/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4950381]

Dear /sci/entists, is it true that global warming is too far gone to fix now? I mean, can it be reversed, and what's the science behind that? And what are the likely consequences if it continues on its current course?

[Anonymous No.4950388]

we haven't reached the tipping point.

we'll need to about double atmospheric CO2 from the current fraction, which we'll do in the next two or three decades.

[Anonymous No.4950394]

there is no tipping point. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were originally much higher. how do you think that shit got in the ground in the first place?

[Anonymous No.4950395]

>>4950388
also the results of warming will be no big deal to about 1.5 billion mostly white people in western cultures.

[Anonymous No.4950396]

>>4950388
> which we'll do in the next two or three decades

citation needed

[Anonymous No.4950401]

>>4950394
there is a tipping point to get us back where we were.

during the Mesozoic the Milankovich cycles had no effect, they were overpowered by GH effects.

it's true we're just going back to the way it was, but it's also true that there's a point of no return.

[Anonymous No.4950407]

>>4950396
citation?

google your own fucking numbers.
at current emissions rates assuming a 50% absorption in sinks....

[Anonymous No.4950412]

>>4950388
> double atmospheric CO2

Wouldn't that kill us all anyway?

[Anonymous No.4950413]

>>4950407
look guys, this dude has a crystal ball, he can predict the future

[Anonymous No.4950427]

>>4950412
no, there isn't that much.

>>4950413
>on a science board
>thinks you can't extrapolate from history

the problems of induction are well known, but science is based in principle on ignoring them.
maybe you'd be happier on another board?

[Anonymous No.4950429]

>>4950412

Oh nevermind, I knew the amount needed to suffocate someone was low but I didn't realise atmospheric was that small

[Anonymous No.4950431]

>>4950412
No. currently the air that we breathe is around 0.04% Carbon Dioxide.

Breathing in a CO2 level of about 5% leads to unconsciousness in a human and higher levels can be lethal.

0.08% will be fine.

[Anonymous No.4950448]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVVfs4zKrgk

Can /sci/ recommend any videos similar to this?

I don't have much knowledge of higher level mathematics beyond logic and set theory so videos like these are very entertaining to me. I'm not really interested in studying the higher branches of math as a hobby but if I could get a short taste to open my mind, I'd be very grateful. Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous No.4950555]

>>4950431
5% only if co2 is replacing,oxygen. If we get the same amount of o2, but less nitrogen it can go higher

[Anonymous No.4950569]

Global warming is a natural occuring phenomenon but that doesn't mean we aren't aiding in it's happening. If the world can stop being dicks for just a few minutes we can help slow down and possibly reverse it if we apply our technological innovation to the problem.

[Anonymous No.4950577]

>>4950569
Reversing it may not be in your best interests.
Ice ages comes in cycles, the recent global heating will postpone the next one.

[noko No.4950630]

I would now would like to point out that back in prehistoric times the CO2 level on the planet earth was quite a lot more abundant than it is now, and that was around the time when life on earth was at its most abundant, diverse, and evolutionarily nimble.

after what ever great catastrophe hit this planet, plants built up our oxygen atmosphere.

i am not afraid of a slight change in our atmosphere make up, not at all. In fact a high temperature and percentage of CO2 relative in our atmosphere is our planets natural state if you look at things as a whole, and has been for billions of years.

what i am afraid of is pollution, like the geyser of oil still spewing hundreds of barrels of oil out ever day in the gulf of Mexico.

Global warming is a political scam built to bolster companies with over priced devices and give money to politicians.


Global pollution however is not a scam, and is generally overlooked in the shadow of so called "green house gasses'

God damned foolish if you ask me.

[noko No.4950660]

>>4950431
Not only this, but human beings have shown an ability to have different tolerances to oxygen levels depending on the area they were born, raised, and have lived an extended period of time in while still sustaining similar if not equal cognitive abilities.

I do believe over a long period of time humans will grow accustom to different atmospheric changes, its the cold turkey path that leads to some bad shit.

[Anonymous No.4950682]

>>4950630
Yeah, jackass, having CO2 at the levels it was when Dinosaurs ruled the earth wouldn't kill all life.

It would be great if you are, for example, an Ebola virus. You'd have lots of new friends.

[Anonymous No.4950704]

>>4950682
This.
If you don't understand how perilous it would be for all the life on this planet to cope with a sudden dramatic increase in temperature you don't know much about ecology. Sure is hard to notice if you spend all your life being a cheerleader for Exxon-Mobil from your basement.

[noko No.4950723]

>>4950682


yeah, earth is just going to let out a 7000 ton CO2 fart with in the next year and kill us all, stfu man.

My point was, naturally CO2 is the naturally most abundant gas, and the effect on our planet is not going to be fucking world endearingly devastating that will end with us like mars like the fucking retards that are supporting global warming efforts would like you to believe.

the switch back will happen slowly over the next few thousand years, long after you are dead, and on a well long enough time line that humans will go accustom to it.

I was also pointing out that global pollution is what will kill us, not fucking "green house gasses", the life blood of earthly life for the last few million years.

[noko No.4950744]

>>4950704
Oh your right, the earth is just going to pop up 5-10 degrees on average with in your life time.

if that happens, ill fucking shit bricks, it does not work that way.

its a scam pure and simple.

there are much worse things we are doing to our poor planet to worry about that will cause mass extinction other than the planet returning to its natural temperature and atmospheric state over the next 20 - 40 Thousand years.

like i said, our pollution is the real problem.

The compounds we are putting out into the earth, much MUCH less the gasses.

When was the last time you heard about he oil volcano that is still gushing out hundreds of pounds crude oil every few hours into the aquatic life holy ground we call the gulf of Mexico.

now tell me how often you hear about global warming on the weather channel.

one will take effect in thousands of years, the other a few days.

you tell me which is more important to the biosphere, Sir.

[Anonymous No.4950772]

>>4950704
>If you don't understand how perilous it would be for all the life on this planet to cope with a sudden dramatic increase in temperature you don't know much about ecology.

8.2ky BP event, Younger Dryas, Heinrich events, Dansgaard-Oeschger events.

That's what? >30 events in the last 60,000 years that were both more rapid and of a greater magnitude than projected AGW?

Abrupt climate change isn't just common, it's the rule.

[Anonymous No.4950795]

> It has been reported that submarine personnel exposed continuously at 30,000 ppm were only slightly affected, provided the oxygen content of the air was maintained at normal concentrations.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html

[Anonymous No.4950803]

Guys, guys, don't worry, the Earth is fiiiiiiiine !

We're fucked though, fat chance.

[Anonymous No.4950871]

I did some research into this topic back when I did a sustainability course and an energy effeciency course.

By coincidence the two projects aligned nicely with each other to paint a picture of being absolutely fucking boned in the next century.

First off there are predictions made that can be found in any climate change conference paper or presentation of the relationships of expected population rises, and how these relate to the CO2 figures. It would take a complete in peoples behavior to prevent a 2 degree global temperature rise, which is universally agreed to be the "shit hits the fan" point. The ultimate culmination in our course was that we were told to try and get an everyday item to 30% CO2 life cycle emission. Only one of the teams managed to get as low as 50% with a kettle (and rediculous levels of enhancement)... the end of the course we were taught for stable CO2 with current population rises, everything would have to drop to 10% life cycle emission. Most depressing course I ever took, since it basically told us we're all doomed climate wise.

A proof in that 2 degrees thing happens to be the research I looked up for the energy effeciency module I did, I choose to look into methane hydrates as a potential fuel source, finding not only is it abundant, but unstable. It also happens to be massive bad news for the enviroment if it escapes uncontrolled - which it is beginning to do at the icecaps. Look it up. a few degrees more in sea temperature and the enviroment is boned, as it leads to runaway methane and CO2 concentrations.

Sure, it probably has happened before, but when it last happened we wouldnt have had billions of people depending on the enviroment to support them like we do now.

The next 100 years are gonna be really really shit for lack of water (local events) and famine due to fucked up land.

[Anonymous No.4950918]

>>4950871
you do understand your classes could adequately be named, global warming class.. right?

[Anonymous No.4950954]

Why aren't we seeding the ocean with iron right now?

[Anonymous No.4950967]

>>4950871
Our gass emissions though not a helpful addition to our current ecosystem, are not outside liveable boundaries for life on earth.

the compounds filled with heavy metals and oils and toxins that we are dumping into the atmosphere and waters are whats really going to drive the mass extinctions.

[Anonymous No.4950980]

>>4950918

Its primary focus on -one- of those classes was life cycle analysis using simapro 7 with climate change as a topic. The other was not related to climate change directly and my own paper I had to write came across research data the happened to coincide with the other class. Both classes were part of a Mechanical Engineering Degree.

A lot of satellites get built and launched with Earth observation payloads specifically designed to do climate change observation. (usually resolutions are in the kilometers) Why would goverments spend so much money on this climate change "hoax"?

Climate change is pretty real. The biggest thing we've done to reduce it so far is the banning of CFC's, as there is data available out there showing the changes in ozone concentrations as a result of that ban. I think R134 (the R12 CFC replacement) is planned to replaced last I heard about it to try and further improve the scenario.

[Anonymous No.4951011]

If global warming/climate change is a hoax, why are >90% of the climatologists in consensus over this theory?

http://ipcc.ch/
Where does those reports come from?
Do the scientists involved just make up shit as they go along?

[Anonymous No.4951013]

>>4950967
Nah, global warming will kill more. Just look at the ocean reefs. I don't know what kind of nut would claim global warming will be anything approaching the end of the world though. It will simply accelerate the current Holecene mass extinction.

[Anonymous No.4951031]

>>4951013
I don't know anyone that thinks it'll be the end of the world, the end of life, or even the end of humanity.

most people I speak to agree it'll probably be the end of modern civilization for a while. That would indicate an end of billions of people that were just born to die anyways.

[Anonymous No.4951036]

>>4951011

Pretty much this. Why would every goverment come together over a hoax?

[Anonymous No.4951045]

>>4951011
what a waste of air and doubles

[Anonymous No.4951065]

>>4951036
>>4951031
I can't imagine it ending civilization. Though climatic changes in humanity's agricultural zones would cause a lot of strife and start wars. At the apparent rate of climatic change I don't see that happening, but I suppose it is still possible there is some tipping point where the changes will become frequent and extreme.

Peak oil is what I'm worried about. Who knows, peak oil and climate change might end up being a one two punch that lays humanity out.

[Anonymous No.4951072]

What is the name of that possible mass extinction event type event where the Earth releases chemicals into the water, killing practically all aquatic life?

[Anonymous No.4951089]

>>4951065
peak oil, peak water, climate change are all tied together.

as it gets warmer we use more oil to replace energies used for air conditioning, or in growing and moving food crops. Thus warming speed up our use of oil.

I don't think you can really separate these problems, and really they all come down to overconsumption. The western culture of ownership and travel isn't sustainable and it will collapse.

this is what we mean when we speak of the collapse of civilization. We'll find new ways, but they aren't going to be all that nice. This is as good as we get, right now.

[Anonymous No.4951094]

>>4951072
anoxic marine event.

[Anonymous No.4951112]

>>4951094

[Anonymous No.4951119]

>>4951089
LoL, I don't think increase air conditioning use is going to play a significant role in oil consumption.

[Anonymous No.4951126]

>>4951089
>the concept of ownership is the problem
The concept of ownership is not the problem and you sound like a crystal wearing hippy for saying that.

[Anonymous No.4951132]

>>4951089
>This is as good as we get, right now.
Unless we establish an industrial foothold in space.

[Anonymous No.4951163]

>>4951119
think what you like. It accounts for the majority of home fossil fuel use in the nation that uses the most fossil fuels per capita.

>>4951126
it really doesn't matter what I sound like. I advocate your death and the destruction of what you love. you can call me a hippie if you like.

>>4951132
our technological wealth isn't going to last that long, and once our populations collapse we won't have the intellectual manpower to get there any more.

[Anonymous No.4951171]

>>4951163
Are you sure that doesn't include HEATING?

[Anonymous No.4951176]

>>4951171
heating is our second largest home use.

[patachu !LULZISTwQI No.4951183]

no we can't do shit, it's a natural cycle.

[Anonymous No.4951192]

>>4951163
>our technological wealth isn't going to last that long, and once our populations collapse we won't have the intellectual manpower to get there any more.
There is already a company with big backers who's entire purpose is to come up with ways to mine asteroids and nuclear and renewable energy will help ease the transition from fossil fuels as we begin to reap the benefits of the limitless resources of space. You must agree that humanity's future is far from certain.

[Anonymous No.4951195]

>>4951163
> I advocate your death and the destruction of what you love.
That's not nice, dude. <:(

[Anonymous No.4951203]

Guys, guys, what about ozone depletion?

[Anonymous No.4951207]

>>4951192
we have nuclear energy right here that's far cheaper to mine.

the only value to energy we mine in space is in using it in space.

of course our future is far from certain, but this is the very first time we've had this many people on the planet, and history, ecology, economy and reason all indicate that it won't last.

[Anonymous No.4951211]

>>4951163
>>4951132

Interestingly, we can't even get away from sustainable thinking in space.

There is currently a runaway debris situation in that every bit of space junk we left up there, is hitting every other bit of space junk up there, breaking into more junk up there.

the worst is upper stages left behind in launches which eventually due to propellant boiloff in the tanks, simply explode.

This leads to a situation in which there is so much debris, it actually becomes unfeasible for ANYTHING to survive in orbit. I do not remember the time scale off the top of my head, but im sure its in the band of 50-100 years. If we stopped all launches now this is STILL NOT AVOIDABLE.

Which leads to the concept ADR (active debris removal) which must be done to prevent this. However, not one single space agency is working on such a mission with an official launch date.

Much like the earth is, space access is currently on route to die simply because no political entity wants to take responsability for it.

By the time any of them are, it'll be when its almost too late, and the consequences to fix the problems will be dire.

But hey, thats life, and thats politics. Let the good times roll and lets forget about the bullshit once we've got past it.

[Anonymous No.4951225]

>>4951195
depends on your point of view.

in a few years you're going to see that there's nothing for you to do on this planet because on of the other 7billion people has already done it.

perhaps you already feel it.

but the nice thing to do is to reduce our populations and concentrate on quality of life instead of quantity as we do now.

[Anonymous No.4951231]

>>4951203

Ozone is technically near solved. This was caused by CFC's acting as a catalyst for the breakdown of Ozone.

With CFC's banned and a lot of it having dissipated out of the atmosphere by now, this is actually the only big success in climate change prevention thats actually happened.

[Anonymous No.4951232]

no if shit gets real bad we can always pump sulfur into the air or make carbon collecting algae sumps

[Anonymous No.4951240]

>>4951232
of course neither is sufficient, and if done together they work against each other.

also we need to be doing these things ten years ago. It's probably already too late for either to work. Not that anyone intends to actually do anything about this problem.

[Anonymous No.4951243]

>>4950871
I hope all of you are paying attention to this post, because this guy did actual RESEARCH on the topic, which makes his viewpoint much more valid than yours.

And no, looking up "global warming" on Conservapedia doesn't count as research.

[Anonymous No.4951260]

>>4951243
>doesn't know what research is

[Anonymous No.4951282]

>>4951211
>Interestingly, we can't even get away from sustainable thinking in space.
There isn't anything interesting about it, it is obvious. Everything must sustainable else it will end, by definition.

[Anonymous No.4951320]

>>4950723
> CO2 is the naturally most abundant gas
Nitrogen would like to have a word with you.

[noko No.4951447]

>>4951320
haha you're right my bad, what i meant was it was the gas most active as a fuel source for life compared to oxygen.

[Anonymous No.4954137]

Al Gore is not a scientist

[Anonymous No.4954164]

>>4951447
Life doesn't use CO2 as energy. That's why photosynthesis requires the energy of light.