet you are using them interchangeably.

>>15996551
CO2 currently increases steadily in the atmosphere while vegetation diminishes.

Also the rates are alarming, many changes in global temperature occured in the past but not that quickly.

Here you go

>>16002829
>while vegetation diminishes.
Is that a global total of diminished vegetation or has it only diminished in individual locales whilst increasing overall?

>>16002465
Take your meds.

>>16002167
>Hilarious you talk about projection and then accuse other people of moving goalposts as well.
Projection.

>This graph has yet to be addressed
It's already been addressed. It's irrelevant except for the bit at the far right.

>>16002158
>Imagine being this retarded.

>>16002779
Wow, thanks reddit. Not that I'm not enjoying your red herring, but nobody fucking cares what you have to say. Both are true.

>>16002829
>vegetation diminishes
What're you a journalist? Vegetation doesn't "diminish". It's being actively killed by humans.

>many changes in global temperature occured in the past but not that quickly.
Someone clearly didn't read the thread. Why are women so illiterate? Is this an education problem? A genetic one?

>>16002891
Excellent rebuttal, well stated. We're taking away women's rights.

>>16002950
That'll keep you in the kitchen where you belong.

>>16002954
Good. Only men can cook anyway. Women need to stay the fuck out of the kitchen lest they burn the fucking house down with their incompetence.

>>16002886
How do you verify your proxies? Do you send someone back in time 200K years with a thermometer?

>>16003219
Look it up, retard. You think you're the first person to ever wonder that?

>>16003263
>I don't know but I take it as an article of faith that this conjecture is falsifiable.
Proxies are bullshit. There is no way they can give us the kind of precise inference needed when discussing temperature differences of 0.5c over thousands of years.

>>16003332
Actually if you know a damned thing about ecology or paleontology these proxies are actually dogshit for what global warming alarmists want because CO2 doesn't appear to be a direct cause of any warming period.

>>16003450
>CO2 doesn't appear to be a direct cause of any warming period.
Thats because CO2 is not a "greenhouse gas"

>>16002946
>both are true
Wow! Thanks reddit! What an insightful waste of bytes! We really should have more of thing!

>>16002829
>It's too fast! The climate changes too fast!!!!
Protip, the climate has always changed in the timeframes less than it takes an animal species to evolve. It takes millions of years, even tens of millions of years to speciate. Climate changes on the order of 1,000 or 10,000 years with Milankovitch cycles.

>>16004285
>Imagine being this retarded

>>16003332
>>16003450
>>16004235
Retard take. Learn how to use google.

>>16004285
>>16003450
>>16003332
>>16003219
>>16003098
>>16002950
Take your meds.

>>16004759
>>16004702
>meds
>google
I accept your concession

>>16004702
>>16004759
I too accept this histrionic whore's concession. Why don't doctors cure hysteria anymore?

>>16002472
>reuters.com
fake af

>>16004804
>>16004839
>Why don't doctors cure hysteria anymore?
Because you stopped taking your medication, retard.

>>16001935
This is true, people need to be held responsible for their actions, thats the only way they'll ever learn from their mistakes.

>>16005651
Silly bitch, only women need drugs to fix your brains (and they don't work, since the issue is a lack of IQ points).

>>16005691
Schizos need medication, so I guess that makes you a bitch.

I love how much denialists spam their shit threads all day, as if thread number 1001 of denialism will make climate change any less true than in thread 1000.

>>16005694
>SCHIZO
>SCHIZO
>SCHIZO
Try to come up with another argument. I realize your tiny pea brain is inside your cunt so it's hard, but I know you know more words than this.

>>16005705
Hey, denialist, are sea levels currently rising faster than at any other time in Earth's history?

>>16005710
Hey, you're the one who started calling people bitches because you need to take your meds, not me

>>16005714
Even if they weren't/were, it's an irrelevant question to the reality of climate change.

>>16005722
So are they or aren't they?

>>15997482
>Water is poison to human life because humans drown if you submerge them in water

>>16001180
What's wrong with warming? Earth is usually a lot warmer than it is right now; for most of geological history, Earth had no permanent ice caps, including during the very lush Mesozoic.

>>16005761
>What's wrong with warming?
Absolutely nothing. It's a positive. Just like the underpopulation concern trolls hired by the fucking faggy CIA. Fewer humans and a hotter planet are great. You can bet anything the great satan has to say, the opposite it's what's best.

>>16005915
>fucking faggy CIA
you mean deceptive lying trolls like yourself?
Corporate psychopaths benefit most from ignoring climate change concerns and ignoring overpopulation concerns.
Literally any idiot can see that. You're a fucking joke.

>>16002889
>any past climate change is irrelevant, only current climate change matters
This is how you know you're dealing with a pseudoscientific cult.

>>15997477
>organized agriculture manages water better than natural ecosystems

I have never thought in my entire life that I can withhold so much hatred for a person I have never met. My fury is immense and my day is ruined. Thank you anon.

>>16005919
I don't work for the CIA. And if I ever knowingly encounter one, I'll fucking kill it.

ur ignoring greenhouse

>>16005926
Would you like to explain how you think the climate 100 million years ago is relevant to anthropogenic global warming? This should be hilarious.

>>16005761
How most of geological history Earth didn't house humans and their food. Are you trying to be retarded or does it just come naturally to you?

>>16006195
Would you like to explain why it's not?

>>16006196
Humans are tropical animals, reetee. You've been told this multiple times now.

>B-b-but what if we can grow cacao in Iowa!??
And?

tl;dr
Humans conquered the planet in spite of its recent climate, not because of it.
There is no reason to suppose that the recent climate has been optimal for human flourishing.

>>16006365
>Would you like to explain why it's not?
I'll give you a hint: It's in the name.

>>16006365
>Humans are tropical animals
Not Jurassic animals? So we don't want Jurassic conditions to dominate the Earth? Great, then let's look at the climate from the first hominid on.

>>16006365
>Humans are tropical animals
wrong, human and human ancestral remains have been discovered in northern europe dating back over a million years, modern humans evolved entirely outside of the tropics

>>16006409
Personally, I want Cretaceous conditions to dominate Earth. And Cretaceous AND Jurassic dinosaurs.

>Great, then let's look at the climate from the first hominid on.
Why? I don't like you.

>>16006860
HURR DURR. Is that why scandinavians run around naked outside in winter?

>>16007238
Nobody cares about your feelings.

>>16007256
You'r right. I don't even care about that. You're just a dumb bitch. You can't even explain how humans are boreal animals or whatever the fuck NPC shit you believe but why they freeze to death in winter outside of the tropics.

>>16007352
Take your meds.

>>16007365
I accept your concession.

>>16007238
>Personally, I want Cretaceous conditions to dominate Earth.
Patrician taste. All the major continents separated by large bodies of water from each other and also with more water within each continental land mass (see great shallow inland seaways of modern Midwestern US), tropical-arid equator and temperate at both poles.

>>16006195
>Change in past? Not relevant, or never happened
>Change now? TOO FAST! MUST BE HUMAN CAUSED! EXTREME COLD = CLIMATE CHANGE, EXTREME HEAT = CLIMATE CHANGE
>What's that? The Romans used to grow French grapes in the UK and in the 19th century the Thames froze over? Psssh, look at this graph that says it was "regional"

>>16007795
>Bring a snowball into congress
>"This means global warming isn't happening."
>GW alarmists go insane.
>Have a warm summer
>GW alarmists: THIS IS PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

>>15996555
>This is why periods of increased CO2 correlate with higher temps in the fossil record but they don't in the modern age
But they do in the modern age

>>16007735
>>16007795
>>16007878
>Imagine being this retarded

>>16007883
Let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline.

>>15997477
>increased atmospheric CO2 allows plants to sequester solar energy
This is absolute bullshit kek

>>16008048
Explain in your own words what exactly you think "Mike's trick" is and how exactly you apply it to data. This should be good for a laugh.

>>16008050
I'll do you one better.

https://youtu.be/VbR0EPWgkEI?t=1790

>>16008076
Note the authors REFUSED to release their data, a Freedom of Information Act request was made and THAT was also refused. It wasn't until the climategate shit blew up that the data was leaked and that's literally the only reason we know about any of this.

>>16008076
>youtube

>>16008084
Take your meds.

>>16008050
Mike's "Nature trick" is stitching together two different temperature data sets, one being an instrumental record and the other being a proxy record. One data set shows a rising temperature anomaly, the other doesn't. Mike's "Nature trick" is to combine these data sets and have a more impressive-looking apparent rise in temperature anomaly.
Combining different data sets which measured different things with different methodologies is not a standard, common, or widely accepted practice, for all the obvious reasons you can probably think of.

>>16008144
Wrong. You are welcome to try again if you'd like. You can even look it up first.

>>16008124
I accept your concession.

>>16008156
Oh can we look up "Mike's trick" through "heccin valid" sources? Is that why it took a leaker to reveal it? You dumb bitch. This is why women are better not seen and not heard.

>>15996551
Humidity seems like a proxy for temperature though, which way is the causality?

>>16008200
So you'd rather have a tantrum than try again? Pitiful.

>>16008220
Water vapor has a short atmospheric residence time so it never becomes well mixed and the local humidity is driven by the temperature. OP is full of shit. Water vapor can form positive feedback loop with greenhouse gasses which effectively magnifies the warming effect of greenhouse gasses.

>>16008247
I gave you my explanation of Mike's "Nature" trick. You're welcome to explain how I got it wrong.

>>16008249
>and the local humidity is driven by the temperature
Humidity and temperature are both changed primarily by land use changes. How well do you think models simulate forests vs meadows vs asphalt?

>>16008220
Humidity is typically not considered in climate models when it comes to warm periods, but it is known to paleontologists. Also, notice I'm not ONLY considering humidity. I'm considering water in the non-oceanic system generally. "Humidity" is just a shorthand for this.

>>16008249
That's not how anything works, dummy. If you were correct there would be no difference between the average humidity in death valley and the Amazon.

>>16008321
They don't at all. That's the problem. The do for very local projects like city greening, but that's mostly with the end goal of gentrification and the greening is just used as justification for it.

>>16008407
I'm using humidity in the same sense. And it's one of the most important parts of our climate system, and we can't mlsle it for shit.

>>15997553
What's your reasoning or evidence?

>>16002199
my point is that the presence of h2o in the atmosphere and temperature have a negative coefficient. It cannot self regulate its own presence. What really governs the presence of h2o in the atmo is greenhouse gasses that do not condensate and fall out of the sky with temperature, rather they break down over years and in the case of co2, millennia from the bombardment of comsic radiation. by slightly adjusting the level of co2, methane, no2, etc, they act as a lever that can widly change the atmosphere's ability to contain water vapor.

>>16008774
CO2 is regulated by the carbon cycle, not cosmic rays.

>>16008779
yes my mistake i meant that larger greenhouse gases that break up into co2 are broken apart by cosmic rays

>>16008670
Modern agriculture is legendary for its mismanagement of pretty much everything. Water most of all.

>>16008823
I think you are framing this all wrong. Nature is stable in that it is old and has destroyed everything on its way to equilibrium. It doesn't "manage" shit. We manage. We either manage well or poorly. Nature is awful at management.

>>16008825
k

>>16008318
I'm not going to hold your hand. Try again or don't. Your last rant was entertaining.

>>16008321
Why don't you look into it? A cursory search pulled up a lot of results. I'm sure you can find your answer.

>>16008407
>If you were correct there would be no difference between the average humidity in death valley and the Amazon
Are you retarded? There's not enough water in any desert to increase humidity. That does not negate the fact that you need heat to increase humidity and that humidity can increase heat.

>>16008899
We accept your concession.

>>16008944
>>16009833
Try again. I'm sure you can do it if you try.

>>16009896
No, it's your turn to try. Enlighten us, O wise one.

>>16009833
>180 pages
I'm reading 3 books already.

>>16010041
No, that's not how this works. How about we reframe it as "burden of proof"? You made the claim, now back it up. We both know you can't do that so I'd suggest you start over.

>>16008220
total humidity or relative humidity?

>>16010047
>complaining about reading a mere 180 pages
ngmi

>>16010767
Concession accepted.

>>16012222
>He can't provide evidence of his claims
>He thinks that means he wins
Wew, lad. Did you hit every branch when you fell out of the stupid tree?

>>16009833

>>15996555
>crops aren't plants
>trees aren't plants
thanks to irrigation there is currently more plant life on earth than there ever has been in the past

>>16014594
Nonsense.

>>16014594
What absolute idiocy.

>>16014594
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere has also helped increase the amount of plant growth

>>15996555
>because humans have cleared away so much vegetation
Vegetation is increasing due to CO2.
>Crop fields don't count.
Yes they do.
>Neither do tree plantations.
Yes they do.

>>16005967
Water used in natural ecosystems is being wasted because it's not being used directly by humans. We should bulldoze nature.

>>16006196
>How most of geological history Earth didn't house humans and their food.
So what? We're adaptable, and could inhabit any geological period of Earth that enough oxygen to breath.

>>16006409
>Not Jurassic animals?
The Jurassic had tropics. ???

>>16015004
>co2 is plant food
>oxygen is animal food

you're a shockingly stupid fuck

>>16015018
Both of those things are just inarguable facts. Not sure what you're even trying to say now. Animal respiration doesn't actually use oxygen? Photosynthesis doesn't actually use CO2?

>>16015003
Nonsense.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/

>>16015004
Nope. Vegetation is increasing because of humans. That does not mean we have more vegetation that ever before in Earth's history.

>>16015022

>>16015007
Lol no.

>>16015009
Yep. They had both the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer. Just like we do, retard.

>>16015023
>. That does not mean we have more vegetation that ever before in Earth's history.
Right, because some previous geological eras had very high CO2 and lots of humidity.

>>16015020
Lol no. Learn what food is, retard.

>>16015024
>Lol no.
Lol yes.
>Yep.
Concession accepted.

>>16015026
Wrong.

>>16015027
Stuff you consume to live and grow. Oxygen is food.

>>16015028
I accept your concession, retard. Go watch more Dr. Stone.

>>16015029
Nope.

>>16015031
You are wrong, I'm right. Cope and seethe.

>>16015030
No it's not, retard. Respiration and digestion are completely different processes. When you're old enough you should take biology in high school.

>>16015035
>No it's not, retard.
Yes it is. :)

>>16015034
Lol no. You have an anime-tier understanding of the world and science. Go back to watching Dr. Stone on a loop.

>>16015038
You just hate reality; where plants grow faster if there's more CO2.

>>16015032
Prove it then, retard.

>>16015037
>t. middle schooler or high school dropout
4chan is 18+. Even the blue boards.

>>16015007
The irony that that stupidest, most science/technology illiterate fuckwits (You), have chosen to convince themselves that humanity is basically on the level of an omniscient god because of science and technology.

>>16015039
In reality there are dozens of factors that determine plant growth and the only plants that benefit from increased CO2 are the ones that have every other factor tended to. Water availability controls plant growth more than carbon dioxide concentration does.

You are a retard who only knows how to regurgitate propaganda.

>>16015044
>You need to be an omniscient god to live in the Oligocene

>>16015039
>You just hate reality
>You hate humanity
>You hate progress
>You're an anti-semite

Amazing the kinds bullshit you people have the nerve to respond to facts, data, and science with.

>>16015004
>Vegetation is increasing due to CO2.
So you keep claiming, but I have to wonder what metric you're using. One centuries-old oak has the equivalent biomass of an entire field of maize. And it's better for the environment. It's also going to maintain a MUCH more moderate microclimate in its direct vicinity than any corn field ever will because there is no natural soil layering, leaf litter, or anything remotely natural going on in a corn field. Just non-native monocultures of plant interspersed with bare dirt prone to flooding, erosion and drought. Now keep in mind all forests were once like this. Modern humans continuously forget that the apocalypse ALREADY occurred and we're living in the aftermath. Multi-century old trees are not a renewable resource on the human timeframe. And monocultures of pines aren't forests.

>>16015047
Look up wet bulb temperatures, retard.

>>16015040
https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/print-publications/hla/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation-hla-6723-a.pdf

Can't believe you're actually questioning this basic facet of plant biology.

>>16015050
Based

>>16015050
I don't care about the environment. It's just junk in the way of human progress.

>>16015051
Sit around under a tree if it's too hot. Lots of animals do that already.

>>16015052
This confirms what I just told you, you illiterate retard. Those plants benefit from increased carbon dioxide because all other growth factors are tended to. I cannot fathom the lumbering, inbred downies that must have fucked to produce a mental defective of your caliber.

>>16015057
You clearly don't understand what wet bulb temperatures are. Go back to watching reruns of Dr. Stone.

>>16015018
I don't understand why you keep posting this as some kind of gotcha. There are two forms of nutrition: that which is used for energy and that which is used to form bodily tissues. Plants literally use CO2 to form the majority of their tissues. CO2 is literally what plants feed on in addition to sunlight. Animals do not feed on oxygen. Oxygen simply enables energy extraction FROM food animals consume. It's more like an enzyme.

>>16015023
Arguing vegetation is recovering from the dust bowl isn't exactly a high bar. But it's still wrong, because even then most of the rainforests were intact, and they're not now. It's always amazing to watch neoliberals swallow their own bullshit.

>>16015056
I have a theory on people.
I think that moderately stupid people and average people often mask their hate and desire to inflict pain and suffering in a thin veneer of virtue signaling. It's the only way they can make their hate socially acceptable.
In the case of the pandemic they wanted to put "anti-vaxxers" in camps, and take away their children.
In your case your hatred for the natural world is masked in "progress" and "population growth".

This kind of duality is evident almost everywhere if you look for it.

>>16015071
Plants don't feed on CO2, retard. Learn the difference between respiration and digestion.

>>16015056
Ah, a communist.

>>16015073
You are pants-on-head retarded and illiterate to boot.

>>16015076
They literally do. They even use mouths to take it in.

>>16015074
Take your meds.

>>16015079
>Animals eat oxygen!
>They even use mouths to take it in!
You might be the most retarded person I've ever interacted with, and I've been a volunteer 'tard wrangler.

>>16015046
You clearly have never worked with plants. The two biggest factors for plant growth are access to water, then sunlight, then access to CO2. That's why EVERY serious aquarium set-up with plants devotes CO2 addition to the tank. Without CO2 plants LITERALLY can't grow AT ALL. Their tissues are literally constructed from it. It would be like depriving animals of amino acids. You just don't realize that plants naturally ALWAYS have a steady access to CO2 because it's a component of the gases in air and water basically everywhere and plant life generally isn't great enough to deplete it. That's why captive systems have to plan for it.

>>16015044
The real irony of global warming alarmist belief is that somehow expanding the region that has warm summers, mild winters and greater participation will somehow kill off all the humans or destroy agriculture or eliminate all life somehow. It's a very urban, upper class (((western))) perspective. That's how you know global warming alarmism comes from jews. They have absolute biological illiteracy because they see Nature as the natural enemy of their demonic "god" and consequently their satanic little sand people. Jews spend more time whining about trees in the bible than nearly any other single thing.

>>16015076
>Plants don't feed on CO2, retard.
They literally turn it into biomass. That's consumption no matter how you slice it.

>>16015085
>You clearly have never worked with plants.
Lol, the irony.

>The two biggest factors for plant growth are access to water, then sunlight, then access to CO2.
Wrong, retard. The next biggest factors are access to nutrients, retard. There are 27 elements that plants require to live and some need additional elements.

>Without CO2 plants LITERALLY can't grow AT ALL.
>Without O2 animals LITERALLY can't grow AT ALL.

You are a retard and I'm now convinced that you've never even seen a plant being grown.

>>16015087
And? Animals turn oxygen into biomass. That does not mean they eat it. You are a retard.

>>16015094
Food doesn't necessarily have to be literally eaten.

>>16015096
You are moving the goalposts wildly. Why don't you just accept that plants don't eat CO2? They eat nutrients from the soil.

>>16015099
Plants do eat CO2, though. They swallow it up through little pores called stomata.

>>16015100
They don't. That's just respiration. It's essential to life, but it is not the same as eating and digesting food, you massive, drooling retard.

>>16015047
Behold! A god!

>>16015108
One of the coolest prehistoric mammals in my opinion.

>>16015105
Respiration is how you eat gaseous food.

>>16015051
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulb_of_penis

I think I did something wrong.

>>16015111
No.

>>16015059
What you are arguing simply isn't correct. And the side you're arguing it from is the wrong one. Plants require CO2 to exist. PERIOD. It's not a limiting factor like too little manganese or something. It is LITERALLY what plants are fucking made out of.

>>16015081
I don't know why you enjoy coming onto /sci/ and /an/ and just showing your ass all day so much.

>>16015091
Wait you're serious? You literally think plants can live without carbon dioxide?

>>16015123
>What you are arguing simply isn't correct. And the side you're arguing it from is the wrong one. Animals require O2 to exist. PERIOD. It's not a limiting factor like too little protein or something. It is LITERALLY what animals are fucking made out of.

You are a grade A retard. Learn what a limiting factor is and try growing a few plants before you come back. You'll find that the soil and water is a lot more important than the CO2 concentration.

>>16015094
>Animals turn oxygen into biomass
LOL that is not how that works. Animals use oxygen to produce energy, not biomass. They literally use oxygen to break down mass.

>>16015126
The irony. Leave, retard.

>>16015109
I mean I guess, for what the age of rats is capable of producing.

>semi joking I love my big rhino

>>16015128
That's not even close to what I said and the fact that you feel the need to twist my words demonstrates that you don't understand what you're talking about and are arguing in bad faith.

Go be a retard somewhere else.

>>16015131
>He thinks there's no oxygen in animal tissues
Go back to high school biology.

>>16015131
We're 65% oxygen by mass

>>16015111
I eat gaseous food all at once then spend the evening working through it.

>>16015130
Try growing plants in a vacuum chamber with no CO2.

>>16015134
You seem to have been spending the past few hours claiming that plants just don't need CO2.

>>16015144
>>16015145
See
>>16015134

You are a pants-on-head retard who doesn't understand the requirements for plant growth and can only argue in bad faith.

Why don't you do an experiment? Buy some perlite or vermiculite, put it in a CO2 tent, plant some seeds, and give it as much water as it needs. See how big your plants grow. Protip: they will germinate and then die from lack of nutrients.

Try playing around with the parameters. Give them fertilizer and reduce the oxygen. They won't die after sprouting like your first experiment.

Now cut your fertilizer in half and give them twice the CO2. You'll see less growth and unhealthy plants.

The long and short of it is that you're a retard who doesn't understand plant growth and won't do a simple experiment to challenge their world views.

>>16015152
>oxygen
CO2* not sure how I fucked that up.

>>16015152
NTA but for most plants in most places in the world, nutrient access isn't a limiting factor in their growth. Water and CO2 is. When CO2 levels are higher, plants survive with less water. Just like humans, when plants "breathe", they lose a little moisture. Higher CO2 concentrations mean they don't have to breathe as much to get the same amount of CO2, so they lose less water.

Yes, micronutrients like phosphate, calcium, magnesium etc are important but these trace minerals generally aren't the limiting factor in wild places.

All other things being equal, more CO2 = more plant growth. Yes, other factors matter, but in this context, we're talking about "all plants everywhere in the world" growing in 450ppm co2 instead of 300ppm co2. The other conditions are same in each scenario.

Why are you choosing this hill to die on? The literature is very clear on this. Every time you grow plants under identical conditions except for raised CO2, they grow significantly more. Some species see bigger gains than other, but that's neither here nor there.
>One of the most consistent effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on plants is an increase in the rate of photosynthetic carbon fixation by leaves. Across a range of FACE experiments, with a variety of plant species, growth of plants at elevated CO2 concentrations of 475–600 ppm increases leaf photosynthetic rates by an average of 40%. Carbon dioxide concentrations are also important in regulating the openness of stomata, pores through which plants exchange gasses, with the external environment. Open stomata allow CO2 to diffuse into leaves for photosynthesis, but also provide a pathway for water to diffuse out of leaves. Plants therefore regulate the degree of stomatal opening (related to a measure known as stomatal conductance) as a compromise between the goals of maintaining high rates of photosynthesis and low rates of water loss.

>>16015560
>for most plants in most places in the world, nutrient access isn't a limiting factor in their growth.
Immediately wrong. I won't bother reading the rest of your post, but I notice you posted a picture from an experiment where all other limiting factors have been catered to and the only variable for plant growth is CO2. You should be smart enough (but aren't) to understand that that does not demonstrate your point, it demonstrates my point. Further it does not speak to whether or not the average wild plant has access to sufficient nutrients. I would tell you to try again, but honestly, don't bother.

>>16015560
>growing in 450ppm co2 instead of 300ppm co2
Actually, during most warmer periods the ppm is much higher, so this is a minor change. Imagine what 1,000ppm does.

>Why are you choosing this hill to die on?
Because I said it and she has to disagree with me.

>>15996551
me on the left

>>16001180
when you lunatics start nagging on china and india then, maybe then I will start researching this on my own

>>16015800
Take your meds.

>>16015859
China is greener than the US now by pretty much every metric. They get half of their energy from renewables and nuclear, the have lower emissions per capita, lower cumulative emissions, and they're next exporters of carbon which means that most of their emissions actually belong to other countries. You'll have to find a new boogeyman.

>>16015560
>>16015800
If most plants in the world have access to all the nutrients they need then why does eutrophication happen?

Protip: Because most plants in the world do not have enough access to nutrients.

Sorry you wanted to make shit up on the internet and immediately got called out. Maybe you should have just acknowledged that you don't know what you're talking about and posted something else.

>>16015934
>China is greener than the US now by pretty much every metric.
Name literally one.

>>16015934
Btw, none of the shit you just claimed is true. Even if you give a fuck about CO2, China is the largest contributer on the planet. You had to put that little "per capita" shit in their because china is ALSO so fucking overpopulated that you can use one bad statistic to play off of another. You are such a deceitful whore a jannie should actually come to your house and kill you. Banning is insufficient.

>>16015934

>>16015956
Btw, this is 83% JUST from three fossil fuel sources, so I fail to see how "half" is coming from renewables and nuclear (which is only 2%).

>>16014602
>>16015000
>>16015003
I think you need to head back to plebbit

>>16015964
>Still attempting to claim CO2 isn't necessary for plant growth, then claiming she didn't say that
>Still trying to claim corn fields = more biomass than old growth forest or more water mass

>>16015948
I named four metrics. Learn to read.

>>16015951
>Btw, none of the shit you just claimed is true.
And your outdated picture is going to prove that?

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/china-zero-carbon-electricity

>>16015956
>>16015963
>2022

Now have some graphs that compare China to other countries.

>>16015948
>>16015951
>>16015956
>>16015963

>>16015948
>>16015951
>>16015956
>>16015963
Cope, seethe, and dilate.

>>16015967
Are you illiterate and stupid? Rough. That must be so hard for you.

>>16016013
Per capita is a meaningless metric when it comes to CO2. America's CO2 emissions are somehow more justifiable if they add 500 million extra people that scrape a subsistence lifestyle in rural agriculture?

>>16016062
Cope harder, retard. You got BTFO from start to finish. Next time complain about the US or keep your vapid opinions to yourself.

>>16016073
>Next time complain about the US or keep your vapid opinions to yourself.
Why do China's industrial emissions matter less just because they have 500 million rural peasants living in abject poverty and making virtually zero emissions?
The urban Chinese emit far more CO2 per capita than Americans.

>>16016084
Because per capita measurements control for population, retard. Besides that they have more renewables installed than the US total, as a percentage, and per capita. Cope and seethe, tranny.

>>16016087
>Because per capita measurements control for population, retard
In what way? We're talking about CO2 emissions as a byproduct of industrial society - the vast majority of Chinese citizens are not part of that industrial society, they are not benefiting from the wealth and security that those emissions represent for the urban Chinese middle class.
If you want to "control for population", you also have to control for the distribution of wealth and therefore emissions within that population.

>>16016132
Absolutely nonsense from the tranny who's coping harder than they ever have before. China is more green than the US and the US should be ashamed of that fact. Be better than China.

>>16016140
Calling it nonsense doesn't refute the logic of my argument.
Per capita comparisons are meaningless. The climate doesn't care if the 50 gigatonnes of CO2 it just got hit by came from a city of 50,000 or 50 million.

>>16004702
Fucking GOOGLE???? Way to out yourself glownigger

>>16016153
Absolutely nonsense, tranny, but let's take it as fact.
See
>>16016006
>>16016011

Cope harder, fag.

>>16016162
Use whatever search engine you want. Your ignorance is your problem. Fix it.

>>16016178
Why don't we look at forest cover per capita? USA has a much higher area of forest land per capita than China.

>>16016223
The US doesn't have forests, tranny, they have tree farms. Pic related is old growth forest area over time and it's even worse now.

Besides that, what do you think forests have to do with emissions? Did you short out while you were seething?

>>16016006
>imported or exported
The fuck is this hyperspecific neoliberal nonsense?

>>16016011
>Total emissions ever
Wow. You must be a chink. You are literally doing everything in your power to cherrypick stats to make china look better than it its.

Even the site you're linking shows china is the largest emitter of CO2 per year. Of course it's also been industrialized far shorter than america.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region

>>16016013
There's per capita again, because china has one and a half BILLION fucking insects, whereas america only has 350 million at the highest estimate, which is 4x less.

>>16016014
I get it now. You're a literal paid shill. That's why you hang on my nuts every single thread and are here 24/7. You are literally being paid by china to post here. That's why you get so absolutely assblasted when someone points out china is faking feathered fossils.

You a bitch.

>>16016087
But you're missing a sort of important point. The environment doesn't give a flying nigger about "per capita". All it cares about is total emissions. You're just trying to put a band aid on china's trainwreck of pollution. You are right that america WAS like this. WAS being the operative word. China is like this NOW.

>>16016140
No he's right and you're clearly a shill. I don't know why I didn't see it before. Probably because I'm so used to kikes just practicing pilpul normally I didn't factor in you could be getting paid for it.

>>16016087
THAT stat you just plain made the fuck up. Chinese energy is overwhelmingly reliant on fossil fuels. There's no way to cherrypick that image away, so you didn't even bother. It's not even a close contest. It's literally worse than america.

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/china-zero-carbon-electricity

>Renewable sources, AS CHINA DEFINES THEM, now make up 50.9 percent of the country’s power capacity.

Now as far as every other country defines them, NOPE.

>>16016308
>The fuck is this hyperspecific neoliberal nonsense?
The results of neoconservatives sending all of our jobs to China two decades ago.

>Wow. You must be a chink. You are literally doing everything in your power to cherrypick stats to make china look better than it its.
>Why are you still mad that I killed your dog? It happened yesterday!

>largest emitter of CO2 per year
Cope harder, tranny.

>There's per capita again
You trannies always seethe that more people produce more emissions. This should be common sense, but I guess your HRT treatments are giving you brain fog.

>>16016314
>The environment doesn't give a flying nigger about "per capita".
More tranny cope.

>No he's right and you're clearly a shill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

>>16016321
China considers nuclear to be renewable, tranny. Cope harder. The EU considers natural gas to be renewable. Seethe and dilate.

>>16016363
>Why are you still mad that I killed your dog? It happened yesterday!
The worst part about this is you're using ALL TIME stats to show america pollutes more, but DESPITE china being industrialized FAR later it's emissions are STILL nearly half those of america's.

>There's per capita again
Countries aren't supposed to have a billion people.

Free Tibet, sweaty.

>>16016363
>China considers nuclear to be renewable
I also showed you that it comprises a whopping 2% of their energy.

>>16016450
In 2022. That's how investment and deployment work. Your capacity increases over time. Seriously, get off of HRT. Your cognitive abilities are atrophying very quickly unless you started out as stupid as an 8 year old.

>>16016448
Cope, seethe, and dilate, tranny. Facts don't care about your feelings.

>>16016264
>meyer

>>16016521
Provide an alternative source for the extent old growth forests in the US or fuck off, tranny.

>>16016514
>Um, actually I'm allowed to make shit up if it's shilling for chyna

>>16016517
You will never be a real tranny. You will always just be an annoying woman, no matter how retarded you may post.

>>16016541
>Nooo! You can't just post facts from the current year! You have to use old data because it helps my argument!
Shut up, tranny. Facts don't care about your feelings.

>>16016521
>oy vey, kentucky is now a treeless desert because i published this chart in a replication crisis journal my cousin owns.
last time I was in kentucky it was heavily forested.

>>16017114
>Imagine being so retarded that you didn't understand the difference between a tree farm and an old growth forest

>>16015051
Asians seem to survive pretty well under those conditions. This is a non-issue even without AC.

>>16018069
>Imagine being this retarded

>>16017701
>trees aren't real if they're planted by humans
its like you're really desperate to prove all the stuff musk says about the anti-human death cult true

>>16018700
>Imagine being so retarded that you didn't understand the difference between a tree farm and an old growth forest

>>16019084
>trees aren't real if they're planted by humans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

>>16019644
Are you illiterate? Nobody is saying the trees aren't real, I'm telling you that a tree farm and a forest are very different things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest
>An old-growth forest[a], also known as a "virgin forest", is a forest that has developed over a long period of time without disturbance. Due to this, old-growth forests exhibit unique ecological features.[1] The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations defines primary forests as naturally regenerated forests of native tree species where there are no clearly visible indications of human activity and the ecological processes are not significantly disturbed.
>Old-growth features include diverse tree-related structures that provide diverse wildlife habitats that increases the biodiversity of the forested ecosystem. Virgin or first-growth forests are old-growth forests that have never been logged. The concept of diverse tree structure includes multi-layered canopies and canopy gaps, greatly varying tree heights and diameters, and diverse tree species and classes and sizes of woody debris.
>Old-growth forests are valuable for economic reasons and for the ecosystem services they provide.[4][5] This can be a point of contention when some in the logging industry desire to harvest valuable timber from the forests, destroying the forests in the process, to generate short-term profits, while environmentalists seek to preserve the forests in their pristine state for benefits such as water purification, flood control, weather stability, maintenance of biodiversity, and nutrient cycling. Moreover, old-growth forests are more efficient at sequestering carbon than newly planted forests and fast-growing timber plantations, thus preserving the forests is important to climate change mitigation.[6][7]

Fuck off with your obsession with tree farms and your ignorant assertions that a tree farm is just as good as a forest.

>>16019669
>a tree farm is just as good as a forest
Neoliberals MUST make claims like this though. Otherwise capitalism implodes and kills them all.

>>16019669
referring to wikipedia is like announcing that you have no idea what you're talking about and that you have zero education in the topic you're professing to be an expert in.

>>16020123
go to >>>/pol/ if you want to discuss the imaginary political ideologies you're obsessed with, you're clearly not here to discuss science.

>>15997553
>>16008823
LMAO, what a brainwashed moron you are!

>>16020460
Love how "people" are too stupid to know that wikipedo has sources.

>>16020463
>The dominant economic system in control of and ruining the entire planet is "imaginary"
What does it say about what you believe that the only way to defend it is to claim it doesn't exist?

>>16020467
Pic related: (You). Absolute punk rock.

>>16020460
What an ironic post from a moron who doesn't know what an old growth forest is and apparently can't work a search engine.

>>16020908
You have to understand, to a kike, a tree is literally the worst possible thing they can imagine. Jews literally whine about trees in the bible probably more than any other single topic:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=grove&version=KJV

>>16020664
>john oliver

>>15998797
>It's also one of the most important states for agriculture
no it isn't, if it ceased to exist nobody would care or even notice.