/sci/ - Science & Math

>How come scientists never discovered this until recently?
CO2 generators have existed for a long time

>>16116672
they secretly hate trees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_generator

>>16116675
this kind of mentally ill belief is only possible with total ignorance of math and physics

>>16116672
That's making cold weather places more inviting to people who aren't built for cold weather. Just look at what's happening to Canada.

>>16116672
Lol no.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/

>>16116672
it makes sense when you realize that withering is the goal rather than flourishing, and frailty rather than vitality the virtue

>>16116898
You must love disco.

>>16116994
Read it, retard.

>>16117067
I did, that's how I knew you interpreted it as a single variable (tree planting) and dismissed everything else even though the article itself states majority rather than entirely. You could argue rate if you wanted, as that would be a valid discussion given the article, but instead you created a fantasy in your head with one and only one variable.
In the future you should give a bit more thought to both what you read and the context in which is exist before resorting to emotional responses.

>>16116672
this is terrible. how do you suppose we establish the new world order NOW?!?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8AHkAJrpAxd4/

>>16117105
You clearly didn't read the article.

>>16116675
That's what will happen to the Earth once CO2 runs out and causes all the plants to die off, before unleashing the runaway greenhouse effect caused by plants not keeping said CO2 levels in check and the sun increasing in luminosity, boiling away the ice caps and releasing greenhouse gas deposits. Earth will actually become an even more hellish version of Venus in around a billion years due to this, as it has significantly more gas deposits.

>>16117257
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they didn't read/watch whatever it is that you based your world view upon.
Read this and you must agree with me 100% or you didn't read it: https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/

>>16116898
Just because deliberate land use changes by humans have resulted in most of the increased green cover doesn't mean wild growth isn't benefiting too.
Look at the sahel, north African coast, US Midwest, etc. The greener Earth may be most pronounced in India and China for mostly land use reasons, but higher CO2 has still been fantastic for wild growing plants all over the world, and the overall global gains eclipse the small, regional, localised areas of loss.

>>16117308
And yet both CO2 and O2 levels continue to drop globally.

>>16117308
India has become a verdant garden paradise in recent years.

>>16117311
>And yet both CO2 and O2 levels continue to drop globally.
What did he mean by this.

>>16117290
It's the ocean that does the heavy lifting with CO2 recycling, stupid.

>>16116672
>>16116672
nature is healing

>>16117257
The very headlines would mislead me to believe the two most pollutant causing countries on the planet are somehow leading the "greening of earth". If it can't even get a headline right why on earth would I bother reading the rest of it?
>>16117311
>>16117308
>I am going to talk about an inert gas for some reason
Cool story bro.

>>16117420
>The very headlines would mislead me to believe the two most pollutant causing countries on the planet are somehow leading the "greening of earth".
The greening is caused by China and India dumping lots of fertilizer and irrigation water on their crop fields, not by CO2 fertilization.

>>16117302
That's based on an old study that didn't factor human land use into account.

>>16117420
>Everything I don't like is a made up lie

>>16117375
"""the ocean""" does that because its filled with phytoplankton. the water isn't absorbing anything directly, the water air interface is minuscule compared to the oceans' volume. phytoplankton eat CO2, they are whats in the water that is removing CO2 from the atmosphere

>>16118024
there is far more green mass in the oceans than on land

>>16116672
Perfect for me to cut down more trees and sell the lumber to foreign nations

>>16116675
Imagine being a brainlet being filtered by non-linear relations.
I mean you probably consider this such a "big word", I might as well speak Chink right now.

>>16118024
Why are you so disingenuous? You know that CO2 dissolves in water and you just happened to leave that out? Shame on you.

>>16118172
Its good to do that now while lumber is still valuable. Trees are going to be growing a lot faster and larger as CO2 increases, so the price of lumber is going to go down.

>>16119851
Thats going to happen for all crops. Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes cropland twice as productive per acre. Also makes the crops twice as easy to harvest because of the increased density. Agricultural land will probably drop in value since less of it will be needed to produce the same amount of crops

>>16119851
>>16120306
You are in for a rude awakening

>>16116677
>co2 is a problem! we have to fix it!
>ok build a bunch of nuclear reactors and use surplus generation to make methane to run combined-cycle plants during peaks, and pipe the flue into greenhouses
>no not like that!

>>16120306
Enhanced atmospheric CO2 also makes plants grow with less water, so semi arid regions which were previously too dry for agricultural operations will become viable.

Surprise, assholes. It turns out that Earth indeed must be a giant greenhouse, without it we turn into a cold, desert rock like Mars.

>>16118024
Shake the can well before you open your next drink.

>>16120463
Water vapor is the only significant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Its easy to prove, just look up some tables of average daily temperature swings in arid regions vs humid regions and you'll be able to calculate that water vapor accounts for the entire greenhouse effect on Earth

>>16120431
Theres nothing wrong with dumping the CO2 to the open atmosphere, CO2 isn't a pollutant any more than nitrogen or oxygen are, CO2 is a normal atmospheric gas

>>16121184
>>16121856
Retard takes.

>>16122331
Not an argument.
CO2 is plant food.

>>16122331
The only downside is the potential warming effect from additional CO2. It's been estimated that current increases in CO2 have a radiative forcing effect of about 2 watts per square meter, compared to the total solar irradiance of 1361 W/m2. If CO2 levels doubled to 800 ppm then it's estimated this would have a radiative forcing effect of 6 W/m2. To offset warming in this scenario would require mitigation strategies like stratospheric aerosol injection to reduce solar irradiance by about 0.4%. In the context of plant growth this reduction in sunlight would be negligible given that photosynthesis is only 1 to 2% efficient. If anything we should see significantly accelerated plant growth by about 10 to 50% due to the CO2 fertilization effect at 800ppm.

>>16122460
>>16122485
Retard takes

>>16116672
>>16116675
from the horse's mouth

>>16116672
>""""environmentalists"""" get angry when they hear that nature is getting healthier
why?

>>16123278
Because they don't care about the environment, they want it to be unhealthy or seen as unhealthy because that would justify their hidden true motives. And they want to hide their real motives because they know how awful what they really want is.

>>16116681
They're not all that secret about it

>>16116672
>Fossil fuel industry propaganda
Yawn.

>>16116672
>How does converting hydrocarbons to biomass make the planet greener
Real headscratcher

>>16124709
https://www.psycom.net/paranoid-schizophrenia

>>16125219

I'm tired of seeing this stupid lie everywhere. CO2 will not increase plant growth outside of highly controlled conditions.

The law of the minimum governs plant growth. It states that growth is limited by the most scarce factor. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is like building a barrel with one stave taller then the rest and the "CO2 is plant food" crowd insists that it will make the barrel hold more water. It won't.

https://www.cropnutrition.com/resource-library/the-law-of-the-minimum/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimum

https://soilsfacstaff.cals.wisc.edu/facstaff/barak/soilscience326/lawofmin.htm

>>16116672
So where's the spaces where all this extra plant life is supposed to be flourishing? Because all I'm seeing is existing forests getting set on fire for agriculture at impossible rates. Or alternatively forests just catching on fire by themselves. Where are the places that we're supposed to be sinking gigatons of carbon dioxide into? Which desert has turned into a rain forrest of late?

>>16125649
It's in Chinese cropland and tree farms and it's fertilizer, not CO2 that's greening the Earth.

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

>>16125623
CO2 is extremely low compared to the times plants evolved.
So while the law of the minimum might be true, the yield may still increase because CO2 is the lowest stave of the barrel.
And some other plant that was co2 limited may cause animals to appear that shit out phosphor causing other plants to grow more.

>>16125697
You can fertilize the soil, but you can't fertilize the air. Therefore increasing CO2 levels is of the utmost importance.

>>16125788
>CO2 is extremely low compared to the times plants evolved.
What do you mean "the times plants evolved"? Evolution is ongoing. It's not like it happened in the past and then stopped one day.
>CO2 is the lowest stave of the barrel.
Source?

>>16117290
venus just doesn't recycle it's matter into it's core like earth does but instead farts it all out

>>16125788
I wonder how much you get paid to write this horseshit

>>16125788
Entirely wrong. Stop spreading misinformation on the internet.

>>16125864
Plants are retarded and will gobble up all CO2 until they starve. Also rocks.
>Source that it's the lowest
sauce that it isn't?

>>16125918
>what's the pay
About as much as a janny

>>16125946
Break free of the anti human death cult you have been lured into.
What's next? Are you going to claim that blotting out the sun won't affect plant life because it is limited by some other parameter?

>>16126169
You made the claim. You source it.

>>16126463
Why does it upset you so much that CO2 is good for the environment? If you're as concerned about the environment as you claim to be then you should be happy to find out that CO2 is good for the environment.
Its almost as if you hate the environment and seeing good news about it makes you angry

>>16126924
Why are you incapable of sourcing your claims? It's almost like you made them up.

>>16117270
What a shithole planet. And Musk wants to colonize this place?

>>16127235
that's not Mars you moron

>>16116742
and chemistry and biology

The Truth About Climate Change
Authors: Jonathan Tooker
https://vixra.org/abs/1309.0069
Climatology occupies the intersection of science policy and public understanding of science. In such a prominent position, the wide spectrum of climate opinions is remarkable. Society has achieved a paradigm in which global warming subscribers and non-subscribers are largely segregated by political affiliation. Since science is non-political, only a misunderstanding of the science can facilitate such a segregation. In the first section we analyze a recent study by Cook \emph{et al.} finding overwhelming scientific endorsement for the greenhouse theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). We find the popular reporting on Cook's result is not accurate. The aim of the following section is to clarify the science behind the most popular climate arguments and introduce the reader to some evidence that is not widely publicized. Even the astute non-climatologist should come away from this report with an enhanced understanding of relevant issues in modern climate science.

>>16128040
Did you finally give up larping as a mathematician?

>>16116672
>How come scientists never discovered this until recently?
The fact that plants consume CO2 has been well known for a long time, at least since the and Skoog Murashige experiments in the 50s & 60s.

>>16125623
As with soil biology a balance of conditions is most ideal. With soil biology once there are good conditions increasing the threshold provides better results. This goes for elevated CO2, storage of sugars in the leaf are increased in many plants, better nitrogen fixation, better use of water, better resistance to stress i.e. harsh conditions.

>>16129149
Word salad.

>>16116672

“Global warming is fake”

“Ok, global warming isn’t fake, but it’s actually a good thing” <—— YOU ARE HERE

“Ok, global warming isn’t a good thing, but it’s not that bad either”

“Ok, global warming is bad, but it won’t affect me personally”

“Fuck”

>>16116672
I fully endorse burning more fossil fuel to return carbon locked in low energy, high entropy states back into the carbon cycle (which is not 100% efficient due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). There it will be available for utilization by living organisms, thereby prolonging the life of the earth's biosphere.

>>16129156
>t. low iq

>>16129307
t. low functioning autistic

What’s the point of this thread? To disprove global warming or something? You realize methane, NO2, and water vapor have a much greater effect on global warming than CO2.

>>16129551
Global warming is a scam. Not because it's not happening, but because it's by in large a good thing. My nephew is in the 6th grade and is stressed to the eyeballs because he is convinced everyone will die due to global warming. It really angers me.

>>16129629
i mean, he's not wrong that we're all going to die

>>16125623
Exactly, though, it's not actually a hard rule, there can be limited benefit from the other nutrients. The CO2 can now barely compensate for the loss of heavy metals. Soon places start becoming lifeless again, because there is no eukaryotic life without lead.

>>16129464
>t. low iq

>>16130026
Autistic people are soothed by repetition so you've just proved me right.

>>16129641
>implying modern agriculture doesn't rely heavily on machinery designed by engineers

>>16130332
Na bro subsistence farming for literally (not figuratively) 8% of the yield that can be obtained with chemical intervention is heckin based

>>16116898
Are China and India unprecedented verdant paradises now, or were they wastelands previously? The "greening" between countries is not that meaningful unless the countries started at the same level of "greenness".

>>16129629
It is erroneous to call what is happening “global warming”. What is actually happening is climate destabilization which will cause massive drought and famine in some areas (mostly poor tropic areas) and unpredictable weather patterns. Your nephew is right to worry but not because le warming. What is more likely to happen is massive immigration from collapsing agricultural societies and as a result, riots over food and water. Restrictions on necessities will become common while mega corporations will continue to pump out single use products like cheap clothes and iPhones. Essentially the 1st world will become a toilet like the rest of the world

>>16130411
>massive immigration
So nothing out of the ordinary?
>will become a toilet like the rest of the world
Will?

These things would be way scarier if they hadn't already happened.

>>16130409
Cope harder

>>16130409
China and India are some of the least green countries on the planet.

>>16130508
>He thinks trees are the only plant

>>16117497
See
>>16117308

>>16130544
See
>>16117497

>>16117308
Mesopotamia is thriving

>>16130657
>Net Zero Watch
Pure propaganda. Let me guess, it's the climategate emails again?

>>16130789
>I didn't read this document
why not? because you're not literate enough to understand scientific publications?

>>16131185
>scientific publications
Lol. The funniest part is that you actually believe that. You will never be a scientist.

>>16130508
Satellite images show the opposite.

>>16132064
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm0ARggsQWA

>>16116672
this shit makes me laugh so hard the oxygen content of my blood has significantly depleted

>>16130409
the Ganges is truly the greenest river on the planet!

What's happening to all the bugs tho?

Are we just overusing pesticides?
Have they evolved to avoid humans/civilization better?

>>16132971

>>16132992
>What's happening to all the bugs tho?
They're still being annoying. Found a nest of wasps living in my basement last summer.

>>16132992
>Are we just overusing pesticides?
Definitely a big part of it, along with habitat destruction and light pollution
>Have they evolved to avoid humans/civilization better?
Only the pest species

>>16132523
lololol
why are end of the world messiah complex schizos so consistently retarded?

>>16136435
Anon, that's footage from a sitcom.

>>16126169
>anti human death cult
I don't know how caring about the environment that you as a living being depend on is a "death cult". Humans are biological organisms that follow the same laws of Nature as everything else.
>>16129179
It's going to be shit and - on geologic time scales - might actually end humanity as a whole. Keep in mind, climate change is just one aspect of ecological overshoot.
>>16129629
>It really angers me.
Most likely because you won't have to deal with this mess, but he will and he's somewhat aware of that.
>>16130332
It also relies heavily on fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals. None of these are good for the environment in current quantities.

>>16136510
>I am the savior of Mother Nature
>I am the protector of the Earth
>THAT WHY YOU HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING I SAY!!!
>I'M THE BOSS AROUND HERE

>>16137916
Take your meds

Why does it make so many people upset and angry that CO2 is good for plants?

>>16138649
No one is upset about CO2 being good for plants, they're just frustrated about how stupid people jump from that to "man-made climate change is good and/or not real". Hope that helps.

>>16138666
theres no evidence that the climate is changing

>>16137916
Who are you quoting?

>>16116672
Though plants do grow fast with higher CO2 concentrations, humanity is increasing said concentration much faster than plants can sequester the CO2 from the air.

Additionally, if plant that dies and rots, the CO2 is released back into the air, so the CO2 entrapment is temporary.

Forget it, plants won't fix global warming in a convenient timeframe for us, it'll take a few thousand years.

>>16139579
the more co2 there is in the atmosphere, the faster and more efficiently plants sequester co2

its almost as if the life on this planet evolved with fluctuating atmospheric CO2 portions just like it did with fluctuating temperatures, daylight availability, etc.

Yeah that's the point they want you to live in a world without trees.

>>16129629
Yeah global warming is good. It would be better if nobody could freeze to death.

>>16139749
Yeah, there will be mass famine and heat exposure deaths, but at least no one will freeze lol

>>16139763
>there will be mass famine because plants grow more productively and require less water in CO2 enhanced atmospheres

>>16139766
Which youtuber told you that?

>>16116672
Most of those certified as scientists are actually impostors. The real ones prefer to stay away from academia more often than not.
Al Gore is not scientist. Neither is Neil deGrasse Tyson.

>>16139815
>Neither is Neil deGrasse Tyson.
NDT managed to get a PhD in astronomy from an Ivy league school without being able to pass undergrad calculus classes
Explain that

>>16130508

>>16141278
>>>/pol/

>>16130606
Saddam built a lot of waterworks, dams, irrigation canals, etc. That was one of the things that the west hated about him, they wanted him to be dependent on grain imports

>>16116675
Literally the stupidest "argument" of all re: global warming.

>>16116672
same thing i said on other thread. plants are, in general, adapted to current CO2 levels. increase a bit and they do well. increase roo much and they crash.

go put yourself in a 2x O2 environment and see how you feel. same shit happens to plants.

>>16143080
Wrong, plants are healthiest at 1500-2000ppm.
At 400ppm they're on the verge of death from starvation.

>>16144456
Source?

>>16125623
Damn, if only we can mine them out of the ground where roots don't reach.

>>16116672

good news?

now you gotta use more gasoline to get rid of the green stuff
emit more CO2

plant grow faster more

where end of this maddness

we goin vegan bros!

and ze bugs for connaisseurs

>>16145224
Retard take.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-022-01247-2

CO2
=
Plant food

>>16145369
>we invented another peak to own you
The runoff simply turns into more sea food and ultimately ocean sediment. Shit is more common than sulfur.

>>16116672
>How come scientists never discovered this until recently?
You are making a fundamental mistake conflating what you, personally, are aware of, with what "scientists discovered". Your ignorance is not their ignorance.

>>16129641

>>16145460
Running off into the ocean is the problem. If it were economical to extract phosphorus from the ocean then we wouldn't be mining it. The best you can get right now is composting seafood waste, but that's not enough to support all of our agriculture.

>>16116675
Venus doesn't even look remotely like that. More NASA image editing.

>>16146205
>economical
Sediment. If we are scraping the ocean bed for sea food then we can scrape the floor for mud too

>>16146114
You're ignorant of the sorted history of agricultural "science"

>>16147577
>the sorted history
The word you're looking for there is "sordid."

>>16130332
Do the next edit, go ahead

>>16116742
>this kind of mentally ill belief is only possible with total ignorance of math and physics
Just like climate change denial

>>16146338
Alright, bud. Go make your pitch to some venture capitalists. Have them sign an NDA and tell them you solved peak phosphorus and you can give them an edge over the competition who thinks mining phosphorus is cheaper. See how much money they give you. If all it takes to supply the world with their phosphorus is to scrape up some ocean sediment and you're the only person to ever have thought of that then you're going to be a rich man. We all love and support you, anon.

>>16130332
>designed by engineers
It was all designed originally by farmers and other people involved in agriculture. John Deere was a blacksmith who made plows and pitchforks for farmers, he had no engineering background and training. Most of John Deere's early products came from farmers who went to him and said "can you build me something like this…"

>>16147799
>John Deere was a blacksmith who made plows and pitchforks for farmers, he had no engineering background and training. Most of John Deere's early products came from farmers who went to him and said "can you build me something like this…"
John Deere died over 100 years ago. No blacksmith is designing modern farming equipment.

>>16116672
>Good news everyone, it turns out that plants like CO2.
>How come scientists never discovered this until recently?
>Seems like it should be big news, but they never talk about it.
I remember hearing this years ago. It may have even been a decade ago.

>>16147747
That idea only need a boat with syphon. Venture cap is for pissing on the moon.

>>16147983
Then surely you can get a loan for such an enterprise and corner the phosphorus market single handedly. You could even patent the process to ensure that other people can't just buy a bigger fleet of boats. You are important to us, anon. You are the smartest person in the world and that's why you've solved an issue that nobody else has. All that's left for you to do is get to work.

>>16148499
Thanks for the insight. But again I am not interested in getting investment prior to getting a boat or looking ar river sediments first.
I don't know why you are hell bent on capitalization and investment, before prototyping. Aren't you a pretencious scamming jew? How does a monopoly on solution help in a supposed global crisis? Do you really in this to solve the problem?

>>16116677
Because most of them are complete idiots who can only repeat like parrots whatever nonsense they were trained to say by their jew masters.

>>16117270
That's just my hometown

I don't think Global warming will shift the planets orbit to Venus ...

Why does the fact that CO2 is good for plants and good for the environment make people who claim that they want an improved natural environment seethe so much?
Why aren't the people who claim to be concerned about the environment ecstatic that CO2 is improving it so much?

>>16149568
Because the people who claim that it's good for the environment frequently want to destroy the environment

>>16148573
The point is to make you actually think about your retarded idea. People much smarter than you have come up with the same idea, analyzed it, and then discarded it because it was useless.

>>16149947
>>16149568
>>16148574
Take your meds

>>16149968
Appeal to some hypothetical authority when you can't even name him. Why would it be already been done when mechanization is recent and such self "aware" climate panic is even more recent and still panicking. It is not knowledge if it doesn't set you free, including worry free. How about some actual and related counter arguments?
Chalk and limestone has been stablizing phosphate by precipitation and been used as soil amendments anyways. Once stablized it can be taken out of of the stream and bottom and put into the ground alone with bacteria that solubilize it so roots can take it up.
Why do you keep associating ponzi scheme of "winner takes all" market monopoly investment with work and insisting on doing things out of order?

>>16143080
Look up C3 and C4 photosynthesis.

C3, the most common photosynthesis is literally poisoned by atmospheric oxygen. It loses half its efficiency in Earth's current atmosphere.

>>16150426
How about you actually analyze your moronic plan? Just look into the logistics and you'll realize that you're a moron. Use real data and actually do the math.

>>16117420
CO2 isn't a pollutant any more than O2 is

>>16150718
Not like you can do any. Keep your doom and gloom, might just kill yourself at this point.

>>16151304
I'm not asking you to post it so we can have a debate. I'm telling you to properly analyze your mental abortion so you can stop thinking it's a good idea. As far as I can tell you are a waste of space, and that is always a personal choice.

DOKTOR
TURN OFF MY CO2 INHIBITORS

>>16151805
>i win you lose you do all the work to prove yourself wrong
Peak brain development. Im not sure if doctors can help your condition if they have to seeking you out first.

>>16116672
>cropped out source

>>16139668
But plants DONT sequester CO2 except in specific conditions like swamps.
The co2 mainly joins the merry-go-round of the carbon cycle which is constantly emitting and absorbing co2 via the growth and death of life on earth.

The only way we know to sequester CO2 is to either expose massive amounts of rock to air and let it chemically weather into various carbonates. This takes millions of years.
Or to bury large amounts of organic matter and let it form coal and oil. This also takes millions of years.

Right now there are no tectonic plate movements that are building mountains so there is no chemical weathering taking place.

In the other case we are not sequestering carbon either. Rather we are adding to the problem by taking already sequestered carbon out of the ground and burning it.

>>16151832
I don't know how you can possibly reach adulthood without learning that you have to think things all the way through. Are you disabled and dependent on your parents or something?

>>16151856
You can also produce biochar and amend soil with it to sequester carbon, but the scale of our emissions would dwarf any attempt to offset those emissions with biochar. We need to reduce our emissions and start sequestering carbon. If you have plants, a compost pile, or livestock then you can amend the soil with charged biochar, mix uncharged biochar into compost at 5-20% by volume to charge it yourself, or add uncharged biochar to your feed at 2% by weight. Adding it to feed or compost also reduces their ghg emissions and improves the health of the animals and the quality of the compost/manure.

>>16151877
Nope, fully operational and independent. Keep projecting your inability onto others. I've demonstrated enough thinking here, non contributer in online conversation.

>>16151885
Then you must have had everything given to you. Everyone else has to consider whether or not their ideas are valuable. The only people I've ever met that can't are nepo babies and literal retards who are cared for by their parents all their life. If you aren't either then you should be ashamed at your stunted mental development and work to catch up with the rest of us.

>>16151856
Active biomass is sequestered and "dead" biomass is eaten by living biomass into more biomass.

>>16151935
You should really learn about the carbon cycle instead of pretending to know about it.

>>16151895
Enough of this cookie cutter lecture that automatically assumes you are the teacher and I am the student despite having nothing to back up your supposed authority, and then lecture me on how I am on my own for this study, and none of your business to demonstrate me anything, and when I do have a plan, you throw it down citing it is not as fast and caucious as you had in mind at the same time. Do you work in academia by any chance?

>>16152009
Your idea is a bad idea. Everyone who has examined that idea understands this except for you. You are not the "student" you are a moron who doesn't understand how to objectively examine an idea, and you continue to refuse to even make the attempt. Confirmed nepo baby. Learn how to become a functioning adult.

>>16152365
This is just pathetic.

>>16152422
That's projection.

>>16152475
Who is this everyone pulling out of your ass once again? Its you and me pal. and if you have nothing to say you can gtfo.

>>16152484
Alright, I'll hold your hand. For a resource to be economical to extract you need to exploit a source that is richer than the average content of the Earth's crust which for phosphorus is about 0.1% by weight. The highest phosphorus content I'm seeing for ocean sediments is 525.1 µg/g, or 0.00000525%. We didn't even need to get to the logistics. You would be better off digging up random patches of dirt to collect your phosphorus.

>>16152517
Now we are cooking and see how hard is it? Guess I was wrong about the sea, yet we can still go up stream.
So not only "polluted" ocean has P lower than rock and dirt ambient, thus not a pollution, but the wide usage of high purity phosphorus on field is also a scam because the need could always be meet by adding highly weathered parent material that give off slowly and wash off less easily, and river sediments where agriculture run off is has it in ~5000 mg/kg(0.05%), I wonder what would the number be in actual drainage ditch without mountain snow water diluting it.(holy cracker some chink did it with clay)

>>16152598
>Now we are cooking and see how hard is it?
Ask yourself, moron. You failed to analyze your idiotic idea and demanded that someone else do your thinking for you. Confirmed nepo baby. Learn how to become a functioning adult.

>>16152662
We are back.

>>16153049
Learn how to become a functioning adult.

>>16153148
I am. You are the one having argument and want to refute yet relectant to put work and side tracking at all time. Perhaps you shouldn't be participating in nameless conversation but in a oldfart house, professer guru masta rabbi. Don't you have your own children to scold to?

>>16153181
You are the least self aware person I have ever encountered. I told you your idea was moronic and you needed to think it through. You never did. Every functioning adult thinks through their ideas. You are not a functioning adult.

>>16153265
Come on joe, who are you kidding. If you are less of a moron and child than I do, you won't argue for this long and just point straight to the issue and cut the crap. Your pretenciousness gets you and makes you seeth to the teeth.
Now if you will excuse me I have better bot to proompt.

>>16153272
>If you are less of a moron and child than I do,

>>16151939
>plants don't sequester CO2
but also
>petroleum is made out of plants that died a billion years ago

or are you trying to tell us that oil is abiotic and is a virtually inexhaustible resource because it just oozes out of the earth crust without needing to be instigated by an organic origin

>>16154138
Why don't you try learning about the carbon cycle? You might find some answers to your questions.

>>16154146
you have no idea what you're talking about, greta

>>16154138
How does burning oil release CO2 if oil is made from plants and plants don't sequester CO2?

>>16116675
wow its almost like venus never had any trees to decompose its CO2!

>>16155273
No, YOU have no idea what you're talking about and are projecting. Instead of all that you could learn about the carbon cycle.

>whats a greenhouse: the thread

I don't know any scientists, but all the farmers I know, know that CO2 is good for plants and biomass.
Also oil does NOT take 6 gorillion years, it 's as renewable as water
>co2 absorbed
>co2 into ground become oil
>oil used as fuel
>becomes co2

>>16157079
See
>>16125623

>>16125623
>>16157187
How does that disprove, or even debate what I said on >>16157079?
I'm not saying we need more biomass or co2, I'm saying its a part of the eco-system on this planet like water is and not what we've been taught (finite, poisonous resource).

>>16157422
Try actually reading those links this time.

>>16157079
lets import those people to our relatively clean western nations, what could possibly go wrong

>>16158312

>>16156171
> just shoot plants into venus with a rocket bruh
stay in your lane nazis

>>16159837
cool, where are you all leaving?

>>16157079
youre stupid like a sack of beans.
>plant grows
>absorbs CO2, stores carbon and releases oxygen
>plant dies
>microorganisms digest plant while consuming oxygen, releasing the carbon as CO2
rinse and repeat.

This is a completely different scenario to what used to be the case during the carboniferous period. Even schoolkids know this:
>plants evolve to produce lignine
>plants grow higher than ever before
>absorb CO2, store carbon and release oxygen
>plants die
>microorganisms digest plant while consuming oxygen, releasing some carbon as CO2 but have not yet evolved to consume new to them lignine
>dead plants pile up everywhere for millions of years
>in some areas such piles are covered in acidic swamps, under landslides and sediment and what have you
>microorganisms finay develop the ability to devour lignine, a now highly useful mutation thanks to the now omnipresent foodsource
>microorganisms devour all the dead plants releasing the remaining carbon back in the athmosphere
>only the plant matter than has come to rest under sedimenty permafrost and swamps are out of reach for newly evolved bacteria and over time turn to coal
There are currently no condition for the formation of new coal or oil. This is a misleading strawman anyways. It took millions of years for the fossil fuels man is burning through in merely a couple of years to form. So even if the same process still was feasible, which it isn't, it would be at least by a factor of several hundret too slow to keep up.
Stupid pro climate activists regularly make the same error, believing any plant that fixed carbon will retain it indefinately. Additional carbon is only fixed as long as plant mass increases which is not the case for any mature fauna. On top of that the capacity and rate is extremely limited see above.

>>16159871
Everything you described is just our best guess. There is a competing hypothesis called the abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis. You're acting like it's all been figured out and proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, but it's not.

>>16159931
Abiogenic petroleum is pseudoscientific garbage with no evidence to support it.

>>16117290
>That's what will happen to the Earth once CO2 runs out and causes all the plants to die off
That happened. That's what the Great Oxygenation Event is.
The reason plants literally give free food (fruit) to animals is because they are so strapped for CO2 because of what their ancestors did.
Humans burning fossil fuels is EXACTLY what the plants want. They've been waiting for billions of years for some form of life to fix their fuckup.

>>16159871
Did the advent of lignin-processing microorganisms cause a discreet event like the GOE?

>>16159931
ABIOgenic pereoleum
flat earth schizos get it right every time
look boi. there is a lot of THEORIES, in fact the number of possible theories is infinite. But most theories are just that, theories. Also nothing will ever be proven without a doubt. And yet I have to come across a single person who in a critical situation will refuse to act and rather explain 'I need more evidence the house I'm in is on fire maybe we can rerun the experiment later and check for anomalies ?'.

>>16160962
abiogenic petroleum has never been entertained anywhere. It has already been disproven beyond any reasonable doubt as all known petroleum reserves have composition identical to that of the standard "fossil" fuels, down to trace element counts and fragment weightings.

It's over.

>>16160997
yeah but still theres this dude here
I often get the impressuon the insane ampunt of mental gymnastics those types practice can only be an expression of a very limited set of motivations, trolling, or justifying ones own comfortable and lazy choices and avoiding conflicts of consciousnes. Which would also explain the amount of fallacies and bogus argument that couldn't be explained by even severe lack of wits but only mallicious intent.

>>16160962
Abiogenic petroleum has nothing to do with flat earth, so why even bring it up except to dishonestly poison the well and shut down discussion?

>>16161006
Just don't come to this board unless you're in the mood to shitclown schizoposters. They will never learn but you can at least make fun of them.

>>16161008
>>AB has nothing to do with flat earth
They are equivalent because they are both jokes/trolling/memes seized up on by grifters and edgelords.

>>16161006
>>justifying ones own comfortable and lazy choices
I think it helps some people sleep at night.

>>16161008
>>poison the well
I already told you to go back to /pol/ with your briefcase of hand-drawn conspiracy knowledge bombs.

>>16161453
Flat earth is a psy-op invented to poison the well and terminate all thought and discussion any time someone tries to discuss non-mainstream views on anything.

>>16161458
Okay actually I fully agree with you about this and a lot of other conspiracies.

>>16160997
>It has already been disproven beyond any reasonable doubt
wrong, its been conclusively proved true, all the deepest borehole find hydrocarbon fuels in great quantity at depths for below the deepest traces of organic matter

>>16161008
Well then please explain how complex carbohydrates as were seeing in natural petroleum reserves (we were talking coal a while ago mind you) have formed or can form in the absence of organic matter.
I hope this doesn't reuire really odd supernoveae and alternative nukleogenesis but im very keen to learn. Sorry for trying to poison the well I was just a bit irritated by the fact you brpught up a theory but chose to not make an argument supporting it.

>>16161481
>>all the deepest borehole find hydrocarbon
If this is true why is no company exploiting this fact?

>>16161489
shallower wells are more profitable

>>16117312
It helps that they have plenty of fertilizer

>>16151856
>The only way we know to sequester CO2 is to either expose massive amounts of rock to air and let it chemically weather into various carbonates.
You forgot about biological carbonates IE shells.
>Rather we are adding to the problem
What's the problem?

Still waiting for the argument supporting a novel origin of peteoleum and or or coal. Also wondering how it would be relevant to the discussion, after all all the carbon were discussing was formed in a star and made its way here and we're stuck with it.

>>16116672
>Good news everyone, it turns out that plants like CO2.
I have bad news for you: everyone else already knew that.

Let's hope now that those plants can not only grow fast enough to capture ALL the CO2 we dump into the atmosphere, but that they ALSO die in environments where the organic matter (leaves, trunks, etc) doesn't rot and ends up RELEASING AGAIN that CO2 back into the atmosphere! That's why some forests EMMIT CO2, and others capture CO2.

That's right, that carbon has to be BURIED, and not just be turned into plant matter.
Always complicated, this fucking universe, always fucking complicated.

>>16161951

Anyone play Stationeers? In the game you can grow plants in a 100% CO2 atmosphere just by pumping mars atmosphere in a room to pressure (like 15psi), warming it, and filtering out toxics.

I was very curious if this could work on Mars. The answer is nope. That much CO2 is toxic to plants. Matter of fact plants can't take much more CO2 than what is normal on Earth without it hurting them.

>>16150451
'Under high temperature and light, however, oxygen has a high affinity for the photosynthetic enzyme Rubisco. Oxygen can bind to Rubisco instead of carbon dioxide, and through a process called photorespiration, oxygen reduces C3 plant photosynthetic efficiency and water use efficiency.'

>>16162880
>Matter of fact plants can't take much more CO2 than what is normal on Earth without it hurting them.
thats why all the plants died 25 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 levels were 500% greater than they currently are

>>16163563
>25 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 levels were 500% greater than they currently are
eh

>>16130508
>Literally says fucking TREES
You might be the most retarded person I've seen, but I know your desperate to push your agenda, I'll forgive you.

>>16141296
/pol/ here, and the anon you replied to is correct and you are wrong.

>>16163563
>25 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 levels were 500% greater than they currently are
NTA, but did you research this at all? 20 million years ago CO2 concentrations were at 300ppm. In 2015 they hit 400ppm.

>>16141278
Holy shit, is this true?

>>16164456
post source

>>16165371

>>16166456
You will never be a scientist

>>16166461

>>16130508
the earth is twice the size and below rome you die on a heat stroke wiht in hours

>>16166984
and above germany you freeze, and how the landmasses realy look idk

>>16166984
>>16166987
and and accuhally the entire observable universe weas created "yesterday" more exactly 3-4 day back cause the eather time compression is that hard.

>>16166988
but the vegetation propergation is real so the land in tv exist somehwere on the globe

>>16166991
so the tropics exists and my well educated guess is at the latitude between rome and venecia

>>16158312
>sions with biochar. We need to reduce our emissions and start sequestering carbon. If you have plants, a compost pile, or livestock then you can amend the soil with charged biochar, mix uncharged biochar into compost at 5-20% by volume to charge it yourself, or add uncharged biochar to your feed at 2% by weight. Adding it to feed or compost also reduces their ghg emissions and improves the health of the animals and the quality of the compost/manure.
dying laughing

>co2 makes plants grow faster
>plants convert co2 to o2
>more plants means a higher prodcution of o2 and a higher consumption of co2
so why exactly won't this balance out at some point?

>>16167178
Because that's not how that works. Take a fucking chemistry class.

>>16167221
You keep saying that without explaining WHY it wouldn't settle at an upregulated equilibrium.

>>16167236
C + O2 = CO2. We don't dig up CO2, we dig up C. Where does the O2 come from? The air. You also don't seem to understand the difference between a rate and a magnitude. How do you grow up to be such a waste of space? I feel like it would take special effort.

>>16116672
i am sure taht is a valid source, hence why you chose to cut it out anon

>>16167263
>Where does the O2 come from? The air.
Where did the O2 in the air come from?
H2O, split apart by chloroplasts with solar energy.
More co2 = more/bigger plants
More/bigger plants = more chloroplasts
More chloroplasts = more O2

>>16167323
>ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!
https://www.psycom.net/paranoid-schizophrenia

>>16167958
imagine her disgust when she finds out that there are Christian palestinians

>>16168598
Christians are almost as stupid as Muslims, so I don't see why that should make a difference.

>>16168598
why would she care? she is a humanitarian
she doesn't care who she defends, she defends peoples human rights

>>16169032

>>16169810
>"""""Christians""""" invented science (except not really, Aristotle was well underway with the groundwork for modern science hundreds of years before Christ).
>therefore they demonstrated God was real using science (also not the case, since none of them did that)

>>16169856
you're only confessing your ignorance of the history of the scientific method and demonstrating your ignorance and lack of education

Climate pseudoscientists are no better than mystics, fortune tellers, and other superstitious nonsense. They have produced zero climate models capable of making accurate predictions. If physics had such a low success rate we wouldn't take it seriously as a field of science either.

>>16170133
How many pixels have humans been around?

>>16167543
Incorrect, moron. Only one molecule of O2 is produced for every CO2 processed during photosynthesis. You should have learned this in high school biology.

>>16167543
>>16170201
Also, if more CO2 = more O2 then why aren't we seeing that?

>>16170199
Anatomically modern humans 2 million years. Tool making humans about 40K years. Civilization building humans about 7K years. Scientific humans about 400 years.

>>16117290
Does that mean processing fossil fuels is kind of doing Earth a favour by leaking it out and integrating it into the atmosphere slowly rather than the big dump?

>>16117420
What is literally 'greening the Earth'? The point is pollution and greening are not mutually exclusive, it's just that what might be good for plant growth might no be good for other life forms as well

>>16117497
We also don't know what the green stuff is, what if it's weeds

>>16122485
Where is the CO2 warming the earth in places where you can't deal with the heat by better urban design, plants, water? The point of this thread is that the CO2 can be re-integrated into the ecosystem and stored in plants. Can't there just be a bit of strategy beyond 'less CO2'?

>>16125623
Then you add the other shit to create the conditions needed to use up the fucking CO2 you need to use, how fucking hard is it

>>16170202
>the global warming institute
thats a propaganda operation, not a scientific organization

>>16150426
This guy

>>16150718
You're saying to analyse it from a business and political science angle to see whether it's even worth seeing if his scientific hypothesis is worthwhile and true, basically asking him if he thinks anyone really cares enough to permit him to explore his interests

>>16151856
We just need a lot more people and a lot of hands to do gardening in the beautiful greenhouse paradise. "Be fruitful and multiply." The human beings will take care of the earth, subdue the animals and keep CO2 at a stable and symbiotic level with the plants and possess the earth forever, even figuring out ways how to stop the sun burning up the Earth as predicted because they have stopped fighting and can seamlessly reason with each other. The Earth is a garden.

>>16152365
What do you do for work

>>16152662
>you failed to see your own blind spots before opening your mouth
>you are privileged and it isn't fair what about me, i'm not allowed to say ideas so why should you
>i work all day and come home to this get a real job son yer gonna die out there

>but Dad, the planet is dying
>I have an idea Dad

>go to uni first son

>>16170201
Then plant twice the plants you had planned to plant

Do you ever stop and wonder why you are always so susceptible to fall for conspiratorial thinking? Why is it so important to you to prove to the rest of the world that global warming is a myth? You don't personally own stakes in the hydrocarbon industry, so your rational do seem pretty silly from an outsider's perspective.
ofc it's only a rhetorical question, we both know it only cements your other core beliefs, that the jews (or whatever other evil forces you believe are at play) are controlling the world, and that global warming is, in your eyes, a way to keep the population controlled. And so, it is your duty to dispel that "myth" by citing any random article that would helps you discredit "jewish science", all in the pursuit of your perceived tradcath conservative utopia where God Emperor Trump will eventually send Hillary, the libs, the LGBT, and all progressive demons to the gallows.

>>16170214
So like 3 pixels then? What's the rest of the graph for? To point out that dinosaurs lived in different conditions?

>>16170303
>>16170315
You are a retard. You should at least get your GED before posting here

>>16170461
>Do you ever stop and wonder why you are always so susceptible to fall for conspiratorial thinking?
Because narcissists need to feel like they're smart enough to be in on special knowledge that the lowly "normie" is too blind to see.
>progressive demons
and then professor dumbledore cast all the evil wizards to azkaban

>>16170461
>You don't personally own stakes in the hydrocarbon industry
Al Gore's billion dollar family fortune all comes from Occidental Petroleum

>>16171783
The global warming scam was started by the petroleum industry bosses as a means of justifying selling their product for over 1000% of the cost of extraction.

>>16167958
shill simp for anything, what a whore

>>16116672
>Natural world flourishing globally
Maybe, but not enough

>>16172931
Oh, I like that counter-conspiracy!

>>16173638
>Oh, I like that counter-conspiracy!
Conservative science in action.

>>16173870
go to >>>/pol/ if the only reason you're here is to discuss politics. this is the science board

>>16174305
Then where's the science? Certainly not in this thread.

>>16174433
CO2 is good for plants and for that reason its good for nature. Why does that upset you, do you hate the natural world?
Dissatisfaction with reality is a mental illness.

>>16175215
Wrong. See
>>16125623

>>16173638
>source: (((harry katz)))

>>16130508
more trees doesnt necessarily mean more greenery. in some areas it probably means less (oak woodlands, etc). what you are looking for is a study like this but for one of the vegetation indices, which is a calculation of the amount of green proportionate to other colors calculated for each pixel of a satellite image

>>16176400
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is making plants healthier and more productive worldwide, there is no downside to it since CO2 does not cause the greenhouse effect.

>study finds

>>16177165
problem?

>>16117308
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J7JVRhOt54

>>16174433
This thread is full of good sciecne, what you're missing is soiyence. You hate real science, you only like soiyence, soiyence and science are polar opposites, but soiyence likes to masquerade as science.

>>16178860
Lol no.

>>16116675
thats like assuming because you cant breath in water that you also cant breath in water fog.

>>16117314
how you will get temperature 100 thousands of years ago ?
you cant.

you get past co2 level from ice drills but you cant get past temperatures. the temperature chart is just guessing.

>>16125623
>CO2 will not increase plant growth outside of highly controlled conditions.

>>16179200
Xenon temperature proxy

>>16179200
It's quite simple, really.
>presuppose that CO2 correlates to temperature
>figure out how much CO2 there was in the past
>derive temperature estimates from CO2 values
>use graphs as proof that CO2 correlates to temperature
Ta-da! Now you have hundreds of thousands of years worth of data that proves your (presupposed) conclusion!

>>16180102
You have no idea what you're talking about

>>16176296
michael mann is one of them too

>>16116672
nobody cares fuck off

>>16181025
Why does that fact that CO2 is good for nature upset you so badly? Do you hate nature?

>>16181898
urbanites are constantly virtue signaling about their love of nature, meanwhile they choose to spend their lives avoiding it as much as possible by hiding from it in the urban hellholes.

>Why does that fact that CO2 is good for nature upset you so badly? Do you hate nature?

>>16181898
>>16180208
>>16180102
>>16179209
>>16179200
Retard takes

>>16182435

>>16183446

>>16116672
Threadly reminder that when someone crops out the source it's because they're embarrassed of it.

>>16183448
yo dawg i heard you like grass so i put grass on yo grass so now you can eat grass while you eat grass

>>16183537
>ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23348-paranoid-schizophrenia

>>16116672
THIS PISSES ME OFF HOW DARE THE EARTH GET GREENER I WANTED MORE TREE CUTTING AND UGLY GRAY BUILDINGS
BTW CLIMATE CHNAGE IS LE REAL

>>16120463
Uh no dude mars actually died because of too much carbon from all the based black scientist aliens trying to cure racism