/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12076811]

I still don't get why is global warming a problem.
What will actually happen?

[Anonymous No.12076827]

>>12076811
>What will actually happen?

Look at the last 40 years. That's what's going to happen.
Do you not understand how serious this is?

If we don't react NOW, with measures more extreme than the covid-1984 lockdowns. Then we'll pass the tipping points and NOTHING AT ALL will happen!

Do you seriously want that?

A future where the energy supply is stable and secured, not to mention cheap?

What will your children think of you when they don't suffer rolling blackouts 3 times per day for something they pay 50% of their income for?

[Anonymous No.12076832]

>>12076811
the rain on World's breadbaskets will fail, annual rainfall will reduce by 50%...75%
this will happen around 450 ppm, at the current pace around 2030

[Anonymous No.12076840]

>>12076832
how much time will it take to make Antarctica habitable and siberia and greenland fertile?

[Anonymous No.12076852]

>>12076811
global problems require global solutions, anon
global warming is a problem which requires a global solution
individual nations with their outdated constitutions cannot solve global problems
therefore global government is the only solution to the global global warming problem

[Anonymous No.12076870]

>>12076852
k, but what problems will it cause?

[Anonymous No.12076878]

>>12076811
ocean planet where we all live on crowded freedom ships would be cool but sadly we don't have enough ice

[Anonymous No.12076885]

>>12076878
Based. I love Waterworld

[Anonymous No.12076903]

>>12076870
official IPCC projections say that food production can increase up to 20% as result of their meme warming.

So even if it would actually happen we'd enjoy more food, not less.

[Anonymous No.12076920]

>>12076870
i don't think you understand. we need a global solution to solve the global warming problem problem
the only solution to global problems like the global warming problem is a global government which can implement global solutions to global problems
you do want to solve the global global warming problem, don't you, goy? you're not one of those ignorant "deniers" are you?

[Anonymous No.12076924]

>>12076852
I see what you are trying to show. Heheh

[Anonymous No.12076938]

>>12076840
>Antarctica habitable
never, the daylight is fucked up no matter what the temperature

[Anonymous No.12076940]

>>12076811
coastal cities swallowed by oceans, droughts leading to starvation causing migrations (which in turn will obviously cause social unrest wherever these people migrate to), declining biodiversity (*could* trigger ecosystems collapsing), more extreme weather in some areas (this is especially bad when it happens in urban centers), wars due to decreased availability of recourses etc. I can keep going if you wish?

It COULD turn out to be a nothing burger, but extrapolating from current trends seem to imply some drastic consequences.

[Anonymous No.12076941]

>>12076903
>IPCC projections say that food production can increase
lolno
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=IPCC+projections+say+that+food+production+can+increase&t=lm&ia=web

[Anonymous No.12076943]

>>12076903
That's a very one dimensional analysis of what may happen. Even if food production increases due to climate change, the location where this food can be produced will likely shift (northwards), causing starvation in some areas which could possibly lead to migrations and wars.

[Anonymous No.12076949]

>>12076811
>>12076827
>>12076940

More trees will grow,
More farmland will be available,
Frostbite will be less common

[Anonymous No.12076953]

it will literally affect only black people. All we need to do is to build guard towers with machine guns on our borders. The blacks are smart so they will figure out how to adapt :)

[Anonymous No.12076960]

>>12076949
Not at the rate we're cutting down the forrests right now kek
>frostbite will be less common
... good argument

>>12076953
Yeah sure, this wil definitely happen and isn't just a /pol/-tier dream scenario that will likely not happen in real life because most people would be against that.

[Anonymous No.12076971]

>>12076943
>will likely shift (northwards),
Which benefits me.

>causing starvation in some areas which could possibly lead to migrations and wars.

We already have mass migrations, if they have some more civil wars then less migrants for us.

Also their track record of being right in their predictions is so shit that it's not going to happen anyway. Might as well cite revelation or nostradamus or make up your own crackpot fairytale, they all share the same 0% accuracy record.

[Anonymous No.12076980]

>>12076971
>more civil wars = less migrants for us
>destroying a countries infrastructure, economy and sense of identity through brotherly wars means the people will just sit still and die

You're delusional
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.12076982]

>>12076940
>coastal cities swallowed by oceans
but the prediction says that sea levels will only increase by a couple of cm in a hundred years
>droughts leading to starvation causing migrations
can we not just genocide the in anticipation if that's the case?

[Anonymous No.12076985]

>>12076811
>Global warming

It's storytelling.

There's no logic or rational arguments involved anymore for it. If you don't accept all of it and some more you're considered an outcast and ridiculed and hated.

It's like the Koran of science. No critique allowed or we chop your head off.

The truth value is the same in the Koran and in the AGW narrative. Fiction for radicals.

[Anonymous No.12076998]

>>12076980
>it's hotter outside by one degree and the sea level increased by one cm lets start a war with our neighbours

[Anonymous No.12077004]

>>12076985
>If you don't accept all of it and some more you're considered an outcast and ridiculed and hated.
If you don't accept it you're a schizo or worse, an oil shill. You would help your case if you could actually point to what's wrong with global warming.

[Anonymous No.12077012]

>>12076998
You don't try to murder your neighbours at high tide every summer?

DENIER!

[Anonymous No.12077021]

>>12077004
>an oil shill
i mean one could argue that organizations warning against global warming or climate change or whatever it's called these days have an interest in manipulating public opinion to get public funding but you never hear that being brought up

[Anonymous No.12077024]

>>12077004
>if you could actually point to what's wrong with global warming.

I already said what's wrong. It's fiction. Not true.

It have a prediction track record that's 100% false.

You migth as well say the death eaters will leave the Harry Potter books and start murdering people if we don't hand you a lot of money and policymaking power.

[Anonymous No.12077037]

>>12077021
Greenpeace is only spending 15 times more money on their public marketing campaign than Exxon and there's no big multinational company that produces wind turbines like General Electrics, Siemens or Vestas that have billions of dollars to gain from getting green handouts. There's no trillion dollar big finance involved looking to get a piece of the cake.

It's all green grassroot movement, mom and pops worried about the enviro-apocalypse. Now please give me free save the world dollars from some taxpayers pocket before we die!!!

[Anonymous No.12077039]

Once C02 passes a certain threshold in the air you literally become mentally handicapped. It's why rooms with poor ventilation make you sluggish and tired.

>>12076840
>Fertile

A few thousand years at best. It takes a long time to make fertile soil.

[Anonymous No.12077049]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328719303507

Unstable climate kills civilization (as it has done before with earli experiments in agriculture) and we all go back to hunter gatherer lifestyles.

[Anonymous No.12077060]

>>12077039
Once CO2 drops below a certain threshold in the air plant life does on a global scale and higher life ends. It's why the oil industry literally saved the planet.

[Anonymous No.12077064]

>>12077049
How could climate be unstable if they didn't have industrial fossil fuel emissions?

Checkmate retard.

[Anonymous No.12077068]

>>12076982
Wrong. But even then, 10 cm would mean a lot of economic damage worldwide. It's obviously not world ending or anything, but it would still suck.

>>12076998
>>12077012
nice strawman faggot(s)

[Anonymous No.12077069]

>>12076960
>Yeah sure, this wil definitely happen and isn't just a /pol/-tier dream scenario that will likely not happen in real life because most people would be against that.
why would most people be against it when the alternative is some nightmare scenario like you were just describing a couple posts ago?

[Anonymous No.12077076]

>>12077060
completely and absolutely irrelevant

[Anonymous No.12077082]

>>12077069
Have you seen the current political climate? Or are you just living under a /pol/-rock?

[Anonymous No.12077101]

>>12077076
>Life on earth isn't relevant
Green philosophy in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.12077107]

>>12077068
>But even then, 10 cm would mean a lot of economic damage worldwide. It's obviously not world ending or anything, but it would still suck.
Ok but would that economic damage surpass that which you would cause by trying to reduce emissions?

[Anonymous No.12077110]

>>12077101
Nah, life on Earth is important, but your statement here: >>12077060 means literally nothing

[Anonymous No.12077122]

>>12077068
>10 cm would mean a lot of economic damage worldwide.

In any place where 10cm sea level equals economic damage that economic damage have already happened.

And anyplace that worries about it and cannot afford to build a 10cm high leeve have no economy to damage.

Your argument is invalid and before you say anything else you might want to consider what the tidal and wind driven sea level variation is

[Anonymous No.12077123]

>>12076953
Based, now they'll hate whitey even more forever.

[Anonymous No.12077126]

>>12077107
I'm not some kind of eco-nutt-case. Only I do take the science and its predictions as a serious possible scenario.

But we need to get away from depletable recourses as much as possible anyway so I don't see an issue in transitioning to green energy and thereby minimizing the negative effects of climate change.

It's an optimizatioin problem I suppose. I have no idea what the optimal strategy would be, though.

[Anonymous No.12077129]

niggas really hell bent on staying dependent on saudi arabia

[Anonymous No.12077132]

>>12077110
>Life is important but CO2 levels means nothing

Okay. I guess we agree then

[Anonymous No.12077137]

>>12077132
Where did I say any of that? Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.12077138]

>>12077122
Increased flooding in venice has already caused lot's of damage. Nothing that can be done about that anymore. They have built a levee but the damage has already been done. Again, this is just an economic argument. How about you tackle one of the other points.

[Anonymous No.12077146]

>>12077126
>I don't see an issue in transitioning to green energy
are there cost efficient not public funded green energy alternatives that would also allow the growth of developing nations though?

[Anonymous No.12077152]

>>12077129
Windmills and solar panels does nothing to change that.

Nuclear power could fix the non-issue that is CO2 but the green mindlet is too afraid of an actually viable energy supply.

We're going to build a lot of windmills, lot of solar panels. And in twenty years we'll be nowhere closer to independence of fossil fuels because we bet everything on unreliable energy, that by 2040 needs to be decomissioned at great cost.

[Anonymous No.12077157]

>>12077137
That was literally your statement, I'm just quoting you. Are you lying to my face you green faced faggot?

[Anonymous No.12077162]

>>12077157
Where are you getting this? You do realize what a "quotation" is do you? You sound like a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.12077163]

>>12077146
Combination of wind, solar and nuclear. Oil will become more expensive over time. At some point wind/solar will become more economical than oil. At this point in time, nuclear is would be the best investment, as far as I know. Long term *maybe* fusion but I don't have high hopes for that so far.

[Anonymous No.12077166]

>>12077138
For the last 100 years the ground have sunk more than the sea level have risen in venice.

Also nice job picking an extreme outlier managed by a bunch of retards(Italians)

What's your next example? Atlantis?

[Anonymous No.12077176]

>>12077162
>Ad hominem
I see you're not interested in a rational debate about scientific topics. Fuck off and take your completely meaningless statements with you.
Why are you green zealots always this stupid?

[Anonymous No.12077186]

>>12077163
>Oil will become more expensive over time.
On average. Over really long time. But gas and coil also exists and have slightly different economics.

>At some point wind/solar will become more economical than oil
Sure, maybe by the year 2400. But we can run several generations of nicely working and cheap fossil fuel economies before then.

[Anonymous No.12077188]

>>12076811
people act as if 1 extra celsius per year is nothing, but if you work with crops that shit literally kills your plant and/or messes up timings.
Some countries in europe start having the righ climate to grow tropical food, while the local crops are getting harder and harder to keep.
Sea rising also causes problems with the climate in general.
People understimate too much what small numbers can do.
Will it kill humanity? no.
Will it cause massive economic damage? yes.

There's just no reason not to switch to green technology, fossil fuels are running out either way, so it's not like we get a choice. Plus pollution, if unchecked, can cause severe health problems in the long term.

[Anonymous No.12077191]

>>12077176
>straw man
You're the one calling me closed to debate, oh the irony, get the fuck off my board.

[Anonymous No.12077202]

>>12077191
I'm not calling you anything. I just said your argument is wrong. You can't even quote me properly and just throw insults blindly at me. Maybe some philosophy board is more to your taste?

[Anonymous No.12077209]

>>12076811
The hope is global warming causes enough chaos that the neoliberal world order collapses, but that it's not enough to tear down modern civilization as a whole.

The fear is that it'll be enough to end all of industrial civilization and send us back to the 1600s.

[Anonymous No.12077218]

>>12077209
>The fear is that it'll be enough to end all of industrial civilization and send us back to the 1600s.
and?

[Anonymous No.12077220]

>>12077188
I work with crops.
If temperatures would actually increase as predicted I could pick more profitable crops or grow more of the same.

Increasing temperatures is a massive boon to farmers everywhere.

[Anonymous No.12077235]

>>12077218
Such a change would be coupled with billions of deaths, the end of all spaceflight dreams, and the permanent trapping of humanity on Earth.

[Anonymous No.12077237]

>>12077220
>Increasing temperatures is a massive boon to farmers everywhere.
Except for the majority of the world?

[Anonymous No.12077239]

>>12077188
They said that we'd face economic disaster 50 years ago already. And have repeated the prediction on a yearly basis ever since.

Instead we've had record growth in every economical sector.

Either:
A:They are perpetual liars with no clue.
or
B: Human adaptability enormously outstrips their static state predictions and we can turn disadvantages into advantages.

In both cases the doomsday prediction is irrelevant and the economy will grow.

>There's just no reason not to switch to green technology

Except cost of electricity and grid stability.

[Anonymous No.12077240]

>>12077235
>Such a change would be coupled with billions of deaths
Seems overexagerated, but anyway even if true it's more tollerable than the alternative of low quality human proliferation.
> the end of all spaceflight dreams, and the permanent trapping of humanity on Earth
The dreams of nerds, nobody really cares.

[Anonymous No.12077244]

>>12077237
>Growing more crops for less is not good
Is this some kind of liberal doublespeak thing

[Anonymous No.12077247]

>>12077240
>> the end of all spaceflight dreams, and the permanent trapping of humanity on Earth
>The dreams of nerds, nobody really cares.
Anon, I... I am lost for words.

[Anonymous No.12077248]

>>12077244
The increase in temperature will decrease the land available for agriculture on the global scale.
Wtf do you mean that you are going to grow more crops?

[Anonymous No.12077253]

>>12077247
>Promote genocidal green ideology
>Thinks spaceflight should be excluded from the environmentalist genocide.

You can't eat your cake and still have it.

We either sweep the satellites out of the sky and kill 95% of the population and save the ecological stability. If we do one but not the other then earth dies.

[Anonymous No.12077272]

>>12077253
The "ecological stability" as you put it is doomed. Even if carbon emissions ended tomorrow, global warming, the effects of pollution, and the wreckage of the environment is enough to send Earth into a mass extinction. The only way in my mind to "save the Earth" is via advanced technology. Simply stopping is not enough.

[Anonymous No.12077288]

>>12077272
>Even if carbon emissions ended tomorrow, global warming, the effects of pollution, and the wreckage of the environment is enough to send Earth into a mass extinction
So what's the point of trying in the first place?
Anyway, this is all a nothing burger.

[Anonymous No.12077305]

>>12077248
Increased growth seasons leads to more crops. Simple as that.

With higher temperatures a lot more land on the northern hemisphere in particular becomes arable. This will vastly outstrip any minor losses in dry equatorial areas that are at risk

[Anonymous No.12077330]

>>12077272
A central principle of the environmentalist movement is fairness.

It's not fair to survive against nature with brute technological force.

Either we let nature reclaim 95% of the population or we cull them through other means.

[Anonymous No.12077342]

>>12076811
natural climate change is accelerated by humansso fast that flora and fauna can't adapt. and mass immigration, lots of mass immigration will happen.

[Anonymous No.12077367]

>>12077342
Will the animals from Africa migrate all the way to Sweden too or just the humans?

[Anonymous No.12077384]

>>12077305
The size of countries decreases drastically the further up the equator you go, the mercator projection is lying to you when it tells you how large Russia is. Lets say 30% of the land at the equator no longer becomes arable, just to compensate, the comparable amount of land in the north would constitute a vastly larger area percentage of their countries alone. I HIGHLY doubt northern countries have enough unused land and that it will magically increase enough in fertility to become comparable to equatorial land, especially since soil quality decreases the more north you go.

[Anonymous No.12077385]

>>12077132
>Okay. I guess we agree then
Based retard. Gave me a hearty laugh. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.12077394]

>>12077384
>30% of the land at the equator no longer becomes arable
Maybe 5% loss, at most. And it needs to be weighted in yield-per-surface too. Any at risk agriculture will have shit yield compared to industrial northern hemisphere agriculture.

[Anonymous No.12077415]

>>12077394
>Maybe 5% loss, at most.
Yeah, no.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_K2Ata6XY
Also, none of this is taking into account the fact that this supposed "fertility" increase doesn't increase the micro nutrient content of food. On paper, any increase in yields might sound nice, but in reality it does relatively little. Human micronutrient needs aren't going to change, decreased satiation will destroy us.

[Anonymous No.12077421]

>>12077037
Its literally just Saudi Arabia trying to kill western oil competition. All green peace movements and peotests are heavily funded by Saudis

[Anonymous No.12077471]

>>12076811
It's gonna get hotter and wetter and life on this planet with flourish like the Amazon