/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15319699]

>theres more CO2 in the atmosphere
>oh no!! higher crop yields!!
>oh no!! more productive wilderness!!
whats bad about more CO2? it doesn't change the weather at all, the climate has been rock steady the past 50 years other than slight variations due to solar cycles.

[Anonymous No.15319706]

>nature works linearly
lolling and kekking at brainlets

[Anonymous No.15319712]

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
#43

C3 & C4
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

[Anonymous No.15319721]

>>15319699
>climate has been rock steady the past 50 years other than slight variations due to solar cycles.
nope

[Anonymous No.15319750]

>>15319721
Didn't temp stop rising during the last 10 years?

[Anonymous No.15319751]

>>15319750
It stopped rising for 15 years and was covered up 10 years ago. If it hasn't risen in the following 10 years then that's 25 years of stable climate.

[Anonymous No.15319772]

>>15319712
>i'm too dumb to think for myself, instead i trust the experts
how many boosters are you on?

[Anonymous No.15319776]

>>15319721
>nasa.gov
great source, a bunch of morons who need $100,000 to put a kilo in orbit. spacex does the same thing for $1400
>i come to 4chan.org to spam ZOG propaganda
how organic

[Anonymous No.15319796]

>>15319772
>i cant read
yeah we know

[Anonymous No.15319798]

>>15319776
>i have no argument

[Anonymous No.15319804]

>>15319772
>bro just THINK!!
>how many cows are in this field? just THINK and the number will magically appear in your head!
kek

[Jealous No.15319810]

>>15319699
I wonder if they used this to grow the trees in Antarctica.

[Anonymous No.15319885]

>>15319699
from what i understand CO2 gets into the atmosphere and prevents some light from reflecting off earth and back into space, thereby warming up the planet. Yes this may help trees grow faster but you need to consider everything that happens, such as the ice caps melting due to the increased heat. So just saying trees grow faster is leaving out the bad things that can happen. Do you want faster growing trees at the cost of sea level rise? Probably not

[Anonymous No.15319902]

>>15319885
how does CO2 prevent light from bouncing off the earth and going back into space without just preventing the light from coming in to begin with? is CO2 a one-way mirror? how does it maintain it's perfect orientation with the reflective side always facing away from the sun? it would have to rotate at the same rate the earth turns to do that.
>muh ice caps
>muh pwecious ice cap muffugguh
they aren't melting, as you cans see the antarctic cap has grown a lot in the past 5 years, but if they were melting, what would be bad about that? obama's oceanfront mansions would be threatened? he has two of them, one in hawaii, one in mass, both cost him tens of millions, the hawaii one was a $100million project. he got the money by playing idiots like you for fools

[Anonymous No.15319915]

>>15319885
light hits ground, turns into heat

[Anonymous No.15319931]

>>15319902
https://youtu.be/x26a-ztpQs8?t=39m

[Anonymous No.15319934]

>>15319931
>i'm too dumb to speak for myself, you must watch this ZOG approved propaganda video instead
i'm actually permabanned from google and all of their subsidiary websites, would you mind uploading the video somewhere else for me so i can see you appeal to authority?

[Anonymous No.15319935]

>>15319699
>the climate has been rock steady the past 50 years other than slight variations due to solar cycles.
You already know that the last solar maximum came and went, yet the average temperature continued to increase, or you are willfully ignorant.

[Anonymous No.15319974]

>>15319885
>thereby warming up the planet. Yes this may help trees grow faster
The plants grow faster because there's more co2 in the atmosphere. If you double the co2 the speed of which the plant can take up co2 from the atmosphere is also doubled. And since plants are made out of mostly co2 the plant ends up growing faster.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/
Summary

Current evidence suggests that that the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 predicted for the year 2100 will have major implications for plant physiology and growth. Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein. Rising CO2 over the next century is likely to affect both agricultural production and food quality.

[Anonymous No.15319977]

>>15319776
lol ok, what source would you trust you fucking moronic retarded piece of shit faggot?

[Anonymous No.15319984]

>>15319934
ever seen a hot pavement?

[Anonymous No.15319986]

>>15319974
>The plants grow faster because there's more co2 in the atmosphere
-droughts
-wildfires
-heat

[Anonymous No.15319993]

>>15319699
>whats bad about more CO2?
greenhouse effect

[Anonymous No.15319997]

>>15319993
greenhouses function because they have a physical barrier which prevents convective cooling, a gas cannot produce the same effect, gases are subject to convection.

[Anonymous No.15320006]

>>15319986
That's incorrect. Wildfires are caused by bad local politicians. Like what we saw in California: once they followed Trump's advice about clearing old trees from the forests the wildfires stopped.


Also you have to understand: we're talking about 0.4 degrees increase in heating over a period of almost 80 years into the future. Places on Earth already experience about 20 degrees Celsius in different between night and day.

https://www.globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archived-posts/sciblog/2008/02/27/how-the-temperature-varies-during-the-day-and-night/comment-page-1/index.html

[Anonymous No.15320020]

>>15319977
in 1995 nasa announced that they were going to build JWST for $500million and launch it in 12 years and it was going to be an 8 meter telescope. they ended up taking 25 years, spending $15 billion and the telescope was only 6.5 meters, so about 2/3 the size promised. add that all up and you see that nasa was overestimating their capabilities by about 9500%.
this is the organization that you trust every word from, they are clearly bonkers insane with delusions of grandiosity

[Anonymous No.15320055]

>>15320006
Also you have to understand: 3/4 of the globe is sea, that will warm less than average.
The 1/4 that is land will warm more than average.
North America can expect +10F hotter summers by the mid-century.
It's well on its way already:
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap.aspx

[Anonymous No.15320058]

>>15320020
>this x-ray of my lung cancer is wrong because the picture was too expensive
lol retard

[Anonymous No.15320072]

>>15320058
>lets use x-rays to check for cancer
x-rays cause cancer

[Anonymous No.15320089]

>>15320072
>Let's use fingers to check for bruises
Fingers cause bruises

[Anonymous No.15320264]

>>15320055
you don't think droughtmonitor.replicationcrisis.zog has a financial interest in exaggerating and lying about your end of the world disaster scenario?

[Anonymous No.15320268]

>>15320264
>zog
anything you don't like is zog?
lol retard

[Anonymous No.15320339]

>>15319712
>/skepticalscience
rotflmao

[Anonymous No.15320636]

>>15319902
has the ice cap been growing because of global warming?

[Anonymous No.15320640]

>>15319699
If it gets too high we wont be able to breath.

[Anonymous No.15320645]

>>15319885
>from what i understand CO2 gets into the atmosphere and prevents some light from reflecting off earth and back into space, thereby warming up the planet
It also stops some light from entering the atmosphere in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15320657]

>>15319885
Show me anyone who who lives near the coast that doesn’t deserve to drown.

[Anonymous No.15320677]

>>15319699
>more co2 in the atmoflat
>trees use more co2 than before
>adds up to the same amount of co2 as before
oh no anways

[Anonymous No.15320682]

> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, YOU CAN'T STOP OIL COMPANIES BEING FILTHY RICH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.15320783]

>>15319902

You fail to understand the most basic concepts of the greenhouse effect.

The sun radiates a spectrum of energy, the bulk of which is in the visual portion of the spectrum. This is the yellow portion of the graph, or roughly what's under the gray line.

Various gasses in the atmosphere absorb, reflect or refacts portions of that spectrum on it's way down what reaches the earths surface is the red portion of the graph.

The earth absorbs many frequencies across the spectrum but only re-radiates energy in the lower infrared portion.

CO2 happens to absorb, reflect or refract a portion of the spectrum where earth emits far more energy than what it absorbs from the sun, as the sun does not emit much energy in that portion of the spectrum. Thus CO2 inhibits earth from radiating away the heat energy it has collected.

This is in opposition to other pollutants like Sulphur oxides and particulates that absorb reflect or refract more energy coming form the sun than is emitted from the earth. Recent laws to reduce Sulphur from fuels should help to heat up the earth and my conspiratorial mind wonders if those reductions were not done to improve the air quality but rather to exacerbate global warming so as to gain more political control over the production of CO2.

This greenhouse effect is unimpeachable science. The magnitude of the effect is in contention as are the final outcomes. Personally I think global warming is a good thing. Earth has a higher carrying capacity for life at warmer temperatures and looking back at geological history we are far far closer to having critically low CO2 than some kind of dangerous abundance.

[Anonymous No.15320855]

>>15320636
Yes. Winters are colder and the ice caps are growing because of global warming.

[Anonymous No.15320862]

>>15320783
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5HyDp_Jgd8

[Anonymous No.15320956]

>>15320855
KEK!

[Anonymous No.15321024]

>>15319977
>moronic retarded piece of shit
Why do lefties always speak this way?

[Anonymous No.15321093]

>>15320862
Thank You.

[Anonymous No.15321132]

>what could possibly happen from more CO2

Venus has a thick, toxic atmosphere filled with carbon dioxide and it's perpetually shrouded in thick, yellowish clouds of sulfuric acid that trap heat, causing a runaway greenhouse effect. It's the hottest planet in our solar system, even though Mercury is closer to the Sun.

The atmosphere of Venus is made up almost completely of carbon dioxide. It also includes small doses of nitrogen and clouds of sulfuric acid. The air of Venus is so dense that by mass, the small traces of nitrogen are four times the amount found on Earth, although nitrogen makes up more than three-fourths of the terrestrial atmosphere. This composition causes a runaway greenhouse effect that heats the planet even hotter than the surface of Mercury, although Venus lies farther from the sun. When the rocky core of Venus formed, it captured much of the gas gravitationally.

[Anonymous No.15321273]

>>15321024
>Why do lefties always speak this way?
Leftists are always ignorant, impotent, weaklings who are constantly seething at the world and think everything is wrong and they need to fix it, yet they cannot.

[Anonymous No.15321292]

>>15319974
>The plants grow faster because there's more co2 in the atmosphere. If you double the co2 the speed of which the plant can take up co2 from the atmosphere is also doubled. And since plants are made out of mostly co2 the plant ends up growing faster.
lol
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows

[Anonymous No.15321329]

>>15319712
>vaxxed and boosted

[Anonymous No.15321333]

>>15320339
>I have no counterargument

[Anonymous No.15321339]

>>15319993
>people build greenhouses all over because they are bad
Or is it because they need food and it grows much better than outside the greenhouse?

[Anonymous No.15321357]

>>15321333
Checked and "skeptical" pilled

[Anonymous No.15321387]

>>15321339
What's wrong about higher CO2 is that it increases the carrying capacity of the Earth. Anyone who wants to dramatically reduce the population is going to hate and fear a high-CO2 climate because of how easy it will be to do your own agriculture.

[Anonymous No.15321395]

>>15321387
>Anyone who wants to dramatically reduce the population is going to hate and fear a high-CO2 climate because of how easy it will be to do your own agriculture.
That's EXACTLY why the rich 1% globalists are all against CO2, because they want to depopulate the planet.
Easiest way to do that is mass starvation from crop failures, due to not enough CO2.

Plants and crops do fine when were 5-10 billion people, but as we need more food, there won't be enough CO2 for all the plants to grow as well.

[Anonymous No.15321410]

>>15319699
that's what you learn in the earliest biology courses in highschool or undergrad, but you also learn that eventually the effect of these factors diminishes, so the relation between growth factors and growth is so what like a square root curve. and this makes smore sense than saying the trees can grow to sizes of mountains if we douse with extreme levels of CO2

[Anonymous No.15321424]

>>15319721
Jews took complete control around 1960 ( 6 is a sacred number to them, since they're the children of the god of this world ), so all data from at least since then is to be assumed 100% fabricated.

[Anonymous No.15321540]

>>15321410
>but you also learn that eventually the effect of these factors diminishes
you just pulled that out of your ass in defense of your retarded mad-for-television global warming narrative. in the real world, when money is on the line, professional agricultural operation use CO2 enriched atmospheres in their greenhouse operations.
1500-2000 PPM is the normal aim point for such operations

[Anonymous No.15321543]

>>15319699
if only I bought an electric vehicle, we wouldn't all be dying. how many humans should I eradicate in order to offset my carbon faux pa?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mptNDINqYnQ

[Anonymous No.15321742]

>>15320862
Damn if only there wasn’t observational data to prove that the greenhouse effect is not even close to reaching saturation

[Anonymous No.15321750]

>>15321742
Sir that's a projection.

[Anonymous No.15321759]

>>15321750
>can't read simple graphs
Look at the observational data. It would be flat by now if we were close to saturation.

[Anonymous No.15321762]

>>15320682
>BUT TECH COMPANIES CAN CONTINUE RAPING THE THIRD WORLD FOR RARE MINERALS AND I DON'T MENTION IT BECAUSE THEIR WOKE AND I'M RIDING THEIR BALLS!

[Anonymous No.15321764]

>>15321762

[Anonymous No.15321790]

>>15320264
>any evidence that contradicts my argument is a conspiracy

every single time lol. if you really had a well-researched point you wouldn't need to resort to this retarded response. cringe

[Anonymous No.15321801]

>>15321764
Fraulein Greta!

[Anonymous No.15321811]

>>15321540
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/

wow it's almost like there are multiple factors at play and one positive effect isn't going to fully offset all the negative ones. surely nobody would be too retarded to grasp this simple concept

[Anonymous No.15321822]

>>15321764
>>15321801
who the fuck cares about Greta? is proving that she's a shill going to prevent the planet from going to shit? crazy how much some people fixate on her

[Anonymous No.15321827]

>>15321822
global warming is fake

[Anonymous No.15321828]

>>15321822
Has she done any porn yet? Want to see that cunt getting a train on her and her in tears before she gets all uggo.

[Anonymous No.15321832]

>>15321827
kek that face of hers. Looks like she has a big one up her ass there.

[Anonymous No.15321842]

>>15321827
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

inb4 everything scientists say is a conspiracy and a meme image is the proof. the sea level isn't rising fast enough to see it in a pic from that far away and rising sea levels aren't what's going to kill us

[Anonymous No.15321851]

>>15321828
you'd see greta's shriveled tiny penis if there was greta porn. on hrt & estrogen from a young age, but still has shoulders wider than hips, no breast growth & masculine jaw

[Anonymous No.15321859]

>>15321851
100% chance anon has a folder of these that he faps to while mumbling to himself about psyops or whatever

[Anonymous No.15321867]

>>15321859
>i'm an out of control habitual masturbator therefore everyone is
projection

[Anonymous No.15321886]

>>15321842
>le scientismic consensus!!!!!

[Anonymous No.15321889]

>>15321867
I was trying to actually talk about science on the science board and then you started talking about Greta porn and what her body and genitals must look like but yeah sure bro

[Anonymous No.15321892]

>>15321889
>genitals
You the one talking about genitals. You are a mentally ill faggot troon aren't you? Only one cure for troonism.

[Anonymous No.15321893]

>>15321886
if you're not gonna even try to make an argument then maybe you should go to some other board where everyone just post wojaks and shit. retard

[Anonymous No.15321895]

>>15321893
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. You're just another fraud.

[Anonymous No.15321896]

>>15321851
Why are all the leftist-Nazi's now trannies? Something wrong with all them. Humans need to do something about all those degenerates yo.

[Anonymous No.15321897]

>>15321892
>called out for being a weird retard
>resorts to the same argument about trannies for some reason

every single time. literally npc behavior

[Anonymous No.15321898]

>>15321842
>nasa.gov
lmao!

[Anonymous No.15321902]

>>15321897
>literally
fag/troon/tween girl word. Which are you? Do you identify as all of those?
Amuse us with your pronouns oh great scientist.

[Anonymous No.15321923]

>>15321895
argumentum ad populum doesn't apply if we're talking about a bunch of climate change researchers lol, you can't just spout shit you learned in high school. again, if you had any actual proof that I'm wrong you would've posted it by now

[Anonymous No.15321930]

>>15321902
>unable to tell the difference between a teen girl saying "literally" and the actual meaning of the word
>unable to post anything that doesn't have to do with trannies or gays

kys posthaste

[Anonymous No.15321935]

>>15321930
>seething......wait for it......wait...... literally seething!

[Anonymous No.15321940]

>>15321930
>posthaste
Are you trying to spell toothpaste? Limey's sure hate that stuff, and never learn to even spell it.

[Anonymous No.15321949]

>>15319885
>>15319885
faster growing vegetation means that they CAPTURE CO2 faster, leading to a drop in CO2 in the atmosphere. You sound quite uninformed on this topic.

[Anonymous No.15321953]

>>15321923
If you had proof you wouldn't need to appeal to the popular delusions of the replication crisis establishment.

[Anonymous No.15321959]

>>15321949
so more CO2 --> more plant growth --> less total CO2? by this logic there should be zero CO2 in the atmosphere. yes this effect will offset increases to some degree but the level will still rise

[Anonymous No.15321960]

>>15321898
>t. half of my salary goes into tin foil hats

[Anonymous No.15321961]

>>15321959
>by this logic there should be zero CO2 in the atmosphere.
Until humans became industrialized, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was getting dangerously low. If we hadn't intervened there might have been a complete dieoff of large plantlife in a few hundred thousand years.

[Anonymous No.15321963]

>>15321959
>by this logic there should be zero CO2 in the atmosphere
There is not enough, still icecaps existing and cold winters, which are unnatural for this planet.

[Anonymous No.15321967]

>>15321961
>the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was getting dangerously low.
This.
Releasing the sequestered CO2 in coal, gas, etc. is helping to re-warm the planet to natural levels it used to be before the ice ages.

[Anonymous No.15321969]

>>15321827
https://www.sealevels.org/
Click and drag in the plot area to zoom in

[Anonymous No.15321974]

>>15321953
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

"More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies."

of course, knowing the difference between a peer-reviewed study and someone's opinion or "delusions" would require your IQ to be above room temperature

[Anonymous No.15321976]

>>15321974
>peer review
Dropped.

[Anonymous No.15321982]

>>15321961
now you're contradicting yourself lol. so humans releasing CO2 causes a decrease in CO2 because plants, but without humans we also wouldn't have enough CO2? that makes no sense

[Anonymous No.15321985]

>>15321976
so you're on a science board but you don't believe in scientific research? what do you consider to be legit evidence other than memes? I'm genuinely curious what goes on in the mind of a person like this lol

[Anonymous No.15321992]

>>15321985
When you've solved the replication crisis we can talk about the validity of your "peer review" scam.

[Anonymous No.15321995]

>>15321974
>cornell.edu/
KEK! Totally legit and non-biased source, sure sure, "legit" yo.

[Anonymous No.15321998]

>>15321982
No you are just confusing yourself. It's because you are in a cult.
You are too close to the cult to notice it.

[Anonymous No.15322006]

>>15321992
the reproducability crisis isn't a major issue in climate science specifically, it's mainly in clinical psychology. I can tell you don't have any non-copout answer to my question because you've never actually thought too hard about anything other than trannies and jewish psyops. embarrassing

[Anonymous No.15322007]

>>15321995
post a non-biased source

[Anonymous No.15322012]

>>15321992
>Measurements are fake because I say so

[Anonymous No.15322014]

>>15322006
>the reproducability crisis isn't a major issue in climate science
LOL get a load of this guy.

[Anonymous No.15322016]

>>15322012
>i know everything there is to know about the past, present, and future because.... I JUST DO OK?!?!?!?!?!
Delusions of grandeur are common among the mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.15322029]

>>15322016
Do you have any arguments against simple gas concentration and isotopic signature measurements or are you just going to keep repeating your schizo ramblings?

[Anonymous No.15322032]

>>15322016
most ironic comment in this thread so far

[Anonymous No.15322038]

>>15319706
Go look at rice (or weed) grown up to 1000 ppm CO2. At this concentration, growth appears to be directly proportional to CO2 concentration.

[Anonymous No.15322114]

>>15322038
a lab isn't nature, retard

[Anonymous No.15322137]

>>15321762
>>15321764
>>15321801
>>15321822
> using donald trump junior as an example of climate advocate
you nazis suck the cock of the oil men, and you're still in the closet.

[Anonymous No.15322142]

>>15322114
correct, soientists' delusions almost never reflect reality. why those morons are still employed becomes highly suspicious in light of their endlessly poor performance on the job.

[Anonymous No.15322161]

>>15322137

[Anonymous No.15322169]

>>15322161
> and then I thought I'm not a nazi
you are the true brainlet
you used donald trump jr as an example of sanity.

[Anonymous No.15322174]

>>15322169

[Anonymous No.15322182]

>>15322174
> I can only talk in meme because I have no brain

[Anonymous No.15322196]

>>15322142
idiot

[Anonymous No.15322203]

>>15322169
TDS plz >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.15322208]

>>15322196
Seething replication crisis scientist.

[Anonymous No.15322229]

>>15322114
neither are your precious models, but that's all you've got because Florida still isn't underwater

[Anonymous No.15322232]

>>15322229
Greta says it will be underwater in two more weeks, just you wait.

[Anonymous No.15322252]

>>15321759
correlation is not causation
If co2 absorbs at that wavelength then it also emits at that wavelength most of the time. It is also reflective and reflects the high wavelength solar irradiance. How could it warm up the earth if those high wavelength rays should first travel through a cloud of co2 which reflects it rather? There'll be less rays to hit the earth.

[Anonymous No.15322256]

>>15320055
>>15321790
not a single ipcc prediction has ever come true because their models are shit and don't resemble reality at all.
on top of that the climate industry is riddled with fanatics depending on subsidies so they need doomsday predictions in order to get more money. Literally I'm in academia I've seen this happen lol.

[Anonymous No.15322258]

>>15322252
Their contention is based on a false assumption that the Earth is an ideal blackbody. Climate sois have invented this entire nonsense issue solely due to the fact that they don't want to compute the actual emission spectrum of Earth against the actual absorption qualities of CO2 in a diffuse atmosphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5HyDp_Jgd8

[Anonymous No.15322261]

>>15321132
Venus is not the earth and has a completely different atmosphere. You quite literally cannot just linearly connect two random points on an atmosphere map and pretend that it's all due to co2. What the fuck.

[Anonymous No.15322262]

>>15322261
People like him always fail to mention that the atmosphere of Venus is nearly 100x denser than the Earth's.

[Anonymous No.15322264]

>>15321811
so climate change is caused solely by co2 but plant growth suddenly cannot be caused by co2 alone?

[Anonymous No.15322267]

>>15322261
He even mentions that Venus has an insanely dense atmosphere and somehow doesn't connect that fact to his conclusion whatsoever. If we had 100x more gas in the atmosphere and the Sun was juicing us up several orders of magnitude more then we would be boiling too.

[Anonymous No.15322293]

>>15320089
Use your eyes, dummy.

[Anonymous No.15322299]

What levels are we talking here? How much effect does it have on temperature?
CO2 being good for lab plants shouldn't really be disputed. But if it adds to temperature faster than it adds to plant growth it could be a problem.
If we're at ~390ppm and we add 200ppm more, it kinda seems like a lot.

[Anonymous No.15322302]

>>15322299
>If we're at ~390ppm and we add 200ppm more, it kinda seems like a lot.
The stable state for Earth was 2000ppm before whatever cataclysm pushed us into our current ice age cycle, and that's the ideal level for plants.

[Anonymous No.15322309]

>>15322302
according to the fossil record, primates were thriving during the most recent period with CO2 levels over 1500ppm. its a shame that none of us will ever live long enough to see a climate that hospitable to our kind.

[Anonymous No.15322310]

>>15322309
If only we were so lucky.

[Anonymous No.15322579]

>>15321827
>>15321969
Lol, lmao

[Anonymous No.15322587]

>>15322038
>BRO LOOK IN A LAB MORE CO2 MEANS MORE CROP
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN IN THE REAL WORLD HIGHER TEMPERATURES LEAD TO DESERTIFICATION, WORSENING OF THE SOIL AND INCREASED CATASTROPHICAL NATURAL EVENTS????
LOL fucking retard

[Anonymous No.15322588]

>>15322256
>everything that I disagree with is a conspiracy and the source is trust me bro

wow what a well thought-out and researched argument that I haven't seen posted a thousand times by every brainlet on this site, great job

[Anonymous No.15322591]

>>15322174
Lol
>>15322182
>>15322196
Let the butthurt flow through you!

[Anonymous No.15322596]

>>15322579
the sea level isn't going to rise enough to flood NYC in 100 years, there's too much ocean in the world for that. the sea level rise is just proof that the ice caps are melting and not a catastrophe in itself. retards fixating as usual

[Anonymous No.15322599]

>>15322587
>Bro more co2 means desertification!!! Nvm that the planet is actually greener now in several locations that it used to be, thanks to plants thriving on higher Co2- oh, and more naturally disasters are scawwy and we must control the planet instead of letting mother nature do what has been natural for millenia!!

[Anonymous No.15322602]

Nature should thank us for pulling out the carbon trapped deep in the Earth. Anyways what do you guys think of solar?
>>15322516

[Anonymous No.15322605]

>>15322599
>https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/

you dumbasses really have a way of seeing one data point you agree with and running with it. first of all, the earth is greener because of people planting trees. second of all, climate change has multiple effects and the positive effect of higher CO2 on plants isn't going to offset all the negative effects

[Anonymous No.15322610]

>>15322605
are you just gonna ignore how many forest have been cut down? There's much less biomass today than before the industrial age no matter how much co2 ferilizes plants

[Anonymous No.15322615]

>>15322605
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows

"The world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage: China and India. A new study shows that the two emerging countries with the world’s biggest populations are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect stems mainly from ambitious tree planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries."

no. and less biomass? how is that even consistent with what you were just saying?

[Anonymous No.15322670]

>>15319776
Elonfag detected

[Anonymous No.15322694]

>>15322670
Elon is based and you are a seething twinny.

[Anonymous No.15322838]

>>15322694
spaceX and tesla have done some good things but Elon is just a childish retard who uses daddy dollars to fund engineers who do the actual work. any reasonable person would know this from reading the shit he tweets and says

[Anonymous No.15323151]

>>15322252
It is quite literally causation unless you're denying basic properties of CO2 and it's interactions with IR
>How could it warm up the earth if those high wavelength rays should first travel through a cloud of co2 which reflects it rather?
You're showing complete ignorance on the subject. CO2 re emits IR that's both coming from the planet and the sun. It is the basis as why the planet is not frozen.
>>15322258
Why do you keep posting this dude's youtube talking about modifying parameters of models to fit his conclusions when observational data refutes him?

[Anonymous No.15323348]

>>15322694
You must be 18 or older to use 4chan you fucking elonfag dickrider. Go find some healthier role models instead of the biggest autistic shit post faggot on the planet.

[Anonymous No.15323440]

>>15319721
solar irradiance is only one measure of the sun's activity/impact on earth's climate. I mean, I'm glad the IPCC finally started acknowledging that the sun exists and isn't just a constant lightbulb that never waivers... however, they still fell short and didn't include the more relevant solar forcing measures.

Also, other guy was right, the climate is quite stable in the grand scheme of things. You can't expect planet-scale trends to conform with our tiny little human conceptions of time when it comes to averages and rates of change. Consider looking back a bit further than the 1800s. The climate is always changing; humans have been lucky to be in a relatively stable chapter in earth's history. The earth has been warmer in the past. Look at some ice core data - we have tens of thousands of years of temperature and CO2 data.

Pollution is bad; emissions should be reduced; we should do a lot more to live sustainably. That being said, man and his digging up shit and lighting it on fire is but 1 tiny piece of the puzzle when it comes to global average temperatures.

[Anonymous No.15323472]

>>15319699
>CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas and it is not the most important one either
>The problem is the climate change induced by these gases.
>It is mankind that is in danger of disappearing, not Earth or nature.

You have your answers, now fuck off to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.15323567]

>>15322587
Higher temperatures mean a more moist environment due to more evaporation. We know empirically that all of the high-temperature interglacial maxima have been tropical in most areas that are now arid.

[Anonymous No.15323568]

>>15323151
There is no impartial observational data. All of what you claim is empirical measurement is massaged to fit the constants.

[Anonymous No.15323569]

>>15323472
But all of those answers are wrong. Maybe you should go back since you don't know any of the relevant science.

[Anonymous No.15323583]

>>15323440
Why do you keep insisting that geomagnetic storms affect the climate when We've been through this in detail in past threads?
The interaction of solar storms in the atmosphere happens at high altitude and does not affect surface temperature.

[Anonymous No.15323589]

>>15323568
Ah yes the measurements of energy in watts per surface area unit is not real because of your schizo delusions

[Anonymous No.15323601]

>>15323589
You're not even smart enough to know how those measurements are made and calculated.

[Anonymous No.15323615]

>>15323568
>if I can't see it myself so it's not real
This is some flat earth tier bullshit
>>15323601
Yes just like all cameras sent on a balloon all have curved lenses or some bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15323627]

>>15323615
Most ironic post in this thread.

[Anonymous No.15323730]

I wonder what motivates zoomers here into denying climate change. You're going to live long enough to see the worst affects. Hope you can forgive your younger selves for what you were ignoring.

[Anonymous No.15323769]

>>15321742
>correlation vs causation

[Anonymous No.15323877]

>>15323730
not everyone was propagandized as hard as you were. it's also disingenuous to call the climate religion "climate change". it's all just a scheme to continue the transfer of power from nation-states to unaccountable non-governmental globalist bodies. even if they're right in their predictions, I won't comply with their solutions.

my question for you: why are you so certain that you can't be deceived? do you really believe people in positions of power act selflessly and never hide their true intentions?

[Anonymous No.15323986]

>>15321387
>>15321395
Based takes. yes.

[Anonymous No.15323992]

>>15321540
What you are saying is true, but the point would be made better if the pictures had at all the same scale and perspective. kek

[Anonymous No.15324001]

>>15319699
>whats bad about more CO2?
You lose cognitive horsepower
You'll just be 10% dumber at the end of the century

[Anonymous No.15324023]

>>15324001
>anyone here will be alive in 2100

[Anonymous No.15324046]

>>15324023
I better hope I am, reaching 95 would be alright

[Anonymous No.15324047]

>>15324001
>raising CO2 from 0.04% to 0.05% concentration will impact IQ
Maybe yours. It's so low already that losing even 1 point might tip the balance.

[Anonymous No.15324158]

>>15321832
thats a child you sick fuck

[Anonymous No.15324306]

>>15324158
Demons are ageless, created before the creation of this flat plane.

[Anonymous No.15324337]

>>15319699
Reminder that if the CO2 levels get too high we wont be able to breath our own atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.15324454]

>>15323769
Yes, due to the greenhouse it is actually a direct causation.

[Anonymous No.15324487]

>>15320682
your entire worldview revolves around jealousy of other people's success and wealth.

[Anonymous No.15324522]

>>15319721
Reminder NASA changes their past climate data to whatever promotes the next big "green" venture capitalist venture.
Also you should NEVER take any published data from a business seriously that isn't internal data used to maximize profits and revenue (that does not concern client or customer safety e.g. catalyst to have higher yield and lower costs is likely true, heavy metals released into atmosphere likely not), everything's been pozzed for over 100 years to sell a product.
Best you can do is live in the now and use your own collected data and rely less on "faith-based" "science" of trusting a published paper without testing it yourself or seeing a video recording of the experiments performed etc.

[Anonymous No.15324525]

>>15324337
>oh noooo a trace gas went from 0.04% to 0.1%!!!!!
>the world is ending!!!
>i will save nature from change!!!
You are mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.15324552]

>>15324525
yes

[Anonymous No.15324973]

>>15319721
Now zoom out

[Anonymous No.15325142]

>>15324973
you're barking up the wrong tree if you expect honest discourse from a political activist who spams the board the government propaganda, they aren't here to discuss or learn, they are here to shill and advertise.
4chan has democratic party staff members on the moderation team, shills work their way up mod by being good shills
https://archived.moe/news/thread/973417/

[Anonymous No.15326504]

>>15324522
Why is it that climate scientists are proven liars, scientifically speaking?

[Anonymous No.15326917]

>>15321811
>wow it's almost like
Stop talking like this, seriously. Why do all lefty cultists talk the same retarded way?

[Anonymous No.15326918]

>>15324158
Actually she's an adult

[Anonymous No.15326952]

What causes intrusive images to happen with momentary scalp sensations?

[Anonymous No.15326978]

>>15320657
kek. None of them are moving, even if they believe in "global warming."

[Anonymous No.15327002]

>>15322006
A lot of modern climate science is based on models. Models aren't science but a form of prophesying. Anyone who says they can predict the future ten or a hundred years out is not a scientist, but instead is a charlatan.

[Anonymous No.15327017]

>>15323877
All their solutions to global warming lead to one world government.

[Anonymous No.15327140]

>>15319699
CO2 is not all that matters with plant growth though. You can have all the CO2 in the world but so long as water, space and nutrients are limited the plants can’t just grow exponentially faster
>whats bad about more CO2?
Even ignoring climate, it’s not good for ocean acidity for one

[Anonymous No.15327157]

>>15327140
>Even ignoring climate, it’s not good for ocean acidity for one
Says who? It's never been a problem before.

[Anonymous No.15327171]

Trees and other plant stabilizes co2. If there is excess, they just grow faster and merges it to themselves.

Fastest way to reduce co2 would let trees grow, cut them and use them as energy. The new trees would then consume all the co2 from the old trees.

[Anonymous No.15327202]

i'm at the point where i'd rather see the end the world just so people can die knowing how badly they fucked up.

[Anonymous No.15327230]

>>15327202
That's a sign that you're part of a death cult.

[Anonymous No.15327232]

>>15327002
>models
just another excuse the no-talent soientists invented to justify their endless manipulative lying

[Anonymous No.15327608]

>>15324522
They wiped out the history of the dust bowl era entirely, they even changed the wiki pages, all to forward their greedy financial agenda which they claim is scientific.

[Anonymous No.15327611]

>>15324522
meds, now

[Anonymous No.15328026]

>>15324047
savage

[Anonymous No.15328439]

>>15322838
seethe moar

[Anonymous No.15328451]

>>15319699
>whats bad about more CO2? it doesn't change the weather at all
lol

[Anonymous No.15328459]

>>15325142
t. Big oil shill

[Anonymous No.15329324]

Scientifically speaking, why are grandiose delusions and conspiratorial thinking (seeing Big Oil behind every post) symptoms of climate hysteria?

[Anonymous No.15329617]

>>15329324
literally the opposite of what is happening

[Anonymous No.15330435]

>>15324047
urbanites already live with co2 levels way over 0.05%
thats why they're stupider than everyone else

[Anonymous No.15330483]

>>15322029
this

also the fact that there is a upper limit to plant cotwo consumption, meaning diminishing returns and eventually excess co2 is bad for the plants too

i almost never see the isotope argument brought up here, the co2 we make through industry and pollution is different
not to mention the smog and human health issue

and how in my country coal plants burn coal that has a lot of clay because mafia saves money this way and this clay just makes the most damage on the enviroment and our lungs through pollution and this soot just gets everywhere, our main city is becomimg brown like were in china or something

[Anonymous No.15330487]

most people ITT have such an insignificant understanding of climate change and the climate in general that it's embarrassing watching them argue and refute and counter eachother over the same shit.
Neither side is taking time to learn anything, they just parrot the same bs over and over again.

[Anonymous No.15331440]

>>15319699
loss of oxygen solubility in the ocean
anoxic bacteria reproduce, make SH2
SH2 kills most living things on Earth
https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/hydrogen-sulfide-not-carbon-dioxide-may-have-caused-largest-mass-extinction/

[Anonymous No.15331500]

>>15331440
This is why all life on Earth died during the climatic optimums around 2000ppm... Oh wait.

[Anonymous No.15331636]

>>15330487
>I am so smart and sophisticated
>Everyone else is so dumb and ignorant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

[Anonymous No.15331709]

>>15321827
>what are tides
>what is erosion

[Anonymous No.15331719]

>>15331709
Not global warming that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.15331946]

>>15321292
the linked article does not contradict the post you quoted, only that human contributions are much larger than initially assumed.

[Anonymous No.15332128]

>>15319721
These graphs change in scale and info all the time. Either man-made Global warming is real and poorly understood or Global warming is a natural thing (which it most likely is), or both.

[Anonymous No.15332172]

>>15320682
Who do you think invests the most money in green energy?

[Anonymous No.15332176]

>>15321923
> argumentum ad populum doesn't apply if we're talking about a bunch of climate change researchers
The best part of 4chan is getting a glimpse into the mind of deranged leftists such as this guy, who believes that a group of individuals of high standing could never lie nor be wrong.
Argumentum ad populum literally does apply here, or else Copernicus would have been wrong.

[Anonymous No.15332179]

>>15332128

[Anonymous No.15332182]

>>15332179
Can you show one without the fraud constant applied to the measured temps?

[Anonymous No.15332211]

[Anonymous No.15332268]

>>15324487
Your entire world view revolves around being a cock sucking peasant.

[Anonymous No.15332465]

Excess carbon dioxide is diffused in the atmosphere it dissolves in the ocean, causing the acidity to increase. That can have effects on coral reefs or phytoplankton for example.

Unlike global warming, everyone in the field knows the effects/trends, their consistency, and there hasn't been much of a conflict of interest due to in that subject.

The ocean itself acts as a shield and should buy us a century. Within that time, we'll kill ourselves through other means or renewables will be dirt cheap by then so it doesn't pose a massive threat.

A criticism of renewables is that electricity isn't produced consistently, and our current batteries are toxic to the environment. A better strategy is to buy more time to develop new batteries. This means to continue using fossil fuels, and allocate most of the energy produced by renewables to absorbing carbon, not from the atmosphere, but from oceans. Carbon capture by air is inefficient. Oceans have 150 times more carbon than the air does by volume. Picrel. Carbon capture facilities are not required to be powered at all times, our civilization does.

Global warming is a moot point due to the fact that the ocean can, and already has bought us exorbitant amounts time, renewables are increasingly cheaper, that our carbon footprint ratios are drastically decreasing year by year, and that there is a inherent political biases and conflict of interests on the studies produced.

Giving credit to politicians that speak of issue to induce fear is a mistake. They are seeking to gain political power and launder money for other purposes.

[Anonymous No.15332471]

>>15332268
Looks like that may-may really really triggered you, why? Hit a bit too close to home?

[Anonymous No.15332537]

Heres a video of Greta where she essentially admits that global warming is just lie that was invented as part of the white genocide plan
twitter.com/4Mischief/status/1644181986444017665

[Anonymous No.15333152]

JPMorgan CEO suggests government seize private property to quicken climate initiatives
https://www.foxnews.com/media/jp-morgan-ceo-suggests-government-seize-private-property-quicken-climate-initiatives
More evidence that global warming is a hoax driven by greed

[Anonymous No.15333181]

>>15321949
that doesn't make any sense. They don't always process every bit of CO2 there is, they can only process so much. If there's more CO2 than what they can process then it's not going to work. That should be obvious to anyone informed on this topic like yourself

[Anonymous No.15333750]

>>15319699
Higher crop yields, containing carbohydrate/sugar and nothing else. Fruit used to be nutritious, now its basically junk food.

[Anonymous No.15334591]

>>15323730
>denying climate change
I am a zoomer, not denying climate chance. Do I think the solutions proposed are retarded, besides the point and authoritarian basically killing any zoomer wealth while letting previous gens live on? You bet

[Anonymous No.15334592]

>long ago there was more oxygen
>plants and animals grew larger
so this was a lie?

[Anonymous No.15334616]

>>15334592
Long ago there was more CO2 (4 times more!), and this allowed plants and animals to grow larger.

[Anonymous No.15334939]

>>15333152
>>15333152
>>15333152

[Anonymous No.15334973]

>>15330483
As if poltards care to read. All they can do, same as flat earthers, is act smug while making shit up out of thin air. Oh, but you better somehow isolate the whole planet and fill it with CO2 to PROVE CO2 causes any significant warming! It's seriously on par with flat earthers claiming gravity doesn't exist because "you can't isolate gravity durrr where's ur independent variable durrr" like a bunch of fucking retards. Same thing with narcissists in general. Antivaxxers, flat earthers, retarded climate change deniers, the usual hypocrisy and need to feel special.

[Anonymous No.15335044]

>>15334973
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.15335058]

>>15335044
>Rejecting anti-science retards
>Hey you should go to the place exclusively populated by anti-science retards
Sounds like you should stay in your containment board.

[Anonymous No.15335065]

>>15335058
so what do you think about the thread topic?
more co2 = higher crop yields
more co2 = more productive wilderness
whats bad about more CO2?
or are you just here to patrol the board for your imaginary boogeyman and have no interest in scientific topics whatsoever?
why are you trying to derail this thread and make it about /pol/ instead of discussing science if you're so pro-science?

[Anonymous No.15335079]

Oxygen doesn't help plants at all, the perfect atmosphere would be 90% nitrogen 9% CO2, 1% trace gases. Plants would love it.

[Anonymous No.15335090]

>>15335079
Oxygen is a product of plants existing. Its presence in our atmosphere may have destroyed all the life that came before the Oxygen Catastrophe, but it opened the door for symbiotic respirating organisms that made sure that plant carbon sequestration didn't imprison all the carbon in the ground and end plant life forever.

[Anonymous No.15335097]

>>15335079
>Plants would love it.
and rapidly convert all the CO2 to starch & O2

[Anonymous No.15335166]

>>15335065
>whats bad about more CO2?
A positive feedback loop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback
Those "benefits" you list stop being benefits once the dominos start to fall unstoppably, even if we ignore everything else, like the health effects of high local concentrations of CO2 at ground level on people.

Also, biologically most species have had plenty of time for adaptation to changes in atmospheric composition. When that hasn't been the case there tend to be mass extinctions. One was so bad it is more commonly referred to by its nickname than its geological time period. The permian-triassic extinction, AKA "the great dying", saw nearly all life go extinct including 81% of marine life. So many animals died that where paleontologists can't date finds by other means they can date them by the fungi remnants in the rocks instead.

The great dying and its causes occurred on a time scale of approximately 60 ± 48 thousand years, with CO2 levels rising to 10,000 ppm (versus ~415 average today). Naturally, other things worked together in that feedback loop than only CO2, such as methane releases. Same thing that would happen in our case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
Including catastrophic release of vast quantities of methane.

To give you an idea of how bad our current rate of increase (2.31 ppm per year) is, if it were to continue at ONLY this rate, we would achieve 10,000 ppm in only ~4,272 years. That is assuming zero positive feedback loops contributing to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system
That would be the best case scenario. You don't get ~4,272 years, of course, you get a rapid progression of death and feedback loops further causing more extinctions. More rapid than any extinction since life on Earth began.

What was that about higher crop yields?

[Anonymous No.15335172]

>>15335166
>A positive feedback loop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback
>Those "benefits" you list stop being benefits once the dominos start to fall unstoppably, even if we ignore everything else, like the health effects of high local concentrations of CO2 at ground level on people.
Thankfully we can rule that risk out since it has never happened before in global history. Everything else you talked about is basically nonsense of course, but I'm sure you knew that.

[Anonymous No.15335188]

>>15335166
>wikipedia

[Anonymous No.15335974]

>>15335065
>or are you just here to patrol the board for your imaginary boogeyman and have no interest in scientific topics whatsoever?
4chan is shilled nearly to death by those interlopers.
But what about the water budget? Higher plant growth rates should require more water input.
If CO2 doesn't cause global warming then were is all that extra water going to come from? If CO2 does cause global warming then the increased evaporation rates from the oceans should take care of the issue

[Anonymous No.15335994]

>>15335974
Shilled? Really? What about an entirely reasonable response summarizing the scope of the issue is "shilling"? >>15335166
>It doesn't agree with me therefore conspiracy

[Anonymous No.15336221]

>>15335166
Why are you wasting your time? There is no arguing with ignorant retards. Nothing you or anyone else can say will convince them otherwise. These are the same sort of people who will proclaim flat earth their entire lives. They are like damaged goods, not economical to fix them.

[Anonymous No.15336237]

>>15336221
To be fair I rarely do, and mostly for my own amusement or education. Trialing different levels of detail and explanation to observe the results. I'm very well aware you can't convince narcissists who need to feel special for "secret knowledge", but it is very interesting how you can manipulate them to respond differently by how and what you write. Or not respond at all. In any case it does help develop concise rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.15336485]

>>15336221

[Anonymous No.15336514]

>>15336485
Mixing in things that do have good evidence and documentation (mkultra, unconstitutional surveillance, etc) with more flat-earth tier conspiracy BS (great reset, muh vaccines, etc) doesn't trick anyone capable of holding more than two things in their head at once.

If you were that gullible, I pity you. If you think only other people are that gullible, you're a narcissist.

[Anonymous No.15336575]

From what i understand climate change is real but the level of danger from it is greatly exaggerated and exploited by politicians for power grabs.
If it was a real fucking problem then we would have nuclear fission reactor regulations being changed at breakneck paces and in 20 to 30 years it would be 100% solved, maybe even reversing.
But no, they push only for "solutions" that demand more government power and societal control.

[Anonymous No.15337349]

>>15319776
absolutely BTFO, you love to see it.

[Anonymous No.15337772]

>>15319974
Did you finish grade school anon?
>high rates of photosynthesis
>decreased water use
Not sure about that.
Photosynthesis requires water and sunlight as well, not just co2.

[Anonymous No.15337775]

>>15336575
This.
Its very real, and its a function of large growing populations. Nothing you can do about it if the population keeps growing.
Same goes with crime, war, medical issues, on and on.

[Anonymous No.15338263]

>>15337775
It could easily be solved with nuclear.

[Anonymous No.15338403]

>>15336575
>If it was a real fucking problem then we would have nuclear fission reactor regulations being changed at breakneck paces and in 20 to 30 years it would be 100% solved, maybe even reversing.
big presumption that the same people who start wars would care at all even if the world were going to end in two weeks. if we really desperately need to switch to all fission energy, they would probably just demand super massive bribes to get the required licenses

[Anonymous No.15338442]

>>15338403
Of course it would be corrupt. But even if they did it in the shittiest way it would solve carbon emissions.
Shitty like using only currently approved nuclear reactor models, with a huge bureaucracy for dealing with dangerous byproducts and using the current, shit, fuel as an excuse to create new controlled resource streams that demand they have more power.
They could do this or they could allow new tech like modular molten salt, but that would diminish their power and eliminate oil politics.
I think the reason they don't do the shitty version is because the public opinion is poisoned against nuclear so they can only gather power by going with the current trend that exploits climate fear trough renewables. It's already an in with least resistance.

[Anonymous No.15338486]

what's bad about more CO2 is that I am allergic to it, which is why my body keeps trying to get rid of it.
please do not poison me for the sole purpose of spiting the libtards, thank you