/sci/ - Science & Math

i look forward to more canadian land becoming habitable

>>9170841
I don't, our ecosystems!

So everyone thinks global spearmint is beneficial on /sci/?

You guys redpilled?

>>9170831
The Russians are looking forward to it. It will open Arctic sea passages and increase their arable land. That's one reason they supported Trump. They don't care that the US will dry up, and Trump hasn't a clue.

Global warming is bullshit, we are heading into an ice age

>>9170831
Global warming isn't real. Also, it's not even bad for the planet. It's just liberals are too stupid to think rationally for a second and realize that an increase in 1.5C over a 200 year period doesn't mean fuck all

At least /sci/ are rational people. Never really been here.

>biology graduate

>>9170945
>increase in 1.5C
That will cause drastic changes to the planet

Who cares about nonwhites swarming into increasingly warmer northern lattitudes that remind them of home haha
Dude I'm so redpilled bro

>>9171001
For the better.

>>9170936
>>9170945
Bluepilled by Russia, supporting Trump.

>>9170930

>>9170936
We're in an ice age already, moron.

>>9171092
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

I live North so it's just going to be nicer weather and less frostbite

>>9170831
>Does /sci/ believe that global warming is bad for the planet? Just curious.
The hard evidence (despite the hysteria) does not support the idea that it really exists. What we are seeing are quite normal climate changes that happen with time.
In short, I'm not worried at all. I'm far more concerned about what will happen if the globalist leftists get total control of the world through their fear tactics.

>>9171313

>>9171313
greenland =/= global

>>9171373
If you go day by day its even better. It was 10 degrees hotter today than yesterday GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE REEEE

>>9171379
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

>>9171379
>hurr durr weather=climate

>>9171373
Oh no more plants and more habitable land. How will we survive?

See the white bits on that map, around North Africa, and the middle east? Billions of people live there. If you thought that a few million people trying to migrate more or less at once (due to fairly mild destabilisation in the middle east) was bad, you have no fucking idea what is coming next.

>>9171404
>more habitable land

Only Russia and Canada, everyone else gets assraped with a cactus.
Mostly because rain will drop by 50-75% in latitudes 23.5-40.
That's Miami to NY latitudes.

But hey, we already knew you are a cockholster for Putin.

>>9171411
>. If you thought that a few million people trying to migrate more or less at once (due to fairly mild destabilisation in the middle east) was bad, you have no fucking idea what is coming next.
>implying anyone has to let them in

>>9171414
Implying they don't have nuclear bombs

>>9171412
Is this map like the one in the 70s that said which countries will run out of oil by 1990? Or the one in the 80s that said the carribean will be uninhabitable by 2010? Or the one in the 90s that said that the northern states and canada will develop tundra by 2020?

>>9171412
>believing in fear mongering models and not empirical evidence
>2017

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

>>9171417
No it's the 2017 kind where everyone has more computing power in their phone than a supercomputer in the '90s.

>>9171418
The droughts will come and spoil that

>>9171423
How about we wait until 2040 where everyone will have more processing power in their phone than a supercomputer from today.

>>9171373
NOAA has been faking Temps though

>>9171425
>Disregarding empirical evidence to fit your spoon fed narrative of the world.

>>9171414
Get real. It won't be a question of "letting them in" like with semi-ambiguous refugees/economic migrants. There will come a point where they won't take "no" for an answer, or be happily herded around by the EU into the unlucky country that has to deal with them.

"Not letting them in" would mean gruesome, terrible war, against powerful states with seriously capable militaries (if incompetent but replaceable leadership such as in S.A.), punctuated by genocide and anarchy. Seriously, the potential for an apocalyptically bad world war is here.

Are there really people here on /sci/ that believe Putin hacked american elections?

>>9171425
>Earth is 70% water
>someone told me latitudes 23.5-40 will become deserts

Why are liberals so brainwashed?

>>9171430
nah, it's RSS that did that, and that's what every quack on the planet has been selling their snake oil with

https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m50s

>>9171438
Look at the map faggot, around lat30 there already are deserts

>>9171427
Because 450ppm/2C is a tipping point
At the current 3ppm/year increase rate we'll be there around 2030.
You're a fucking hillbilly if you thing events will progress linearly.

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

>>9171427
Because 450ppm/2C is a tipping point
At the current 3ppm/year increase rate we'll be there around 2030.
You're a fucking hillbilly if you think events will progress linearly.

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

>>9171452
>thumbnail is some homeless looking cuck
WEAK

>>9171453
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer

>>9171457
Trump could break that faggot in half lmao

>>9171458
"Good to the last drop."
- Trump's Yelp review on Russian prostitutes

>>9171436
>Are there really people here on /sci/ that believe Putin hacked american elections?
this is one of the most bluepilled boards on 4chan

>>9171446
I wonder why the dinosaurs were so big. Must be the deserts.

>>9171470
The blue pill is a scientifically proven remedy for electoral dysfunction.

>>9171472
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell

>>9171475
Ever consider that the only way dinosaurs could consume enough calories to be so large is that there was much more plant matter on earth due to [CO2] being around 2000ppm.

CO2 + H2O = C6H12O6 + O2 + H2O

CO2 is plant food you fucking moron.

>>9170831
The planet isn't bothered by any of this.

>>9171485
So is water faggot

>>9171489
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s

>>9171492
Earth is 70% water idiot.

The hotter it is the more water will evaporate from the oceans.

You learned all of your global warming propaganda from YouTube, cute.

>>9171492
>So is water faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>9170831
Every goddamn year I see more and more disgusting insects and other little shits that were previously never seen here. I thought I was safe from that bullshit up here. Fuck global warming.

>>9171498
In dry areas now the droughts will increase
In wet areas now the floods will increase

>>9171503
>deserts
>droughts
>now floods

You’re all over the place kiddo. Your lack of education in the sciences is really showing.

But you forgot: the Earth will become greener. Aren’t you people greentards?

>>9171500
>all over the place
That's why climate change is also used.
See, that is the one that isn't "global", it's local.
Globally, global warming marches on.

Who knew it would be so complicated, eh?

>>9171510
That's why climate change is also used.
See, that is the one that isn't "global", it's local.
Globally, global warming marches on.

Who knew it would be so complicated, eh?

>>9171524
Just reference the picture from >>9170831
for empirical evidence, from NASA, of what’s actually happening to Earth in response to increased [CO2] and try to stop believing in hysterical propaganda.

>>9170831
It's almost as if we can see the plants growing.

>>9171531
Like I said before, the droughts haven't yet kicked in. As we approach 450ppm/2C things will get worst quickly - California has just seen a nibble of what's coming down the line.

>>9170831
The planet doesn't give a shit what the temperature is.

>>9171500
Why the hydrophobia?

>>9171539
OK Nostradamus.

>>9171376
In science as I learned it one is very careful about terminology. Iff you use terms like "global" it unambiguously means all over and with no exception. If there is an exception the correct term is "regional", never "global."

>>9171412
How you you relate this hypothesis with actual measurements in >>9170831 and findings like >>9171418 ?

The strange thing with warmers is that it is ALWAYS DOOM, DOOM and DOOOOM!

>>9171726
Wake up and smell the coffee
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/climate-change-deemed-growing-security-threat-by-military-researchers.html

>>9170831
>Does /sci/ believe
No.
/sci/ence is not about belief, it is about
data and explanatory theory.
Lrn2science fgt pls

If the world becomes warmer, wetter, and more carbon-available, will proliferating plantlife cause oxygen levels to rise, leading birds to get big and take over everything again?

>>9171737
>/sci/ence is not about belief, it is about
>data and explanatory theory.
lrn2philosophy of science fgt pls

>>9170930
what's good for putin is good with me

>>9171732
>https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/climate-change-deemed-growing-security-threat-by-military-researchers.html
>2014
>The CNA Corporation Military Advisory Board found that
Dismissed

>>9171452
>Because 450ppm/2C is a tipping point
What do you mean by "tipping point"?

Also
>Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: A Scientific Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases was a 2005 international conference that examined the link between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration, and the 2 °C (3.6 °F) ceiling on global warming thought necessary to avoid the most serious effects of global warming. Previously this had generally been accepted as being 550 ppm.

In spite of all certainties of the declarations they still revise some number.

>>9171404
>>9171418
>>9171485
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

>>9171740
Yes, oxygen levels should rise.

>>9171909
>https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
I just had a look. Not impressed. For instance:
>1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from?
Thing is, a lot of warmers tell us it will rain more. Typically we hear this after every major rainfall.

Also, rather than hypothesing the theory, why not look at the numbers and measurements, as in the image in the OP?

The article is merely semiarticulated whining which only succeeds in warmers sounding like spoiled brats.

>>9172098
Photosynthesis is the means by which plants create glucose and oxygen. There would be no plants without CO2.

>>9171373
i want to see this for the last 100.000years

>>9172105
There just might be a reason why you won't get that....

>Good or bad FOR THE PLANET

There are no such things

>For humankind
Bad.

>>9171558
He has rabies?

>>9172105
>>9172139
Yeah, because we don't have monthly measurements for the last 100.000 years, and it would be really boring because the circles move quite slowly for 99.999% of the time

But there are ways to measure temperatures that existed long ago, and here is an visualization (too big to be posted on 4chan):
https://xkcd.com/1732/

>>9171880
>2005
...and next year Arctic's ice minimum crashed to half from previous years.

>>9171500

You must be new to 4chan, faggot.

>>9171880
>What do you mean by "tipping point"?
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

>>9171418
>While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
More severe weather events would ring a bell for anyone who has a memory span longer than 3 days

>The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
Oh, and the effects are diminishing, but I guess that doesn't matter

>all these people smugly asserting that this will be good for the plants and that the dinosaurs thrived in warmer conditions

I won't deny that that's true, but surely you realize that what's important for the coming few hundred years is the fact that rapid changes in climate patterns will be bad for geopolitical stability, right? The fact that some previously inhospitable tract of land is becoming arable while another area becomes flooded or desertified isn't good, in fact it's pretty much a recipe for war.

>>9172194
>never had floods before
>never had hurricanes before

Burgers blame global warming for their asinine construction practices.

>>9172219
>an illiterate making fun of others
"More severe" is not the some as "more", retard (though "more" is also a consequence of climate change")

>>9172239
>"More severe" is not the some as "more", retard (though "more" is also a consequence of climate change")
Not that guy but the idea that there has been a clear increase in severity of tropical storms is controversial within the climate science community. It's hardly settled science.

>>9172185
>17m45s
Care to be more specific?

>>9172254
watch it, it's a link

>>9171775
aww the snowflake melted

>>9171376
>greenland =/= global
Then you are admitting that we have no global temperature data from before the first global temperature satellites in the 70's. In that case, what's all the fear-mongering about.
You can't have it both ways, anon. Either data like that from Greenland ice cores can be used as a proxy, or else we have no global temperature data from before the late seventies. Which is it?

>>9170831
Bad, obviously.

>>9171411
And of course we couldn't possibly say no to them. What's your address, anon? Some people I know want to stay at your house and by your own rules, you can't refuse them.

I think everyone is missing OP's question. Bad for humans? Probably. Bad for the planet? No. Why would it be?. I don't think many things can be "bad" for the planet.

>>9172246
No, but there is a clear understanding that tropical storms are a consequence of water in an area being warmer than a certain threshold, and that the warmer it is, the stronger the storm becomes

>>9172285
>I don't think many things can be "bad" for the planet.
Then his whole point is moot, and has nothing to do with the link he provided here

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

>>9172273
nope, 1850 it is

>>9171373

>>9172266
>watch it, it's a link
I knew it was a link. What counts is that you are unable to answer the question.

That's all.

>>9170831
For the planet? It's probably bad for most lifeforms because they are adapted to the status quo.

>>9172098
>Thing is, a lot of warmers tell us it will rain more. Typically we hear this after every major rainfall.
Wet areas will become wetter. Dry areas will become drier. This is why even though the arctic ice sheets have a vastly more intense net loss in recent years, they actually gain a lot more ice during the cold season than they used to, because there is more precipitation in those areas. This is disregarding the fact that increased co2 does not have linear benefits in regards to plant growth, especially on it's own and the damage done by worse droughts and worse storms will greatly outweigh any co2 benefits.

>>9172409
Did you even glance at the figure in the OP? Kalahari, the Australian outback and more are greener.

>>9171313
That graph doesn't even show temperature after 1860. You have no idea what you're taking about

>>9172553
That is measuring the effect of co2 on plant growth, not the effects global warming on precipitation.

>>9172572
You could have said yes.
Or you could have said no.
Instead you weaseled yourself out of answering.

>>9172592
You could have responded to the point, instead you criticized him for not answering a rhetorical question.

>>9172592
You're confused. Your question was irrelevant to anything I said. What does the short term increase in plant growth due to co2 have anything to do with the long term effects of global warming on precipitation, which is pretty much the only thing I was talking about?

>>9171495
You trust this guy https://twitter.com/gwynnedyer?lang=en and with no sources or causation?
First of all Africa is not filled with "food shortages" it is filled with over population of a certain race and constant civil wars.
Pathetic

The problem isnt that this hasnt happened before. It has. Just slowly over hundreds and hundreds of years. Its rate at which the planet is warning which is alarming. Also species are going extinct at a few thousand times faster than the normal rate. And humans have no effect right?

>The planet is a balanced and unchanging ecosystem
Only brainlets think this

>>9172597
>Your question was irrelevant to anything I said.
In that case you neither understood the question nor did you answer it. Well done. Are you a warmer?

>>9172631
I asked you to explain the connection between the graph in the OP and precipitation changes caused by long term global warming, which you have failed to do, presumably because you tried to be snarky at me without realizing that the graph in the OP is about co2 and plant growth, not precipitation, and now you're trying to save face by ignoring the points. Logically, since I was able to tell you what the graph was measuring, I must have looked at the graph, which indirectly answered your question anyway, but I guess you were too busy feeling like a dumbass to make that connection.

>>9172630
>The planet isn't a balanced and unchanging ecosystem
>Therefore all changes are good
t. idiot

>>9171436
Did he influence it? Yes. Literally everybody on the planet has some sort of interest in how US politics turn out. He did the same thing that every single country or large enough organization did; try to convince voters to choose the option they like best.

Did he hack voting machines or do anything of special note compared to say, Canada? No.

The trick is to frame it in a way that's undeniable. "Russia influenced the election!" is great because nobody can deny it, and it implies whatever you want it to imply.

>>9172648
Sun good, sun make grow strong. More air mean more sun. Make strong grow, we eat grow, make us strong. Sun make us strong.

>>9170831
It might be bad for life on earth but that doesn't mean it's bad for the planet per se.

>>9172643
>I asked you to explain the connection between the graph in the OP and precipitation changes caused by long term global warming, which you have failed to do, presumably because you tried to be snarky at me without realizing that the graph in the OP is about co2 and plant growth, not precipitation, and now you're trying to save face by ignoring the points.
That "you" was not me. I never alleged there was any connection between the graph in the OP and precipitation changes caused by long term global warming so there would correspondingly be no way I could explain that.

There are presently 46 different posters here, I am not more than one person.

>>9172714
Even if you aren't the same person, you wanted me to answer the question, so obviously you think there was some value in the question, i.e. some connection between my post and the graph in the OP. You can't weasel your way out of this, just stop talking.

>>9172724
Do you realise of ridiculous you sound? Oh, and are you typical warmer?

>>9172779
>No substance, just belligerence
>>>/pol/

>>9170841

Canadian Land is shit though. No soil. Just tundra. It won't be good if all the ice melts

>>9172813
Global warming tards have zero proof of the negative effects of a temperature increase.

>>9172825
Permafrost and Canadian shield mostly
But soutern Ontario has the most fertile soil in North America bitch
All those organic deposits n shiet nigga

>>9172828
>more idiotic lies
>>>/pol/

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

MUH PLANT FOOD

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/full/nature13179.html?foxtrotcallback=true

> Here we report that C3 grains and legumes have lower concentrations of zinc and iron when grown under field conditions at the elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration predicted for the middle of this century. C3 crops other than legumes also have lower concentrations of protein, whereas C4 crops seem to be less affected.

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/EHP41/

>Under eCO2, rice, wheat, barley, and potato protein contents decreased by 7.6%, 7.8%, 14.1%, and 6.4%, respectively. Consequently, 18 countries may lose >5% of their dietary protein, including India (5.3%). By 2050, assuming today’s diets and levels of income inequality, an additional 1.6% or 148.4 million of the world’s population may be placed at risk of protein deficiency because of eCO2. In India, an additional 53 million people may become at risk.

humans aren't plants

The biggest issue really is the rate of warming.

>>9172945
>rate
Why?

>>9172948
Since it's not happening in geological time like it has in the past the rate of warming makes for much more destruction. Then you have the forcing mechanisms on top of that which just warms shit further and faster.

We're pretty screwed you know. Crops in India just get constantly flooded, Middle East will be uninhabitable in the future, wild fires have increased, warmer oceans with more humidity in the air creates storms with increased frequency and strength.

I mean we're really screwed.

Fuck, we're dumb. Just nuke this planet. We failed.

I may be a climate brainlet, but I am suspicious of the people who ignore the fact that people have been 'raising the alarm' about climate for like... 50 years. It's almost as bad as Christian fundamentalists with trying to predict the second coming of Christ. Any predictions which fail are swept under the rug, and they go on prophesying doom.

Now, I believe in the presuppositions which underlie good science, and I support environmental protection, recycling, protecting our water/air/soil for future generations, but it seems to me that the politicization of climatology has seriously damaged the scientific process. Rather than inviting skepticism and increased empirical data, climate alarmists scream bloody murder at anyone who is skeptical. Hence global warming/global cooling/climate change becomes the ultimate weapon to bludgeon dissenters with, and is a ready tool in the rhetorical toolbox of those who wish to expand the government in a quasi-maternal fashion. steam rolling over anyone who protests or objects.

Now, that being said, I would be curious to know
a) what is the evidence that human activities contribute to global and/or local climates changing?
b) If a mechanism is proposed, how potent is this? If human activities contribute 0.00001% to the overall climate, we may be contributing, but is it important/worth getting upset about?
c) If a mechanism can be proposed and is shown to be potent, what is the evidence that such climate changing would necessarily be bad? Is it all bad, or bad and a bit good, or a little bit bad and mostly good, or entirely good?
d) If a mechanism can be proposed, shown to be potent and is also harmful or mostly harmful, what can we do about it?

I like to think that I'm a reasonable person, but this topic is nearly impossible to hear a balanced discussion on.

>>9170844

yes, because nothing has ever gone extinct before ever, and if it did that would be bad.

>>9173010
actual SCIENTIFIC PAPERS have actually been very consistent with their projections since the 70's. And there is a good reason to have been raising the alarm that time because CO2 has a long lag time before it reaches its maximum warming potential, so the emissions of the 70's and 80's are being felt now.

There are no comparisons to predictions of the second coming. Every prediction made in published papers has actually had some evidence supporting it for one, even if it turned out to be improved upon by better data and research later on.

Pic related for example is James Hansens model from the 80's vs observations.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/GM029p0130/summary

Here is that paper.
>Based on the climate sensitivity we have estimated, the amount of greenhouse gases presently in the atmosphere will cause an eventual global mean warming of about 1°C

Hardly alarmism or doommongering

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

This is the IPCC report from 1990. Read this and tell me it is 'prophesying doom'. If anything it is underestimating the problems faced.

>The predicted rise is about 20cm in global mean sea level by 2030 and 65cm by the end of the next century
This is not alarmist, and probably too conservative based on our knowledge now

>Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases.... 3°C above today's (about 4°C above pre-industrial) before the end of the next century
Again this isn't alarmism, and again, may well be too conservative

Predictions that fail are not 'swept under the rug'. For example, look at the amount of research done on the apparent 'hiatus' in warming.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=global+warming+hiatus&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=&oq=global+warming+hi

If they were 'sweeping it under the rug' there would be no reason to do this research.

You have allowed media stories to inform your understanding of what actual projections have been.

>>9171462

LOLWUT

>>9173010
>a) what is the evidence that human activities contribute to global and/or local climates changing?
I can sum up the idea quite quickly for you, but I won't bother to cite my sources because I would probably need to cite two dozen papers to substantiate every claim which would take a long time, please don't take it the wrong way.

Basically, the earth respirates carbon. There are sources of it, and there are things that absorb it, known as carbon sinks as you've probably heard, but there is a limit to how much can be absorbed. In recent history of the earth, the carbon cycle was about stable, the earth put out very close to what the earth can absorb in carbon sinks. Human activity, of course, has no equivalent process that takes out any carbon. So all of the Co2 we're spewing into the atmosphere cannot be absorbed.

We know it's humans causing this change in the atmosphere not only because of the obvious inference that the carbon cycle is no longer almost in equilibrium and there is no natural explanation, but because Co2 produced by burning fossil fuels is a different isotope of Co2 than most naturally produced Co2, and we have found the concentration of that specific isotope of Co2 rising in time with the increase in warming.

The Co2 level is important, because even though it makes up an absolutely tiny portion of the atmosphere, it is a main driver of climate alongside the sun. So much so, that we're seeing increases in global average temperatures even when a slightly declining/stable sun luminosity and increased pollutants should be sending temperatures down. Basically, more Co2 means slightly increased average temperature, which means the air can hold more water vapor and water will evaporate faster, which means more increased warming. Water vapor has a much more potent greenhouse effect, but how much water vapor can be in the air is limited by the temperature, so Co2 ends up getting the ball rolling.

>>9172919
You’re a science illiterate if you believe anything you posted matters to humans.

>>9173057
Nobody is denying that warming is happening.

What the premise of this thread is that global warming is beneficial to Earth and humanity, not detrimental.

>>9173076
A lot of plants are very inefficient at photosynthesis at rates lower than 200ppm.

Peek photosynthesis efficiency happens at about double today’s [CO2] levels.

>>9173193
this of course is only true when the plants are not water or nutrient limited.

>>9173220
So if you're a farmer and farmers have to feed 6 billion people are you going to complain about increasing crop yields?

>>9173012
But rate of change!

>>9173394
You won't get increasing crop yields if your agricultural production centers are experiencing flooding and droughts, like California. CO2 concentration is not the only factor and it's not even the most important factor in global agricultural production. If you only focus on one factor and ignore all others, you're gonna have a bad time.

No

>>9173404
>muh models

Let's deal with facts and not predictions.

>>9173453
>Global warming is good, crop yields will increase
>>No they won't
>Let's deal with facts and not predictions
Hypocrite.

>>9173478
>Crop yields have increased in the lad 40 years (per NASA)
>Crop yields will somehow decrease in next 4 years (per idiotic models)

>>9173522
>>Crop yields have increased in the lad 40 years (per NASA)
That's not what NASA said you utter moron. Again you confuse greening for crop yield when the two are totally different.

>I can make predictions based on mistinterpretation of the current trend but you can't make predictions based on actual scientific models
You are so intellectually dishonest, don't you have any shame?

>>9173178
It's absolutely not beneficial to either human civilization, or the organisms that have adapted to living in the current climate that has been stable for quite some time (geologically speaking). The negative impacts on our civilization are relatively easy to understand; from the threat to our coastal cities, and thus the global economy (with some of the most economically important cities located within the coastal zone globally), to countries like Bangladesh which are situated on land that is highly vulnerable to SLR and increased precipitation / flooding. Then you have the impact on agriculture and crops, with the chances of droughts increasing as well as extreme weather events. The impacts of climate change are pretty well discussed in the scientific literature, what I mentioned is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of cost to our civilization, not to mention the cost to other organisms like corals / global fisheries, etc.

>>9173394
why do you need to feed 6 billion
there are only like 800 million whites in this world

>>9173522
>man falling from building
hey great going faster and faster
don't believe me? I got pictures

>>9173539
>not understanding that models are flawed

Brainlet.

>>9173805
The OBSERVED DATA (increase in plant matter) is more relevant than ANY model could EVER possibly be.

Only an IDIOT would believe we could model the earths climate to 30-40 years when we can't even accurately model the weather within 3-4 days.

>>9173810
Only an IDIOT would believe we could model roulette's gambling odds when we can't even accurately model the next roll

>this is how stupid you are

>>9173576
>hey look how edgy I am!

>>9172207
>implying earth has been geopolitically stable up to this point
The climate has always changed and humans have always been at war, your fear mongering is retarded

>>9172266
>posts YouTube video as evidence
>can't even point to the specific part of the video that makes his case
Brainlet detected

>>9172649
I'm a kiwi who made proTrump shitposting twitter bots, therefore New Zealand influenced the election

>>9173891
Nigger detected

>>9173900
>17m45s is too hard to decode for the moron that knows it all

>>9173805
>“While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models,” said co-author Josep Canadell of the Oceans and Atmosphere Division in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Canberra, Australia. Canadell added that while the models represent the best possible simulation of Earth system components, they are continually being improved.
Really made me think.

So the result of models you can't even describe correctly are obviously correct since you incorrectly think they support your argument, but the moment a model is given which directly contradicts your argument suddenly all models are flawed, even though You have given no reason why this model is flawed. You are basically the definition of an intellectually vacuous shill, who will say anything as long as you think it is good for your argument. Unfortunately this tactic only works if you are intelligent enough to stop yourself from making lies that are too obvious and contradictions. You utterly failed.

>>9173897
>the climate had always changed
>therefore all changes, even unprecedented ones, are fine
>the climate had always changed
>therefore all changes, even unprecedented ones, are fine
>the climate had always changed
>therefore all changes, even unprecedented ones, are fine
>the climate had always changed
>therefore all changes, even unprecedented ones, are fine
Keep repeating your mantra, retard, and maybe it will come true.

>climate change causes natural disasters
Someone explain this belief to me. It would seem to imply that before AGW we lived in the best possible climate and any deviation from that would cause problems, but that doesn't make a lot of sense considering the Earth has been through all sorts of different climates in the past. Why should the one climate that we were in before the industrial revolution be the exact perfect one for preventing massive storms?

>>9174349
You have no idea what assumptions are programmed into those models. Models can’t even predict the weather within 3 days and somehow you think they can predict the climate to change 40 years.

This is how anti-intellectual you are.

The same people trusted models that got us into a financial crisis in 2008.

Warming of the Earth will create more habitable land in the northern latitudes and produce more plant matter through the increase of [CO2].

>>9174551
It doesn't cause them. Just makes them more frequent and extreme. No climate change in the past has happen as fast as now either. And even then it had huge impact.

You're basically making no sense.

>>9174852
>doesn't know the difference between weather and climate
The cringe I feel whenever I see this.

>>9174551
It doesn’t. CO2levels in the 18th century (250ppm) would be insufficient to feed 7 billion people on earth. There would be massive famine and death.

The global warming hoaxers think [CO2] growth is linear because they’re fed data by globalists who are pushing an agenda. It’s not linear.

[CO2] decreases during the spring/summer and increases in winter/fall as plants go through their growth cycle.

You can visualize the growth of plants through a chart that shows you monthly or weekly levels of [CO2].

Black line: actual [CO2]
Red line: averaged [CO2]

>>9174876
Black line: averaged CO2
Red line: actual CO2

>>9174551
>It would seem to imply that before AGW we lived in the best possible climate and any deviation from that would cause problems, but that doesn't make a lot of sense considering the Earth has been through all sorts of different climates in the past.
You have it completely backwards. Humans and the ecosystem we rely on are adapted to whatever climate we developed in. If you rapidly change that climate, there is no time for the ecosytem to adapt. A natural disaster is simply a rapid shift of an environment from the way the organisms in it are used to to one in which the organisms are now encountering problems.

>>9174880
The increase in [Cao2] is not a rapid change in the economy. It’s a progressive change that allows the ecosystem to adapt.

A rapid change would be a Yellowstone eruption or a large meteor strike you idiot.

>>9174852
>You have no idea what assumptions are programmed into those models.
Unlike you, I can read.

>Models can’t even predict the weather within 3 days and somehow you think they can predict the climate to change 40 years.
>You can't predict how this coin will land and somehow you think you can tell me that if you flip the coin many times, half will be heads!
Climate is less chaotic than weather, because lots of unpredictable variation gets averaged out over time and space. Every time you repeat this canard of confusing weather with climate, you look like a complete idiot, which you are.

>The same people trusted models that got us into a financial crisis in 2008.
OK, so don't trust the model telling you that the CO2 increase is causing global greening, you fucking hypocrite! Abandon all science ye who enter here!

>Warming of the Earth will create more habitable land in the northern latitudes and produce more plant matter through the increase of [CO2].
>Don't trust models, but do trust models if they say AGW is good! I'm a braindead shill!
And what about the other effects... You know, the bad ones? Usually if you are going to determine if something is good or not, you don't just look at the good things. For example, is increased habitability of northern land going to make up for the loss of yield in our major agricultural centers and the damage caused by rising sea levels on our coastal cities? Is the fertilization of plants via CO2 going to make up for the loss of plants due to drought? Hint: The answer is no.

>>9174892
Do you know what geological time is by any chance?

>>9173175
Yeah, humans don't need to consume nutrients in order to survive

>>9174892
It is the highest rate of increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the entire historical record

>>9174892
>The increase in [Cao2] is not a rapid change in the economy.
It clearly is.

>>9174876
>The global warming hoaxers think [CO2] growth is linear because they’re fed data by globalists who are pushing an agenda. It’s not linear.
>[CO2] decreases during the spring/summer and increases in winter/fall as plants go through their growth cycle.
Yes, so what? No one denies this. Not only is there a seasonal periodic cycle in CO2, there is also a linear increasing trend. What happens when you add a linear trend to a periodic trend?

>>9174928
Thank god it increased because sub 200ppm would cause a famine right now.

Billions of people would die.

>>9174938
Why would it go below 200 ppm? Are you capable of making a relevant statement or are you just going to spew red herrings?

>MUH PERIODICITY
>MUH 200 PPM
Really pathetic shilling.

>>9174938
It's good I became morbidly obese otherwise I would have starved
American?

>>9174946
>YouTube education

>>9174975
Why would it go under 200 ppm? Answer the question retard?

>>9174975
>MUH CO2 IS PLANT FOOOOOOOD
>(just ignore the effects of temperature, water, sunlight, soil quality, etc.)
Here he is!

The Biggest Douche in the Universe!

Being stupid on the internet for no reason!

>>9175012
>YouTube

>>9175030
Uh oh, I think the Shill-o-tron 3000 has broken down again. It just keeps repeating the same word over and over again without responding to the argument.

>>9175030
>thinking the availability of CO2 is the limiting factor in primary productivity

still waiting to hear when CO2 was below 200 ppm in human history.

global warming is a code word for anti-white

>>9173404
>droughts like California
California specifically is overpopulated and straining its resources. If I were in charge... I'd raise water prices until the public mood turned ugly, forcing a scarce resource to be better economized.

>>9175042
>>9175046
>sociology majors pretending to be scientists

Sociology isn’t a real science, sorry.

>>9170831
It is a natural process, considering humans are natural occurences.

>>9175227
>undergrad pretending to be scientist

Sorry, but unless you have at least a Master's you're basically no different from them.

>>9175230
This

>>9175230
yeh, the planet is going to be A okey.
I am not implying that humans are going to be ok though..

>>9170841
t. Patrick Moore. That fucker who thinks no scientific disciplines exist except for ecology, chemistry and physics.

>>9175230
Although true it's undoubtedly useful to differentiate between human influence and nature otherwise.

>>9175239
>Masters degree means anything

An undergrad from a great school is probably worth more than your shit Masters degree.

>Premed major

>>9173810
>The OBSERVED DATA (increase in plant matter) is more relevant than ANY model could EVER possibly be.

We can also observe crop yields.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429010001929?via%3Dihub

>>9175389
CO2 is beneficial.

>>9175227
jokes on you kiddo I have two geoscience degrees, one of which is from a top-10 uni.
not top-10 in the USA. in the world.

>>9176023
>still believing in spoon fed models

Deal with facts not predictions.

>>9176042
>Deal with facts
says the kid who thinks that CO2 is the limiting factor for plant growth
:^)

>>9176074
>believes CO2 is not a limiting factor for growth
>went to top 10 uni

Your degree is worthless if you never took organic chem or physics.

>>9176741
#30 #43

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

>>9176756
>difference between the and a

There is no the limiting factor of growth in photosynthesis. There are many factors and [CO2] is one of them.

>>9176766
Not that guy but when people are talking about "the" limiting factor they are referencing Liebig's law.

>>9176780
It’s short sighted. Photosynthetic yields will differ with changes to the concentrations of limiting factors. Therefore you can’t just say x is the limiting factor.

For example higher [CO2] allow plants to grow at higher temperatures than they could at lower [CO2].

>>9170831
Lol I dunno if it's bad or not, but why should we keep wasting time, money, and energy on shitty inefficient fuels instead of developing cheaper and better sources of energy. Then we can focus on better things, like sexbots.

>>9176756
>#43
>43 "CO2 is plant food"
>The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors

This is a rather stupid answer, the type people give when they don't want to explain something. Like where children come from. So let's try the reverse:
>The effects of enhanced CO2 on global temperature are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors
See?

>>9176807
>CO2 will magically reduce plants' dependence on iron, phosphate, and nitrate!
>I don't know how, but I'm sure it will happen just like those nice men at the Heritage Foundation said it will
so much for "Deal with facts not predictions"

>you can’t just say x is the limiting factor.
that's where you're wrong, kiddo.

>>9176887
NASA says you’ve been wrong for 33 years (satellite data).

I’m confident you’ll continue to be wrong for the foreseeable future.

>>9172175
sea ice is not normal

>>9173552
>human civilization
>bring up shitholes like Bangladesh

So really all you care about is coddling the hordes of thirdies

>>9176855
>when they don't want to explain something
you might be retarded, because skepticalscience gives detailed explaions of the basic rebuttal with citations, all you had to do was unplug your 600x460 monitor, plug in one from the 21st century and then look on the bottom half of your screen, but instead you made yourself look like an idiot who can't read

>>9176855
typical pol/tard, clicking a link is too hard but claims to know how the world works

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

>>9170945
Go back to /pol/ faggot

>>9177072
>https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

How many times do we have to explain this to you retards.

Plant Biomass has increased in the last 35 years. Source NASA

Please stop spamming this thread with the same link over and over.

You have to explain why with a rise in [CO2] and a known mechanism for plant growth (calvin cycle) why is plant biomass increasing if it is not because of increased [CO2].

>>9177125
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

>>9171313
Where's the error bar? You shouldn't trust anything without error bar.

The original citation, pic related where the dataset was published was about analyzing Greenland T during the Younger Dryas. The dataset spans from the LGM to pre-Industrial and the ERROR IS FUCKING +- 3C.

That is an absolutely dishonest use of the data, and I know this because I'm an ice core scientist

>>9177125
Not him, but CO2 only boost plant growth in controlled environment, like in a literal greenhouse. In open atmosphere, CO2 is rarely the limiting factor for biomass growth. Nutrients such as nitrate, phosphate, Fe (in the ocean) and access to sunlight are the limiting factor.

If you actually read through the article, there's already diminishing return on plant growth
>The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

Also plant growth cannot possibly offset all the CO2 that is in the atmosphere, it is objectively true that CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, and the plants could not keep up (if they can, then CO2 would've been stable). Plant uptake does not diminish the power of CO2 as greenhouse gas. If anything, it means that we're running on borrowed time. At the moment 50% of anthropogenically emitted CO2 got taken up by plants. If the plants can't grow no more, as they're limited in other nutrients then atmospheric CO2 would shoot up even faster and we're in an even bigger trouble

>>9177312
Reference >>9173193

C4 plants yes.
C3 plants, no. We can still double our [CO2] and have efficiency gains in photosynthesis.

We already discussed this, please keep up.

>>9177329
>C3 plants, no. We can still double our [CO2] and have efficiency gains in photosynthesis.

Assuming they're not limited in other nutrients. The proof is in the pudding, if the plants are truly able to capture all the extra anthropogenic carbon then atmospheric CO2 wouldn't have risen up at all. Also plant growth does not negate other negative effect of climate change, such as droughts, mass migration of humans, sea level rise, property damages from extreme events, etc

>>9177344
The proof is in the pudding. Reference >>9177148


Plant growth would surely mitigate drought. Plants store water and transpire. They’re literally water tanks. I’m just wondering how clueless you people are.

The rest of your post is just regular global warming fearmogering without any evidence to support any of it.

>>9177360
Read the article till it finishes. Philippe Ciais one of the author, and IPCC co-author on biogeochemical cycles said
>The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

>Plant growth would surely mitigate drought. Plants store water and transpire
This is conjecture out of your ass. The greening effect if you read the study itself are predominantly in the high latitudes, as they warm areas like Siberia and Canada are greening. The areas that are limited by water (e.g. drought prone areas) by definition despite how much you jack up the CO2 the plants wouldn't grow further, as they're water limited and not CO2 limited

>>9177400
>beneficial impact of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited

May. Prediction. It can also not be limited. Can you even read at this point or are you too triggered?

>vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide

Fact. Not a prediction. Based on observable data.


Also reference >>9176807
For the impact on higher atmospheric [co2] and the efficiency of photosynthesis at higher temperatures.

>>9177414
Yes it is observed that greening is happening, but nowhere near enough to offset atmospheric CO2 rise.

If you're just trying to strongarm your argument that greening is happening everyone agree. However atmospheric CO2 is still rising, which means that the greening is nowhere near enough to offset human contribution to the atmosphere. You pulled out a conjecture out of your ass that ((((surely)))) plant growth will mitigate drought, while all observation shows that droughts are getting worse everywhere.

>>9177442
>((((surely))))
just an fyi, you're using that wrong. that's /pol/ way of marking something as being a plot of the jews.
I dont feel like thats what you were going for here

>>9177445
>/pol/'s way
pol can suck my black penis

>>9177442
Brainlets finally accept that CO2 is not a pollutant despite years of propaganda.

>>9177454
well if you're gonna use memes / social-group specific language constructs (is there a shorter word for that, slang, maybe?) you may as well do it right.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/triple-parentheses-echo

>>9177466
He didn't do a triple echo. Fuck off.

>>9177466
memes are spectrum

>>9177461
>change subject, move goalpost
Just to summarize before arguing in circles
1. Yes plant takes CO2, and greening effect due to anthropogenic CO2 is observable
2. The greening effect is not enough to offset rise in atmospheric CO2. At best it slows it down by a fraction of a ppm or two.
3. Atmospheric CO2 still acts as greenhouse gas that traps heat and allow the planet to warm

Unless you live in Northern Canada and Siberia, where you benefit from the greening effect and warmer summer/milder winter, the overall effect of the warming planet & changing climate to the whole planet would still be negative (sea level rise, droughts affecting food producing areas, etc)

>>9177461
>CO2 makes more green leaves
>therefore it's good and rapid warming and ocean acidification have no negative effects.
You are retarded.

>>9174880
I should clarify.
By "natural disasters" I specifically meant extreme weather events: hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding etc.; not more generally 'things which negatively impact ecosystems on a large scale.'

>>9174858
>It doesn't cause them. Just makes them more frequent and extreme.
How is "making natural disasters more frequent and extreme" any different from "causing natural disasters"? If you're saying climate change makes extreme weather events more frequent then the ones that occur that otherwise wouldn't have were obviously caused by climate change. Did you think that by "climate change causes natural disasters" I meant "climate change causes ALL natural disasters"?

Anyway are you saying that it's not the fact that the climate is different that is causing more natural disasters, but the fact that it is changing (rapidly)?

>>9177566
>How is "making natural disasters more frequent and extreme" any different from "causing natural disasters"?
This difference should be self-explanatory, unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of discussing etymology and what have you.

The cause of hurricane formation, for example, hasn't changed just because the foundation of its inception has. Foundation as in the actual places they form.

>>9177553
That doesn't respond to my point. No one claimed this climate is the perfect one for preventing massive storms, just that making oceans warmer makes storms more massive. The climate humans are used to does not have to be storm free for the effects of climate change on storms to be bad. The climate humans are used to does not have to be "perfect" for climate change to make it worse.

It’s simply idiotic to say all humans have evolved and adapted to the same climate.

>>9177594
As I said, I'm not talking about what humans are or are not used to, I'm talking about severe weather events. A hurricane is a hurricane, and a flood is a flood, whether there are humans around to see them or not.

Since you didn't seem to understand my question, I will try to express it more thoroughly. Here is the premise that I am inquiring about:
>Climate change (specifically AGW) causes natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, and blizzards.
I see this view expressed either implicitly or explicitly in the media whenever there is a serious storm.

If the statement is true, then that must mean EITHER:
A. That the climate before AGW has the least amount of extreme weather events possible:
If climate change causes more natural disasters, then the only way to not cause more natural disasters is to prevent climate change. Preventing climate change means maintaining the pre-industrial climate. Therefore, the pre-industrial climate must have the least possible extreme weather events, since any other climate we could possibly have would only be reached through climate change, which causes the rate of extreme weather events to increase.

OR,
B. An increase in extreme weather events is caused by the very fact that the climate is changing, not necessarily what it is changing from or into:
Consider Climate A with average temperature of 14 degrees and Climate B with average temperature of 16 degrees. The rates of extreme weather events in A and B are totally arbitrary and unrelated, but in the process of transitioning from A to B or from B to A the rate of extreme weather events will increase relative to the basis.

Now, if you have read and understood that, my question is:
Which of these do you believe, and why?

>>9177632
I know right, not all humans live on this planet, thus global warming has no effect on their climate. Get a brain liberals.

>>9177723
Different regions of earth have different climates. Are you retarded?

If you measure the value of a planet by the diversity of organic life on said planet, then yes a runaway greenhouse effect is bad for the planet.

>>9170831
it might be bad for people, but the planet? probably not a big deal

>>9177735
And which of those climates is not part of the global climate? You do realize that not all humans have to live in the same regional climate for all climates to be changed by global warming right? That's why it's called *global* warming. You fucking dunce.

>>9177754
Climate is regional, not global you fucking moron. Living in the Sahara and living in the Arctic is like living on separate planets.

It’s undeniable that warming will benefit areas with cooler climates.

Believing that warming is bad for everyone is pure stupidity.

>>9177707
>As I said, I'm not talking about what humans are or are not used to, I'm talking about severe weather events.
How are the two mutually exclusive? If climatologists claim that climate change is making severe weather events worse than they usually are, then we are talking about both severe weather events and what humans or are not used to. The only thing your dichotomy seems to do is attempt to avoid responding to this.

>If the statement is true, then that must mean EITHER:
>A. That the climate before AGW has the least amount of extreme weather events possible:
If eating too much fatty foods makes you more fat, that must mean that before eating too much fatty foods you were as skinny as possible. This is just illogical nonsense.

>If climate change causes more natural disasters, then the only way to not cause more natural disasters is to prevent climate change.
The ONLY way? Why? More illogical nonsense.

>Preventing climate change means maintaining the pre-industrial climate. Therefore, the pre-industrial climate must have the least possible extreme weather events, since any other climate we could possibly have would only be reached through climate change, which causes the rate of extreme weather events to increase.
Now you are conflating all climate change with current global warming, which is just stupid. What a mess of an argument.

>B. An increase in extreme weather events is caused by the very fact that the climate is changing, not necessarily what it is changing from or into:
If warmer oceans produce more intense hurricanes, then is that a product of the warming, or the change from colder oceans to warmer oceans? Really makes me think.

>>9177707
> The rates of extreme weather events in A and B are totally arbitrary and unrelated, but in the process of transitioning from A to B or from B to A the rate of extreme weather events will increase relative to the basis.
So the rates of extreme weather in A and B are unrelated but the change in rate is relative? Do you not see how this is completely contradictory? Is your brain broken? You have not made a logical statement in this entire post.

>>9177707
Holy fuck you're retarded

>>9177757
>Climate is regional, not global you fucking moron.
Ah yes, CO2 just stays in whatever region it's emitted. There is no mixing in the global atmosphere.

>Living in the Sahara and living in the Arctic is like living on separate planets.
So which one does global warming not affect? Thank you for proving you are fucking retarded.

>It’s undeniable that warming will benefit areas with cooler climates.
In some ways yes, in some ways no. Basically the benefit for colder areas is longer growing season and more habitable land. Will this offset ocean acidification, damage to coastal infrastructure, damage to global agriculture, local ecology etc.? Economists don't think so. But I know you can't ever admit the negative affects even exist, so we can't have a discussion of cost-benefit analysis.

>>9177780
The world is becoming greener, there is no damage to global agriculture. CO2 has increased the yields of plants and if we reverted back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 billions of people would die.

That’s the whole premise of this thread.

Please reread it and understand what we’re discussing here.

Fear mongering over tornados and hurricanes will only convert imbeciles. You don’t need to convince them because they already believe you. Rational people understand that floods, droughts and hurricanes have been occurring for the totality of human existence. You’re only hurting your own cause.

>>9177759
>>If climate change causes more natural disasters, then the only way to not cause more natural disasters is to prevent climate change.
>The ONLY way? Why? More illogical nonsense.
I don't understand what you object to here. If A causes B, then the only way to not cause B is to prevent A.
Are you saying that's not true?
Here is a nice wikipedia page for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
You will note that in the case that B is False and A is True, the statement "A implies B" is False.
Do you understand what I'm saying?


>Now you are conflating all climate change with current global warming, which is just stupid. What a mess of an argument.
Are you saying that climate change other than global warming would not cause an increase in extreme weather events? If so, can you explain why you believe that?


I am not trying to prove anything one way or the other vis-a-vis whether climate change is "real" or "problematic" or anything at all, I am very simply asking for an explanation why people appear to believe that climate change causes an increased rate of natural disasters. If you're not capable of answering that question you may stop responding.

>>9177790
>The world is becoming greener
So what?

>there is no damage to global agriculture.
But that's wrong, dumbass.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n2/full/nclimate2470.html?foxtrotcallback=true

>CO2 has increased the yields of plants
Which plants? What will the effect on crop yields be in the future?

>and if we reverted back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 billions of people would die.
Why?

>That’s the whole premise of this thread.
The premise of this thread is to ask if global warming will be bad for the planet. In order to do that you might actually have to... consider its negative effects. Except for some reason you can't do that.

>>9177766
I offer this as an example:
Climate A has 6 major storms per year while stable.
Climate B has 6 major storms per year while stable.
While transitioning from A to B, there are 12 major storms per year.

This is not something I believe, but it is a way for the following statements to be true:
1. Climate change causes more natural disasters.
2. The pre-industrial climate does not have the least possible natural disasters of all possible climates.

>>9177799
>deniers literally don't understand logic

>>9177799
>I don't understand what you object to here. If A causes B, then the only way to not cause B is to prevent A.
I object to your phrasing describing the situation being discussed. Let's say we had technology that reduced the ability of water vapor to condense. Since such condensation is necessary for energy to be released into a hurricane, this would reduce the severity of hurricanes. But it doesn't necessarily reduce global warming. Thus reducing global warming is not necessarily the only way to make hurricanes less severe. Now why does your analogy fail? Because what you are proving is that in order to not *increase the severity of hurricanes via global warming* we must mitigate global warming. But that doesn't mean we can't the decrease the increased severity of hurricanes in other ways. So your argument that the climate prior to global warming should have had minimal hurricanes fails because you are conflating the absolute magnitude of hurricane severity with an increase caused by global warming.

>>9177799
>Are you saying that climate change other than global warming would not cause an increase in extreme weather events? If so, can you explain why you believe that?
Cooling the climate causes the severity of hurricanes to decrease.

>I am very simply asking for an explanation why people appear to believe that climate change causes an increased rate of natural disasters.
This was already answered in the thread. Increased ocean temperatures leads to more water vapor, which is the "fuel" for hurricanes.

What I responded to was what you wrote after this question, which is like arguing that if eating too much fatty foods make you fatter, you must have been as skinny as possible before eating too much fatty foods. You have not responded to this.

>>9177801
All of these questions have been discussed already. Go back, start from the first pot and work your way through every post. People are not here to placate to your intellectual dishonesty.

If you were rational you wouldn’t be harping “muh natural disasters” when natural disasters have caused less than 50,000 deaths in 116 years and over 500,000 people die of cancer each year in this country.

>>9177840
I have been here since the beginning of the thread.

Nowhere has anyone explained why greening is important, they just conflate it with crop yields, which is fallacious.

Deniers have refused to even consider crop yield models, let alone provided an analysis on them.

The only time anyone has claimed pre-industrial CO2 would kill people is here >>9174876 with no evidence.

You have no answers, so you lied about what was in the thread.

>If you were rational you wouldn’t be harping “muh natural disasters” when natural disasters have caused less than 50,000 deaths in 116 years and over 500,000 people die of cancer each year in this country.
This is a really dumb red herring in multiple ways. First, the focus on deaths when I never claimed deaths would be the main harm from climate change. The cost of a single natural disaster can dwarf the annual medical costs of an entire country's cancer patients. Cancer doesn't destroy entire an region's infrastructure. Second the idea that we shouldn't solve one problem if there's a bigger problem. Spending all our money on solving the world's "biggest" problem and neglecting to solve smaller problems would not be cost effective, even if climate change was a "smaller" problem than cancer. Plus, you don't even care about cancer research, you're just arguing in bad faith.

>>9172273
Pretty sure there are many more proxies than just ice cores from greenland. The graph doesn't even show temperature changes in the 1900s. Considering all proxies, the global temperatures have been rising dramatically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)

>>9173453
Except, those predictions are based on observations.

It doesn't really matter if you believe it or not since it's a fact but whatever.

>>9177790
>there is no damage to global agriculture

There's actually quite a bit of scholarly material asserting the opposite

Here's just quoting from some abstracts found searching "climate change and food security"

>"increasing temperatures and declining precipitation over semiarid regions are likely to reduce yields for corn, wheat, rice, and other primary crops in the next two decades. These changes could have a substantial impact on global food security...Lobell et al. use crop models to calculate changes in agricultural production to 2030. The results show that climate change is likely to reduce agricultural production"
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nasapub/131/

>"Specifically, global water supply and demand as well as the linkages between water supply and food security are examined. The analysis reveals that the water for food security situation is intricate and might get daunting if no action is taken."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030691921000059X

>"Results indicate strong negative effects of climate change, especially at higher levels of warming and at low latitudes; models that include explicit nitrogen stress project more severe impacts."

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3268.short


I mean, don't take my word for it, search it yourself. There is a wide range of potential impacts on food, but it's pretty ignorant to say agriculture WON'T be affected by a changing climate AT ALL

>>9170831
Show them what happens when they try and turn us into slaves

>>>/pol/142078083
>>>/pol/142078083
>>>/pol/142078083

Improve yourself

>>9172832
Pity about the lack of sunlight for half of the year.

>>9170831
Bad for the planet? No. Bad for us? Yes. More extreme weather events will make low lying costal cities a bitch to live in and will displace millions.
How do you build a port when the sea level keeps rising?
Natural fresh water irrigation systems will become contaminated with sea water if they're near a river mouth.
Places near the equater will experience more extreme weather events (droughts for California and Monsoons in Bangladesh). There's some more food ruined.
Many crops like corn which are sensitive to temperature changes simply won't grow wherethey used to in the US.
East fix I guess we'll just move the crops north to Candada,
Only at those northern latitudes there isn't as much sun so that'll significantly reduce yields.

Some parts of the globe near the equater will simply be too hot to stay outside for any length of time without risk of death.
Basically its gonna be a shit and hungry time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature#Heat_waves_with_high_humidity

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04978

How much has the increase in atmospheric CO2 directly affected past soybean production?

The estimated average yields during 2002–2006 in the USA, Brazil, and China were 4.34%, 7.57%, and 5.10% larger, respectively, than the average yields estimated using the atmospheric [CO2] of 1980. Our results demonstrate the importance of considering atmospheric [CO2] increases in evaluations of the past effects of climate change on crop yields.

>>9178661
The average impact of the CO2 fertilization effect (%) on soybean yield between 1980 and 2006 in each grid cell in (a) the USA, (b) Brazil, and (c) China. The values shown are averages for 2002–2006. The effect was estimated by comparing the estimated yield (t/ha) for 2002–2006 under historical climatic conditions with the estimated yield for the same five years using atmospheric CO2 conditions from 1980.

>>9170831
saged

Atmospheric CO2 fertilization effects on biomass yields of 10 crops in northern Germany

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280312969_Atmospheric_CO2_fertilization_effects_on_biomass_yields_of_10_crops_in_northern_Germany

>As C 4-crops are equivalently affected it is presumed that an elevated efficiency in water use is the main responsible factor for all plants.

>atheist apocalypse
still waiting for Al Gores to admit he was wrong, alogn with the other high prophets of the one true faith of liberalism

>>9179072
>>9178665
Explain to me how higher CO2 will cause the glaciers that feed the rivers in large parts of Asia to grow back. Explain how higher CO2 will prevent pest species and weeds from moving further north and damaging farms. Explain how higher CO2 will stop sea level rise and prevent coastal and low lying agricultural areas from become salinated and unfarmable.

>>9171723
Lrn2global-average, statistard

>>9171743
philosotard pls

>>9171880
>What do you mean by "tipping point"?
What do they mean by "Google it"?

>>9171947
Oxygen levels have been decreasing for decades.

>>9178665
>>9179072
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2008/03/pdf/cline.pdf

Looks like a wash, or a slight decrease in global crop yields when you look at it globally, rather than regionally.

This is also not taking into account other factors.

>Moreover, it is likely that actual global losses will be worse
than those portrayed here. Neither crop nor Ricardian models
can account for the influence of what are likely to be increases
in extreme weather, such as droughts and floods, and insect
pests. Nor do the estimates take account of agricultural losses
associated with rising sea levels, a major consideration in
countries such as Bangladesh and Egypt.

As for the effects on Co2 fertilization.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108

>in FACE experiments, protein concentrations in grains of wheat, rice and barley, and in potato tubers, are decreased by 5–14% under elevated CO2
> Crop concentrations of nutritionally important minerals including calcium, magnesium and phosphorus may also be decreased under elevated CO2

So in areas where they do help it grow. you end up getting bigger plants, with less proteins and minerals.

>>9176918
>more vegetation cover?
>CO2 must have done it!
>there's no way any of those afforestation/reforestation efforts or the spread of agriculture into more marginal environments could have anything to do with it!

>>9179442
Data from 2007.

Are you even trying anymore or just fear mongering?

It’s obvious you’re inept in biological science.

>>9179605
>the record of recent decades proves me right!
>>actually here's a report showing that you're wrong
>actually that report is from a few years ago, nice try you nearly got me
neck yourself my man

>>9179605
>b-but i-it's from 2007!
>b-b-but it's fear mongering!

Yet, you're too inept to refute a study from 2007.

You do know that the research I'm responding to uses data that is even more outdated, right?

Assuming that crop yields increase globally from co2, you still end up with less nutritious crops, lacking the essential proteins and minerals.

>>9171373

Looks like a gradual increase due to coming out of an ice age. Also how exactly did we have accurate temperature readings in the decimal range back in the1900's?

>>9171423

>Computers that run projections based on the bullshit data that climate (((scientists))) feed it

No thanks. All the previous global warming fearmong....err predictions that were made have failed to happen.

>>9172293

So how do you explain their previous absence in hurricanes?

>>9179805
Crop yields have already increased approximately 5-7% for soybeans from 1980 to 2002. That’s a fact.

Now provide some facts or go back to muh models from 2007.

CO2 is fertilizing the planet.

>>9179905
Why have they increased?

>>9179917
Higher [CO2] increases photosynthesis efficiency.

Refer to>>9174975
>>9173193

>>9179876
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90

Mainstream climate models actually predicted the climate pretty well, as opposed to the climate models made by "skeptics," which failed horribly.

>>9179931
No, we're talking soybeans crop yields over a period of time we would expect something like much better technology to have had a huge impact.

>>9170831
Nah, it'll blow over.

>>9171433
>against powerful states
Like what? I don't think many countries can stand up to America.

>>9179905
>Crop yields have already increased approximately 5-7% for soybeans from 1980 to 2002.

Pretty sure this uses a model to calculate as well. Plus, the data is regional, not global. Also, it's only soybeans.

We need to know the effects on all crops, not just soybeans.

>>9179980
>>9179939
There are well known mechanisms that increase photosynthesis efficiency with increased [CO2]. This isn’t disputed by anyone. NASA agrees with it. Reference >>9177148


Please pick up a book on biology and read instead of watching YouTube global fearmongering propaganda.

>>9179869
>Looks like a gradual increase due to coming out of an ice age.
Coming out of an ice age? That would be devastating considering modern humans have always lived in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago.

Perhaps you are referring to a glacial period rather than an ice age, because you don't know the basic terminology you're using? That too would be surprising considering we left a glacial period thousands of years ago. The planet isn't supposed to start rapidly warming again in this stage, it's supposed to slowly cool.

So there is nothing "gradual" or "normal" about this.

>Also how exactly did we have accurate temperature readings in the decimal range back in the1900's?
I don't understand the question. Thermometers are not modern technology and existed long before the 1900s. Around the middle of the 19th century is when coverage and standardization were advanced enough to be considered part of the instrumental record.

>>9180013
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

According to the authors of the same study you posted.

>The authors note that the beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilisation have previously been cited by contrarians to argue that carbon emissions need not be reduced.
>The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.
>According to Dr Canadell, "These will eventually outweigh by far any benefit from the greening," he said.
>Co-author Dr Philippe Ciais, from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-sur‑Yvette, France (also an IPCC author), said: "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged.

>>9180125
>predictions outweigh observable facts
>has to back peddle because global warming fear mongers can’t have their narrative bubble burst

How pathetic climate science has become. Literally threaten his whole career because he wrote a paper that did not claim CO2 was a pollutant but claimed it was a fertilizer.

>>9179931
>Higher [CO2] increases photosynthesis efficiency.

Excess CO2 shows some benefit to C3 plants, but no significant benefit to C4 plants.

Even with C3 type plants, heat can destroy the structure of the activase enzyme at temperatures as low as 89.6 F.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

>>9179946
No uniformed military can stand up to the US. but a few thousand goatfuckers and ricefarmers who blend with civilians can sure cause a stir.

>>9171373
>>9172175
/aesthetic/

>>9177790
>>9179605
>>9180013
>>9180185

it's almost like this guy's main rebuttal is closing his eyes and yelling 'FEAR MONGER' over and over ...to anyone who provides contrary evidence to the idea that increased atmospheric CO2 will somehow, singlehandedly increase global crop yields.

The planet will be fine, its you that needs to worry.

>>9180547
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s

tropical: 0 - 23.5°
subtropical: 23.5° - 40°
temperate: 40° - 65°

>>9177840
>natural disasters have caused less than 50,000 deaths in 116 years
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tsunami_death_toll_updated

As someone who read this whole thread with an open mind and without much bias i gotta say "warmers" won this debate.

>>9176970
>https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
That is back pedalling. In real science a statement should be rigorous, not reinterpreted in subsequent pages. This seems to be a a pattern in these arguments, redefinitions and reinterpretations and a supreme disregard to scientific process.

>>9180618

>>9180741
>haha global warming doesn't exist goy, now go back to buying some of our fine petroleum products
$0.05 has been deposited in your account.

Thank you for helping us take on the world's toughest energy challenges™

-ExxonMobil

>>9180185
Basically, your argument comes down to this.

>More co2 -> greener plants -> climate change is good

Even the authors of the study you referenced think your argument is shit. First of all, the authors of the study state that greening from excess co2 is more of a neutral effect. Crops grown under those condition of excess co2 end up being less nutritious with less proteins and minerals. So even if you assume greening is the only thing that could happen with climate change, the effect is simply neutral.

This is not taking into account other effects of co2, such as rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, and severe weather.

>predictions outweigh observable facts

Predictions based on observable facts. So far they've been pretty good, compared to the utter failures that contrarians have made. see >>9179934

It's not hard at all to predict which crops will die or grow at a certain temperature. Richard Tol, for example, is one of the biggest contrarians in climate science. Guy writes articles for fox news and some of the most optimistic scenarios for climate change, yet he says we're almost at the point where a net positive becomes a net negative.

>>9180589
>earthquakes
>global warming

What?

>>9180528
>>9180903
>the planet is greening (NASA)
>crop yields are decreasing

Please take a biology class.

>>9171122
Is that image real?

>>9180994
Not only do you have shit reading comprehension, you still haven't realized that you're argument was trashed by the same authors of the NASA study you keep referencing.

>“The benefits of a greening Earth fall short compared to the negative impacts of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.”
>“I would not necessarily call greening a good or a bad thing. The greening is another example of the impacts of climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by humans.”
>“When crops like rice, wheat, soy, maize, sorghum and field peas are grown in open field conditions at concentrations of CO2 the world is likely to experience by 2050, they experience significant reductions of iron, zinc, and protein.”
>With roughly two billion people around the world suffering from dietary deficiencies of iron and zinc, less of these nutrients in basic food crops would represent an urgent public health threat.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/rising-co2-has-greened-worlds-plants-and-trees

>>9181098
>”open field” conditions
>higher [co2]

Being this retarded.

The proof is crop yields have increased in the last 30 years and the Earth is greening.

It’s called CO2 fertilization and it’s a fact.

I really can’t help you understand it because you’re oblivious to science. Please take a real science class and stop watching YouTube.

>>9181132
Hey dumbass, those aren't my arguments, they're the arguments of the authors you referenced from.

Is English your second language or something? You keep responding with the same point again and again, not realizing that it doesn't refute any of the arguments in green.

Try responding to the actual arguments.

>>9170831
Global warming is real and human activity is at least exacerbating it, if not the main cause of it.

... with all that said, the Left's approach to dealing with the problem is finger-up-nose-pants-on-head retarded. Shit like carbon credits, overregulation of the gas, coal, and oil industries, and lavish subsidies aimed at inefficient alternatives like wind and solar are half measures, at best.

If you really want to make an impact quickly and efficiently, throw a hundred billion a year at building new, current gen nuclear plants. You'll triple, if not quadruple, our nuclear capacity in under 20 years.

>>9180977
>I don't understand how rising sea levels could possibly increase the risk posed by tsunamis
brainlet

>>9180994
>>9181132
>vegetation has increased
>therefore it must be caused by CO2
>correlation implies causation but only when I want it to, don't go trying to link hurricanes to warming

>>9170831
It depends on your level

>>9173891
> IQ has nothing to do with science
>being political is an option and a fetish

That pic is some extreme retardation my dude

Let me recap this thread for the brainlets.


1. Global warming is happening via the increase in [CO2]
2. Global warming will increase crop yields and makes the planet greener (directly via CO2 fertilization)
3. Global warming will make the sub-arctic and arctic more habitable
4. Global warming will increase the growing season of crops, increasing yields

>>9181236
>muh hurricanes

How much does snowfall cost us earth year?

Deaths, injuries, car accidents, property damage, removal, salt, rusting due to salt?

>>9181501
Sure all those things might be true, but people (including the authors of the study you cited) are arguing that the small increase in biomass does not offset the negative impact of climate change.

1. Atmospheric CO2 is still rising, which means that the plant growth is not enough to balance anthropogenic carbon emission. This is an observable fact.

2. Ocean will acidify as atm CO2 rises following Henry's solubility law, you increase partial pressure on headspace and more CO2 will dissolve into the ocean, forming carbonic acids and bicarbonates. This is 18th century chemistry and pretty much undisputable.

3. Atmospheric CO2 will still cause greenhouse effect, increasing global temperature, melting ice sheets and causing sea level rise. The rate of atmospheric CO2 rise MIGHT be slowed down from plant growth but it is still creeping up and beyond unprecedented for the last 800,000 years.

>>9181501
Furthermore, your point#4 is disputable at best. There will be regional differences, and very little amount of agricultural land is actually CO2 limited. A lot of areas that rely on glacial water runoff (whole India relies on the Himalayas) will lose their water resource, the middle east will become more arid & drier as evaporation increases.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3650/full
>Spatial analysis showed that the largest precipitation decreases are to be found in southern Egypt, Morocco, central and coastal Algeria, Tunisia, central Libya, Syria, and central and eastern Iran. A case study for Morocco revealed that the potential water deficit, which is already apparent for the current climate, becomes even larger for the future climate.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4372776/
>Anticipated regional impacts of climate change include heat stress, associated with poor air quality in the urban environment, and increasing scarcity of fresh water in the Levant.

All these studies are summarized in IPCC special report on regional climate change.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter11.pdf

>>9181501
see >>9179442

Taking into account all factors. It's a net negative.

>>9181509
>he doesn't know that warmer tropical oceans = more moisture in air masses = more precipitation in temperate zones
warming doesn't mean less snow. it just means that the snow melts faster.

>>9181812
Are you retarded?

>>9181821
no, I'm educated.

so long as an area has sub-zero temperatures in the winter, global warming is likely to actually INCREASE short-term snowfall. the snow will melt much faster due to premature warming, and the snowy season will be slightly shorter, but increased evaporation in the tropics leads to more precipitation at temperate latitudes and so individual snowstorms tend to produce more.
I know what I'm talking about. do you?

>>9181828
>rain/snow line has nothing to do with temperature

Do you know how retarded you actually are?

Being "educated" doesn't make you less retarded. It makes you a redditor.

>>9181832
listen here, you two-bit ignoramus, I'm about to make change.

YES, warming can shave a few days off the ends of the snow season. but in the MIDDLE of winter in temperate areas, 3 degrees of warming means that the daytime high is (for example) 25 F instead of 22 F. That little bit of warming isn't going to stop snow from falling and accumulating!
but that same warming in the Gulf of Mexico is causing significantly increased evaporation, sending more moisture northwards. and when that moisture gets to places with freezing temperatures, it turns into snow.

so to summarize, the snow season might be a few days shorter, but it's more intense. and the damage caused by heavy snowfall doesn't happen in late fall and early spring! it's a midwinter phenomenon, and that's exactly when warming will be intensifying snowfall.

don't believe me? this effect has already been recorded on a geographically smaller scale (lake effect snow).
>http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C3535%3AIGLSDT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

see, my education allows me to go beyond what's immediately intuitive. you associate snow with cold, and so it's inconceivable to your tiny little mind that warming could possibly cause more snow. amazingly enough, just because something's counterintuitive doesn't mean it's not true.

>>9181859
>temperature rises enough to alter oceanic evaporation and hurricanes
>temperature doesn’t rise enough to alter rain/snow line

The warmer Gulf Stream will bring warm air to the NE you idiot, just like it warms England. It won’t increase snowfall.

How do you people suffer from such double think?

Plus you fabricated up some fictional numbers like a typical global warming fear monger.

The average temperature in NY doesn’t approach 22F. It’s about 33, so 3 degrees would make a huge difference.

>>9181887
>warmer Gulf Stream will bring warm air
>warming fear monger

wow, talk about cognitive dissonance

>>9181501
- in subtropics (lat 23.5-40) rain win fail, 50-75%
- each rise of 1C reduces crops by 10%
- gw will benefit russia and canada, around 2100
- still light for only half of the year in arctic

>>9181897
“Warming fearmongering” is depictive of the negative effects of global warming, not the denial of it.

Name a city in the USA with an average temperature of 22F in any winter month.

>>9181887
look at you backpedal!
>yeah well the climate of this one city isn't conducive to the effect you mentioned, therefore the effect must not be real anywhere
there are more places to worry about than New York City, faggot.

NYC isn't a particularly cold or snowy place thanks to its coastal setting (~11 snow days per year, compared to ~30-60 in cities of similar latitude further inland) but even it has seen a marked increase in the severity of short-term snowfalls. did you know that six of the ten biggest snowstorms to hit NYC came after 2000? this from a record going back to 1869!
>https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/BiggestSnowstorms.pdf
and if you look at total snowfall per year, New York's been getting dumped on far more frequently in recent decades than in the 50s and 60s.
>https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/national/2016/feb/city-snow-anoms/CentralPark.gif

like I said, this is already happening. you can deny it all you want, but throwing a tantrum won't make it any less real.

>>9181913
>Name a city in the USA with an average temperature of 22F in any winter month.
why the fuck does this matter?
but okay. January in Chicago, February in La Crosse WI, and December in Minneapolis average around 22 F. have you ever been in the northern US? these kinds of temperatures are extremely common.
inb4 butthurt Southerner needs to put on a coat

of course, the exact temperature doesn't matter for the purposes of the effect I'm describing. (hence the "for example" in my previous post.) as long as the temperatures aren't right below the freezing point, an increase of a couple degrees won't stop snow from falling or accumulating.

go ahead, keep deluding yourself.

>>9182046
>biggest snow storms to hit New York
18,000 years ago NYC was covered by an ice sheet.

How myopic is your view of the environment? Do you have any common sense?

>>9182066
>maybe if I change the subject nobody will notice that I just got BTFO
brainlet :^)