/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8380952]

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/no-turning-back-as-earth-permanently-passes-co2-threshold/

What do you guys think of this? Fear mongering, or actual end of the world stuff?

[Anonymous No.8380964]

>>8380952

>permanent

So does that mean we don't have to hear liberals complain about climate change anymore since it can't be helped now?

[Anonymous No.8380966]

fear mongering, the problem with humanity is global warming it's pollution. We're being too wasteful and fucking up our land and water. That's something that's going to affect us much more than having warmer weather.

[Anonymous No.8380977]

>>8380952
>this value is mostly symbolic
sadly not the happening we're waiting for.

[Anonymous No.8380999]

[Anonymous No.8381007]

>>8380952
>science.com
>Science
>commercial
Doom prophecies sell. If they start getting hold of the children the church will have some real competition or maybe that's the plan. Baby Jeebus coming back and reigning hell fire down on sinners isn't really THAT scary.

[Anonymous No.8381016]

>>8380952
Once we reach 2C / 450ppm
the warming will go on even if people stop emitting CO2 altogether.

Positive feedback is a bitch.
It will be from many sources, but the two big ones are

- Canada's and Russia's permafrost melting will release huge amounts of CO2 and methane (CH4)
- The warmed sea will can't hold on to dissolved CO2 (warm beer goes flat, same thing)

A lot of talk is about the rising sea, but that is a slow process, what will first get us (in 20-30 years) is serious food shortages. Each 1C rise in global average temperature cuts global food production by 10%.

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=2m25s

[Anonymous No.8381029]

>permanently

I mean, is there any reason that we couldn't just make giant CO2 scrubbers around the planet if things start to look a bit apocalyptic?

[Anonymous No.8381035]

>>8381029

If we're just going to make implausible shit up why don't we just build an earth-cooler machine?

[Anonymous No.8381040]

>>8381035
You need a sun made out of Ice

[Anonymous No.8381051]

>>8381016
>Each 1C rise in global average temperature cuts global food production by 10%.
How? wouldn't more CO2 increase plant growth?

[Anonymous No.8381057]

>>8381029
>giant CO2 scrubbers

They are called forests

[Anonymous No.8381059]

>>8381051
Plants need water, what do you think happens when things get hotter?

[Anonymous No.8381062]

>>8381051
Probably because the change isn't uniform and some areas will get too hot and some will get too cold. I'm sure global warming will open up some new areas to farming, but the problem is what happens to the areas being currently farmed.

[Anonymous No.8381064]

>>8381057
So why are they using the word "permanent" as if natural order won't correct it?

[Anonymous No.8381065]

>>8381059
more clouds and more rain?

[Anonymous No.8381067]

>>8381016
So basically we need to cut back significantly, but we're not yet fucked. Good to know

[Anonymous No.8381073]

>>8381057
Forests are pretty crappy CO2 scrubbers. Think about what happens to the carbon in the plant when it dies or gets eaten: the sugar is digested by heterotrophs and turned back into CO2. Something like a coral would be better because it can fix carbon into its exoskeleton.

[Anonymous No.8381079]

>>8381065
California disagrees.

[Anonymous No.8381082]

>>8381051
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/
Also plants are generally in serious crisis right now. Bees dying, predators, disease, drought lack of space to form healthy communities due to urban sprawl, etc...
Not to mention that most of the CO2 that plants absorb get returned into the atmosphere shortly after they die unless preserved in some way, like peat bogs or being buried.

>>8381064
Tipping points and positive feedback loops make that very unlikely. Once we reach 450 ppm we're very likely headed towards becoming Venus. You wouldn't say Venus has a chance of becoming habitable by natural causes would you?

[Anonymous No.8381085]

>>8381079
California never had much rain in the first place. That's like wondering why Lake Mead is running dry when it's the primary source of water for a giant city in the middle of a desert

[Anonymous No.8381087]

>>8381067
It's politically impossible to stop in time,
We're going to climb to 500+ ppm even in the optimistic scenarios.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1cMnM-UJ5U

[Anonymous No.8381088]

>>8381040
Wouldn't it just end up interacting with our normal, lava-based sun? Would we become a binary star system? I wonder if this would create a more extreme winter or if the ice sun would sync up so that it cools down our summer while the lava sun warms up our winter...

[Anonymous No.8381089]

>>8381007
.com doesn't mean anything, scientificamerican and nature are .com sites.

[Anonymous No.8381095]

>>8381085
That's how it works. The subtropics will dry up everywhere. There go the world's breadbaskets.

[Anonymous No.8381106]

>>8380999
>graph is improperly labeled and ends at 1855
Deniers are so gullible.

[Anonymous No.8381110]

>>8381073
Problem with Coral is that it gets fucked by ocean acidification, which is caused by increases in CO2

[Anonymous No.8381122]

>>8381110

Coral fucking sucks. It can get fucked by like a bajillion things. I was reading about a thousand-year-old coral reef that was just knocked over and killed by an ocean trawler net. What a retarded animal/algae/whatever.

[Anonymous No.8381123]

>>8380999

[Anonymous No.8381134]

Humans are good at adapting.

[Anonymous No.8381141]

>>8381134
If we're so great at adapting why are we still using fossil fuels?

[Anonymous No.8381155]

>>8381095
It's a fucking desert. It's the opposite of tropical, so no wonder it doesn't have rain. I get what you're saying, but saying Cali is an accurate representation of this is idiotic. Use a better example next time., because you really do raise a valid point

[Anonymous No.8381165]

>>8380952
Post yfw farmland increases but quality of farmland decreases.

By 2100 food production will have grown (assuming 0 technological increase) by about 30% because of the huge gains in very agriculturally developed nations like Canada, Russia, and the States.

The loss of European farmland will mean that Europe will be almost completely dependent on Asia and N. America for food.

[Anonymous No.8381170]

>>8381123
It rose 4 degrees in 150 years? I thought 4 degrees was the tipping point for the apocalypse

[Anonymous No.8381171]

>>8381170
One place in Greenland is not the same as the globe anon.

[Anonymous No.8381177]

>>8381165
I'm calling bullshit on this picture, the Canadian prairies are certainly not new farmland.

[Anonymous No.8381182]

>>8381141
Cos we know we can adapt to a higher CO2 world.

[Anonymous No.8381183]

>>8381177
Those aren't the prairies, though.

Green is the current farmland (easily visible)
Everything else is shitty non-farmable land. The source says by 2100 all the red circled area will be farmable which is a massive increase in the total farmland.

[Anonymous No.8381227]

>>8381165
Plants fucking love CO2, if anything farmland will both increase in quality and quantity.

[Anonymous No.8381228]

Time to start dumping iron sulfate powder into the oceans.

The folly of the Climate Change hippies, was thinking we could prevent it by cutting carbon before things warmed up.

We should have always faced this by engineering around the consequences, and reversing things after they have gone bad.

[Anonymous No.8381241]

>>8381227
Except all of the research we have shows the opposite of that occurring.

>>8381228
Until we stop the problem from getting worse, no amount of engineering will be enough to stop things from getting bad.

[Anonymous No.8381244]

>>8380999
>Greenland is the entire world

[Anonymous No.8381246]

>>8381087
So basically, politics are going to kill us. Yaaay.

[Anonymous No.8381251]

>>8381155
>opposite of tropical,
California isn't in the tropics, what's your point?

[Anonymous No.8381261]

>>8381141
To play devil's advocate: because we haven't run out of fissile fuels. Meaning we have nothing to adapt to

[Anonymous No.8381275]

>>8380952
The ice age will save us.

[Anonymous No.8381279]

>>8381106
>1855 was 95 years before 2000
nice

[Anonymous No.8381282]

>>8381275
yay 100,000 years, bring out the champagne

[Anonymous No.8381308]

>>8381228

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste"-Rahm Emanuel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg

That's why solutions like nuclear power and geoengineering are shot down by bastards like >>8381241. They are using global warming as an excuse to control your life and to bring about the worker's "paradise".

Pic related

[Anonymous No.8381317]

>>8381308
>They are using global warming as an excuse to control your life and to bring about the worker's "paradise".
AGW "scepticism" in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.8381337]

>>8381317
Global Warming crisis will cause standard of living in the west to be lowered. Food shortages, population relocations, pandemics, energy shortages, etc.

Get everyone moved into dense urban areas, living in commie block apartments. accepting their meager lives.

[Anonymous No.8381355]

>>8381308
You're an idiot if you think geoengineering will do anything more than give a 20 year breather.

We're probably going to need that 20 years,
but all the hard work will still have to be done.
If we blow that last chance, the wheels will fall off,
make no mistake about it.

[Anonymous No.8381364]

>>8381279
Cooling will begin in 2030.

[Anonymous No.8381367]

>>8381364
sure buddy
http://time.com/4179783/ice-age-global-warming-climate-change/

[Anonymous No.8381369]

>>8381364
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

[Anonymous No.8381377]

>>8380952
we can still colonize mars before this happens right guys?..g-g-guys?

[Anonymous No.8381399]

Its alright guys.

The water crisis will hit our planet first, that should kill off enough humans to help balance things out. Food is going to get expensive, african and middle-eastern populations descend into water-wars. The american mid-west will dry up as the groundwater is getting all used up, becoming like cali. There is not enough water for everybody.

Thomas Malthus to the rescue.

[Anonymous No.8381409]

Well ... we're screwed?

[Anonymous No.8381412]

>>8380964
>Stupid Liberals always complaining just because we are all fucked
>Why wont they shut up already?

[Anonymous No.8381415]

>>8381399
Wait till China and India fight for water.

[Anonymous No.8381425]

>>8381415
Pakistan and India too

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=39m20s

[Anonymous No.8381471]

>>8381165
Just because the temperature is suitable for farming does not mean that the soil is. It will take decades to properly dry the former tundra. Large areas of that land have just a few centimeters of proper soil and it would take thousands of years until they grow to a point where farming becomes an option.

[Anonymous No.8381484]

>>8381377
The closest you're even going to get to that is if
you shove a Mars bar up your colon.

[Anonymous No.8381488]

>>8381377
The closest you'll ever get to that is when
you shove a Mars bar up your colon.

[Anonymous No.8381497]

Alright so, I get it, we cannot go back. Positive feedback, runaway greenhouse effect, etc. We're fucked without some kind of massive engineering project to remove CO2 from that atmosphere that is not currently feasible.

The real question now is: Will I be able to live out the remainder of my natural life (assuming I die of old age) or will I be dead in 10 years because the oceans boiled off and the average temperature is 300C?

Also, should I invest in soon-to-be beachfront property in the Arctic circle? I feel like I stand to make a lot of money when everyone decides it's a good idea to move North.

[Anonymous No.8381502]

>>8381497
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management

[Anonymous No.8381519]

>>8381367

>trusting a mainstream media website, complicit in pushing global warming

[Anonymous No.8381520]

>>8381367

>hurr

https://archive.is/wvav1

[Anonymous No.8381522]

>>8381520

>hurr

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/

[Anonymous No.8381525]

>>8381519
>literally says polarchive in the filename
Maybe you should go back there and stay there.

[Anonymous No.8381526]

>>8381088
>LAVA SUN

[Anonymous No.8381534]

>>8381308
But he put a Whole Foods in the ghetto, aren't we officially green?

[Anonymous No.8381553]

>>8380952
>iflscience

OP, you're the kinda guy who posts shit like this on FB, telling the world how you hate capitalism for ruining your planet.

Atleast keep your cancer there, not here.

[Anonymous No.8381559]

>>8381016
You mean shifts food production to a different part of the planet?

[Anonymous No.8381561]

>>8381525

Maybe you should be mad and stay mad

[Anonymous No.8381612]

>>8381425
wohoo here we go

http://swarajyamag.com/insta/india-hints-at-revisiting-indus-waters-treaty-as-retaliation-against-pak-perfidy-at-uri

[Anonymous No.8381665]

>>8381559

>>8381471

[Anonymous No.8381802]

>not just processing the CO2 so you end up with solid blocks of carbon and vent the oxygen back into the atmo

>you will never see solar-powered flying wing aircrafts flying through the atmosphere, processing the CO2 and occasionally dropping a small glider made of pure carbon out of the back so it can safely descend to earth

[Anonymous No.8381811]

>>8381802
let them eat cake

[Anonymous No.8381825]

>>8381088
Can we all just take a second...
>Lava-sun

[Anonymous No.8381860]

>>8381802
the problem isn't the lack of viable solutions, it's the lack of people actually making it happen. There is no 'they', it's just us.

[Anonymous No.8381865]

>>8381526
>>8381825
God I hate newfags.

[Anonymous No.8381876]

>>8381802
>solar-powered flying wing aircrafts flying through the atmosphere, processing the CO2 and occasionally dropping a small glider made of pure carbon
Why would they need to be flying?

[Anonymous No.8381879]

>>8381279
Can you not read? The graph is labeled wrong. "Present" means 1950. 95 years before Present is 1855.

[Anonymous No.8381904]

>>8380952
So what can we do, then? I don't want to burn alive in 30 years.

[Anonymous No.8381914]

>>8381275
I thought we were in an ice age right now?

[Anonymous No.8381932]

>>8380952
>trees stop working
ok

[Anonymous No.8381959]

>>8381317
>AGW "scepticism" in a nutshell.

I couldn't help but notice that you ignored the part where I mentioned nuclear power-the source of energy that doesn't emit CO2 and doesn't stop working when the sun isn't shining or the wind is blowing. But then again, it's easier to argue with a post selectively edited. Also, you'd had to explain why wealth redistribution will stop CO2 emissions and not nuclear power.

[Anonymous No.8381970]

>>8381959
>I couldn't help but notice that you ignored the part where I mentioned nuclear power
Because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making - that most objections to AGW are fundamentally rooted in politics and not climatology.

>Also, you'd had to explain why wealth redistribution will stop CO2 emissions
No-one has claimed that. What HAS been claimed is that any kind of reduction in CO2 emissions would necessarily redistribute wealth - people who's wealth is tied up in fossil fuels would become worse off.

>and not nuclear power.
You're arguing against points I never made. Why?

[Anonymous No.8381979]

There's a small chance of triggering a catastrophic feedback loop that makes most of the planet uninhabitable, but the most likely scenario is slight warming and sea level rise requiring moving coastal cities inland and relocating farmland as rainfall patterns change.

If the climate was really as sensative as some people claim Earth would have turned into Venus a long time ago. The Earth was a lot warmer than now in the Mezozoic era and dinosaurs survived just fine. (Until the meteor)

[Anonymous No.8381999]

It make me think to this.
(It's "Hotel" a one-shot)

What a wonderful world.

[Anonymous No.8382031]

>>8381979
We're not dinosaurs.

[Anonymous No.8382068]

>>8381123
>>8380999
Proper source on this bullshit? Which one is made up garbage and which is real?

[Anonymous No.8382076]

>>8381519
>pic
>says volcanic eruptions trigger cooling
>yet in the last cooling it shows tons of volcanic eruptions while everything is WARMING back up again
>says 75 major temp swings in that time period for the image but only shows 10

[Anonymous No.8382111]

>>8381079
CA here.
Historically its cooler temperatures that have caused our droughts in the past.

[Anonymous No.8382122]

>>8381979
all the continents were squashed together then, about where antartica is now

[Anonymous No.8382140]

>>8381016
>>8381999

>450 ppm CO2
>positive feedback loop triggered

Oh look! The Earth turned into Venus 600 million years ago. We were doomed!@!!!!!!11111oneone

[Anonymous No.8382155]

>>8381999

Those are really nicely drawn hands.

[Anonymous No.8382217]

Is there anything stopping us from simply removing CO2 from the atmosphere? beside the massive scale of the operation, I mean.

[Anonymous No.8382245]

>>8382217
>Is there anything stopping us from simply removing CO2 from the atmosphere? beside the massive scale of the operation, I mean.
Not really.
It would require vast amounts of power and money, but it''s not impossible.

[Anonymous No.8382266]

Is this the AGW ASYLUM run by a single resident inmate and his sock puppets?

[Anonymous No.8382272]

>>8382140

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

[Anonymous No.8382281]

>>8381999
>somewhat sensible one shot
>retarded sequels about ebin naked chicks
sasuka nihon

[Anonymous No.8382291]

>>8382068
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

[Anonymous No.8382529]

>>8381227
primary productivity is typically limited by nitrogen or phosphate, or sometimes iron (mostly in the ocean). adding CO2 won't improve production much without increases in fertilization
not to mention, ocean acidification will fuck up pelagic food webs by putting extra stress on calcareous plankton, causing fisheries to crash.

>>8381519
>don't trust a mainstream media website!
>trust this poorly labeled, uncited, self-contradicting chart from a conspiracy theory website!

[Anonymous No.8382535]

>>8381016
>what will first get us (in 20-30 years) is serious food shortages. Each 1C rise in global average temperature cuts global food production by 10%.
source on this pls

[Anonymous No.8382540]

>>8380964
>In-on-the-joke attitude.
You're here on 4chan, you're clearly a loser and not profiting off of anything in any way. Why be such a bottom bitch?

[Anonymous No.8382557]

>>8380952
Good. With the threshold permanently passed, maybe everyone will shut up about it.

We have heard all the screeching, about how all these countries should be underwater by now, and the only solution seems to de-industrialize the United States, and tax the hell out of everyone while ignoring China, India, Brazil, and Africa. Oh, yes, and, of course, through billions at failing "green" companies.

[Anonymous No.8382567]

>>8382557
This.

Europe and America are the countries that pollute the least, if the retards pushing for global warming had any semblance of common sense they would go after China an India.

[Anonymous No.8382583]

>>8381999
Great book.

[Anonymous No.8382584]

>>8382567
>europe a country
>america not one of the top polluters
>china not working hard on moving away from coal towards green energy
o i am laffin

[Anonymous No.8382624]

>>8382584

>China

Not him but at this point they have absolutely no choice now.

Their citizens average life span went down by 5 years, lung disease is on the rise and three of their, what? Four major rivers are seriously polluted. China couldn't give a fuck about the environment but at this point they won't make it past the century unless they get their shit together right now.

[Anonymous No.8382890]

>>8380964
It's not about being fucked anymore, it's about being less fucked

[Anonymous No.8382926]

>>8381029
Where do you put the CO2 that you've scrubbed?

Second that would be VERY expensive. Carbon sequestration is a fucking joke.

>>8381064
The rate at which forests sequester carbon is pretty slow. Part of the problem is that plants absorb CO2, die/rot/get burned by wildfires/get eaten which puts CO2 back into the atmosphere.

So to remove CO2 permanently you'd need a net increase in forests/living plants. Overall forests are decreasing though.

[Anonymous No.8382971]

>>8381802
Each year 5000 megatons of carbon are released into the atmosphere. In all of WWII, about 5 megatons of explosives were dropped.

Just to break even, you have to drop 1000 times more weight in graphite gliders than all of the explosives dropped in WWII every single year.

You'd need HUGE amounts of airplanes to do this.

[Anonymous No.8383214]

>>8382971
I find the numbers hard to believe, admittedtly in part because it's difficult to actually visualize these scales.

5000 megatons of actual raw carbon, yeab? 5 billion tons. 10 trillion pounds of carbon heavy material a year, much more even, since nothing I assume is 100% carbon.

Break down the numbers and (actual physical) sources for us. Please.

[Anonymous No.8383243]

>>8383214
it is difficult to find exact numbers on the amount of explosives dropped in WWII, however, wikipedia mentions that the 50 megaton Tsar bomba released 10 times the amount of energy released by conventional explosives in WWII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba#Background

In addition, I found this source which says the allies dropped around 3.4 million tons of bombs during WWII: http://world-war-2.info/facts/

So it turns out I was wrong about the carbon. In 2014, 9.795 gigatons of carbon were emitted by humans. This corresponds to 35.9 gigatons of carbon dioxide emitted:
https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions

[Anonymous No.8383251]

>>8383243
Yeah ok first off the bombs have nothing to do with my question.

Last, your chosen source is obviously biased.

I'm out of this thread. You /sci/fags couldnt be objective if you were paid to be.

[Anonymous No.8383260]

>>8382926
So shitty pine forests that are frequently cut for furniture are actually environmentally friendly.

Maybe there's a way of creating artificial wood via chemical processes?

[Anonymous No.8383262]

>>8382535
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Each%201C%20rise%20in%20global%20average%20temperature%20cuts%20global%20food%20production%20by%2010%

[Anonymous No.8383267]

Futurama says that Global Warming is real but nuclear winter can cancel it out.

South Park said Global Warming is Manbearpig

But who, is truth?

[Anonymous No.8383298]

>>8383260
>>So shitty pine forests that are frequently cut for furniture are actually environmentally friendly.
Yup

>>Maybe there's a way of creating artificial wood via chemical processes?
The thermodynamics of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere to make a difference are titanic. The first part of the problem is that CO2 exists in Earth's atmosphere in concentrations of around 400 ppm. This means that in order to process enough CO2 fast enough we need to move huge amounts of air very fast or have huge surface areas. The other problem is that by turning CO2 into wood means you have to 'undo' years of power production. We burn hydrocarbons/wood because that reaction releases quite a bit of energy, this means to turn CO2/water back into hydrocarbons(essentially wood), we must expend at the very least the same amount of energy we got from burning said hydrocarbons.

[Anonymous No.8383299]

>>8381970
>Because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making - that most objections to AGW are fundamentally rooted in politics and not climatology.

That's probably because so many of the solutions to AGW is rooted in politics.

>No-one has claimed that. What HAS been claimed is that any kind of reduction in CO2 emissions would necessarily redistribute wealth - people who's wealth is tied up in fossil fuels would become worse off.

That's not the only wealth redistribution they're talking about

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit-causes-of-climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/

https://web.archive.org/web/20110112152054/http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html

>You're arguing against points I never made. Why?

That's the point. You ignored the argument I made about nuclear power being disregarded by the AGW believers and how green socialism is a tougher sell if there are technological solutions to AGW that doesn't involve empowering government even further.

[Anonymous No.8383312]

>>8382031
Yeah, we're a highly a adaptable species that has managed to proliferate across nearly every biome on the known Earth. While Nature must wait for Natural Selection to adapt itself, humanity can just force itself to adapt.

[Anonymous No.8383317]

>>8383299
>That's probably because so many of the solutions to AGW is rooted in politics.
Sure, but for them to deny reality because they don't like the politics of isn't reasonable.

>www.thegatewaypundit.com
No.

>https://web.archive.org/web/20110112152054/http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
>Ottmar Edenhofer
Nothing that guy's saying is all that new or breathtaking.

>I made about nuclear power being disregarded by the AGW believers and how green socialism is a tougher sell if there are technological solutions to AGW that doesn't involve empowering government even further.
Nuclear power isn't being disregarded as part of some kind of socialist plot, it's just way to fucking expensive.

[Anonymous No.8383330]

There was always going to be a die-off. Was inevitable.

The elites are already planning for their 500m person world.

[Anonymous No.8383343]

>>8383251
They had sources on that page.
Here have somes sources:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/GCP/
http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/7/349/2015/essd-7-349-2015.pdf

here it's in the fucking abstract:
"For the year 2014 alone, {Emissions from fossil fuels and industry} grew to 9.8 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1"

[Anonymous No.8383347]

>>8380952

Wasn't CO2 levels like at 10% at one point in Earth's history? It seems like low CO2 levels is the steady state of Earth. Wouldn't we slide back to this state eventually? Why aren't we doing iron seeding if we are truly concerned about this?

[Anonymous No.8383356]

So,...what's the good news?

[Anonymous No.8383357]

Maybe its my own autism but why can't the arguments of:

1.smog can sit in valleys and make living conditions worse in cities ex. mexico city, los Angeles

2.oil extraction and refining can be harmful to the environment ex. BP oil spill

3.feeds into the pockets of corrupt states and companies(lobbying) ex. Saudi Arabia

Is that not enough reason to justify green energy or at least investing in it, sure it is expensive but so is pouring money into our over sea investments that contain oil that we want kept alive

[Anonymous No.8383384]

>>8383357
Don't you see? ITS ALL TOO LATE WE'RE DOOMED/FUCKED WHY EVEN BOTHER insert " debunked clathrate bullshit, Gwynn Dyer video, Guy mcpherson pseudoscience" here. ITS NOT LIKE THERE ARE ACTUAL SCIENTISTS THAT SAY WE CAN STILL DO SOMETHING NO THE EARTH IS GONNA BE LIKE VENUS!1!!!1!


now fuck off to better boards this one is a lost cause

[Anonymous No.8383428]

>>8383384
we can =/= we will

[Anonymous No.8383447]

>>8383357
>why can't the arguments
because big oil =/= usa
those arguments a perfectly valid for the country, but not for the fat cats in big oil.

[Anonymous No.8383506]

>>8383428
And whenever someone mentions how we are doing something some Debbie downer faggot says how it's not gong to work/it's too late contradicting the actual research and posts alarmist pseudoscience which is actually more harmful than denying.

[Anonymous No.8383529]

>>8383298
>wood is composed of only hydrogen and carbon
i fukkin lold

[Anonymous No.8383579]

>>8383506
If an effort is crushed by "Debbie downer faggot says", it's not an effort.

[Anonymous No.8383584]

>>8383579
It spreads misinformation. But to be honest I think people want to believe it's too late because the are just too apathetic and miserable plus pessimism is cool and edgy.

[Anonymous No.8383602]

>>8383447
The first scenario is incorrect:
1. The government is spending millions on tax dollars to...
2. Buy into alternative energy and protect their lobbyist interests...
3. Who are paid for by alternative energy companies...
4. Who advocate for research in things like solar power...
5. Which creates grants that scientists apply for...
6. Which is why scientists say it's real...
7. Because if they didn't, or if they expressed doubt, they'd either be excluded from the scientific community, laughed at, or defunded...

You think I'm making this up. I've seen this exact thing happen to professors of mine. The moment you doubt "The Truth", you are no longer a productive member of society, and communism tells us we should find other things for you to do. Seriously, the people who do this research cook the books all the time, but nobody in the general public is going to read the full reports, they just want the quick story. By the time you hear, "we've passed the carbon threshold", someone has already convinced you that there was a CO2 threshold, even though our planet used to have vastly higher amounts. When you read "iflscience.com" you're basically reading something that someone read, explained to a friend, told to a writer, who pitched it to an editor, who found some sources that matched the story, that wrote a dumbed down story for the rest of us. "Scientists in whateverthefuckland" is just journalism talk for "we don't understand it, but here's what we could make out".

[Anonymous No.8383604]

>>8383584
>It spreads misinformation. But to be honest I think people want to believe it's too late because the are just too apathetic and miserable plus pessimism is cool and edgy.

Or it could be because there's no real solution.

People bitch "WE HABS TO DO SOMETHING!" Well nigger the only way to actually "stop" Climate change, not slow it down, would be to go back to medieval levels of technology. Throwing some solar panels on your house wont stop shit.

[Anonymous No.8383608]

>>8383602
>our planet used to have vastly higher amounts

so what, how is that supposed to help us
>>8382272

[Anonymous No.8383612]

>>8383608
https://youtu.be/gxN1LWWE5zY?t=1m15s

[Anonymous No.8383615]

>>8381228
And what will putting iron sulfate in the water too ? Does it have a pH that'll balance the spoken about acidity of the oceans ?

[Anonymous No.8383617]

>>8383615
>putting iron sulfate in the water
LMGTFY
https://www.google.com/#q=climate+change+putting+iron+sulfate+in+the+water

[Anonymous No.8383620]

>>8381141
Money...... obviously

[Anonymous No.8383630]

>>8383604
And this is why there are skeptics. Because eitther it's solar panels or the only way is to become medieval serfs. Nothing in between. You can keep your original sin thanks. The earth has been serially doomed since environmentalism first took shape and none of it has come true. No wonder people are becoming increasingly suspicious of science. People like you are the reason why climate change won't be solved same with guy McPherson, Paul Beckwith and Naomi Klein. The hive mind about this issue is absolutely insane in its level of dogma. Science or not this issue is approaching a religion.

[Anonymous No.8383634]

>>8383617
<3
Derr, ty

[Anonymous No.8383657]

>>8383630
I agree with you. But it's more something underlying with trends in forming arguments on the english-speaking internet than inherently climate-science related. The entirety of the internet has become addicted to feeling smug and typing in all caps, the feeling of 'winning the argument' or 'having the last word'. This prevents people from having an open mind, because the entire objective of the argument distills into 'winning', not convincing the opposition, nor proving you're factually correct.

However on the topic of what changes will happen to daily life as a result of global warming and energy production policy, I do believe that a major contributor in preventing solutions is the human conception of loss (of quality of life). When your company is doing badly, it's unacceptable that everybody gets a small reduction in salary. Thus, some people are fired and everybody else retains their current salary with a bigger workload.

Similarly, people live their whole lives believing that over time, they will earn more later than they do now, live in a bigger house, have more expensive appliances, and be able to afford more luxurious foods. All of these cause a bigger demand in energy.

(cont)

[Anonymous No.8383672]

>>8383657

So no, we will not return to serfdom.

For an interesting read, I reccomend 'Sustainable energy without the hot air' by Mckay. In it he shows in a case study of the UK how much energy an average citizen actually uses, how that is broken up into categories, and how many sustainable energy generators are needed to run the UK fossil-free. In it he argues that the stance of unplugging your phone charger when it's unused and sorting plastic from trash to 'save the environment' is bullshit and nothing but jerking yourself off to FEEL like you're contributing. Fuck 'every little helps'. Every big must help, too. For example a lot of the energy use of citizens is in house heating.

He doesn't state it in the book directly, but based on the writing, what I find realistic is that the price for electricity and natural gas will increase. Government will intervene either by subsidy, or mandating that if you live in a city you will no longer be supplied gas but instead be hooked up to a hot water pipeline. All cooking will go by electric plate or induction. During winters, houses will be cooler one way or another and it will not be uncommon to walk around freezing your ass off wearing a sweater. Small electric footstoves will become more popular. People will actually have to plan and budget how much electricity they are willing to spend a year similarly to how you budget your money. There will be an increased demand on gadgets and doo-dads that help you with monitoring the energy expenditure of each of your appliances. Manufacturers will start to distribute more appliances that use less energy, but not necessarily work as well. For example you might be able to buy a new model of fridge that has a AAAA+ certification of energy efficiency, but it accomplishes this by not being able to cool your food as wel as previous models. On the topic of food, it will become more expensive and the types of things we eat will change.

[Anonymous No.8383698]

>>8381425
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-indopak-analysis-d4123d16-8742-11e6-ac72-a29979381495-20160930-story.html

[Anonymous No.8383706]

>>8380952
Real nigger.

[Anonymous No.8383712]

This a long thread,im 20 now, am I going to die in the water wars or is there hope for us? I'll take hope and the possibility of a better future over water wars.

[Anonymous No.8383727]

>>8383672
Steam heating sounds great. Just the thing to get rid of the waste heat from nuclear power plants, should the green people accept it.

[Anonymous No.8383763]

>>8380952
Isn't it obvious to anyone else but me?
The reason why everything in the future is chrome lined isn't because it looks cool, it's because it IS cool.
Far more reflective than those shitty ice caps we got rid of 100 years back during the telecommunications age.

[Anonymous No.8383773]

>>8383712
You fucked m8

[Anonymous No.8383812]

>>8381999
is that supposed to be Guy McPherson?
that's actually hilarious

[Anonymous No.8383814]

ITT
>retards who think they can debunk 100 years of climatology by looking at a graph made bysome obscure internet blog

[Anonymous No.8383873]

>>8382272
What a crock of shit.

The earth was 15°C warmer in the past. An increase of 6°C will not force life into Antarctica. Also, Baffin Island didn't always occupy the same place as it does now. Continental drift pushed the land that would become Baffin Island further north. That's something the lecturer conveniently "forgot" to mention.

[Anonymous No.8383877]

>>8383873
citation needed

[Anonymous No.8383891]

>>8383877
http://www.livescience.com/37706-what-is-plate-tectonics.html

Your citation for plate tectonics. Do you want one for the heliocentric model of the solar system too?

[Anonymous No.8383903]

>>8383891
nut'n about baffin island
numbers please or BTFO

[Anonymous No.8383911]

>hoping for a thread discussing the actual science of climate change
>instead its a bunch of /pol/ baiting
>some used the the phrase "worker's paradise"
Just fuck my shit up sempai

[Anonymous No.8383912]

>>8381165
Wow I wasn't aware that we farmed in the Great Sandy, Gibson or Tanami Deserts in Australia?

[Anonymous No.8383913]

>>8382624
The Yellow River consistently dries up before it reaches the ocean, and parts of it are occasionally purple and/or on fire. The lesson is: don't live in China.

[H No.8383918]

>>8381165
Good thing I plan on retiring to Norway!

[Anonymous No.8383927]

>>8382926
>Where do you put the CO2 that you've scrubbed?
I'll take it, C3 plants want 1400 ppm.

[Anonymous No.8384119]

>>8383903

Read a fucking map of the Devonian period. The equator is running right through North America you fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.8384137]

>>8384119
358.9-419.2 million years ago?
Meaningless. Talk 35 Mya.

[Anonymous No.8384158]

>>8383447

While I agree that climate change is real and we need to cut back on emissions, I feel that the person who made this image was naive. Scientists don't consturct elaborate conspiracies to bamboozle the public, they DO however falsify, cherrypick, and use other unsavory methods because they're stuck in intense competition with each other and need to secure funding. A minority of scientists do this, but it's not exactly rare.

[Anonymous No.8384190]

>>8384137
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/the-unnoticed-melt/comment-page-2/

"Fossil animals found in Arctic Canada (Nunavut Territory) provide a snapshot of fish evolving into land animals, scientists say. The 383 million-year-old specimens are described as crocodile-like animals with fins instead of limbs that probably lived in shallow water.

Crocodile-like

The creature shares some characteristics with a fish; it has fins with webbing, and scales on its back. But it also has many features in common with land animals. It has a flat crocodile-like head with eyes positioned on top and the beginnings of a neck – something not seen in fish.

“When we look inside the fin, we see a shoulder, we see an elbow, and we see an early version of a wrist, which is very similar to that of all animals that also walk on land,” said Professor Shubin. The scientists think the creature lived in the shallows “Essentially we have an animal that is built to support itself on the ground.”

The scientists believe the position of the creature’s eyes suggest it probably lived in shallow water. “We are capturing a very significant transition at a key moment of time. What is significant about the animal is that it is a fossil that blurs the distinction between two forms of life – between an animal that lives in water and an animal that lives on land.”"

This is the only source that gave a date for any fossils on the Baffin Islands that is a crocodile or "crocodile-like". Unless you have a citation you'd like to share with us, I'll keep that 358.9-419.2 million years ago time frame.

[Anonymous No.8384211]

>>8381412
>>8381412
Well if we're all doomed why don't they just an hero themselves now, get it over with, and leave the rest of us to enjoy the fossil fuels in peace.

[Anonymous No.8384249]

>>8384211
because the goal is control

[Anonymous No.8384302]

>>8382272

I believe that guy.

Eventually some countries will get fucked by climate change enough that they will dump sulfur into the upper atmosphere with planes. Not as much sunlight will get past the atmosphere, causing a reduction of global temperatures per year.

You know how a big volcanic eruption can cause a mini ice age? Its possible to artificially create that. It will cause starvation and war and massive population culling world wide, but I'm certain that's preferable to run-away greenhouse effect.

[Anonymous No.8384389]

>>8381355
>You're an idiot if you think geoengineering will do anything more than give a 20 year breather.
Holy fuck, this is some dumb shit.

Geoengineering, not emission control, is the only plausible permanent solution. We need to CONTROL the climate, not just tread lightly and hope for the best.

For instance, I don't think that anyone wants to let another ice age happen, and that is something that was just happening from time to time before we showed up. Nor would we be content to let the Earth all turn to jungle if some volcano or earthquake cracks open a vast natural gas deposit.

[Anonymous No.8384908]

>>8382540
>not profiting
You would be surprised

[Anonymous No.8385261]

So how come no one is answering OP's question? Should we care that Atmosphere CO2 is higher then 400ppm when it used to be much higher 1 million years ago where Homo Erectus was able to thrive.

[Anonymous No.8385278]

>>8385261
>So how come no one is answering OP's question? Should we care that Atmosphere CO2 is higher then 400ppm when it used to be much higher 1 million years ago where Homo Erectus was able to thrive.
Did Homo Erectus depend almost entirely on agriculture?