/sci/ - Science & Math

what if a warmer climate is more sustainable for life than a cooler climate?
more energy is usually a good thing, right?

>>10999481
In that one the trees are only growing back because people stopped deforesting them as much

>>10999487
Yeah sure if you ignore the acidity of the ocean rising...

>>10999492

>>10999492
I wonder what the ocean PH was in the time of Cambrian explosion.
The oceans would have been fairly "toxic" then compared to what they are today but still somehow managed to create the greatest explosion in biodiversity Earth has ever seen.

>>10999471
>duuuuuude, like 33% of europe died in the middle ages so we should just rollover and let half the world starve to death just because.

I was wondering when /pol/ would realize ignoring climate change is the most effective way to genocide the third world.

>>10999514
rate of change is what matters. evolution occurs at geologic timescales, climate shifts during the Cambrian took millions of years, which is enough time for evolution to do it's thing. AGW is causing similar changes over the course of a century.

>>10999532
>rate of change is what matters
citation needed

>>10999514
I don't think that we would be able to survive, were we to travel back in time.

>>10999582
Evolution takes time, nigger. If you change the water temperature in a lake by 10 degrees over a few years, everything will die. If you do the same over the course of a million years, no one will notice, but you'll end up with species that are well adapted to the higher temperature.

>>10999471
It's real but there is nothing we can do about it. It's up to the individual to decide if he wants to mess with global warming.

>>10999619
>nigger
>>>/pol/

>>10999471
>does it really suggest a grave and threatening future for humans?
No. Only idiots say otherwise.

>>10999619
>If you change the water temperature in a lake by 10 degrees over a few years, everything will die
some things will die, others will migrate, some will be put through a bottleneck, and those that could do neither will die.
also, oy vey 10 degrees? what do you want 20 degrees of warming for? Isn't 30 degrees bad enough?

>>10999841
>American is confused by real temperature scales
hilarious

>>10999846
10 degrees is still more than any predicted change whether it's in Celcius, Fahrenheit, or Kelvin

>>10999916
global average temp change != local temperature change

>>10999964
show me where the yearly local temperature average change is 10+ degrees

>>10999841
Nice straw man. I made an example about evolution and before people were talking about the Cambrian explosion. I never said that 10 degrees is the expected increase due to climate change.

>>11000024
>Nice straw man.
>>10999619

>>11000011
>>11000024
In any case +8C departure from the baseline is equivalent to 15F so either way you're a fucking retard, do you actually have anything to say or are you just going to nitpick hypothetical like a fucking child?

>>10999471
I was under the impressions that climate change is scary because of so many variables that we simply can't take into account, mainly involving ecosystems where one member might go extinct because it wasn't able to adapt to the quick changes in the climate, taking the rest of the ecosystem with it.

>>11000028
>>11000043
Nowhere does it say that climate change warms up that lake by 10 degrees. The point is that if you warm a lake up by 10 degrees, almost all animals in there will die in short time. If you do this very slowly, evolution will ensure that you end up with different (better adapted) animals. The point is that the rate of change matters, not that our very problem is perfectly described by this example.

>>10999619
Look at this big brain over here who knows exactly how evolution works and exactly how long it takes to adapt to X changes.

You wouldn't happened to have a source for that claim, would you?

>>10999517
You fundamentally misunderstand what the stereotypical /pol/ack wants if you think they want niggers in Africa to be exterminated. I think they want niggers in the US or France to be exterminated though.

Global warming is simply too slow to be catastrophic

>>11000842
You clean your room before you clean your house.

>>11001124
Impressively low IQ post

Hello, OP here once again. We humans have created amazing inventions far surpassing any previous mans wildest dreams. Just in the past few years we've figured how it would be possible to create a permanent sustainable colony on mars. For decades bases in Antarctica have operated, people have lived in those frozen conditions for years. Now taking this into account we can say one thing for sure; the farthest impact of 'climate change' wont ever produce an inhospitable environment on earth even half as comparable to mars or antartica. Even still if it got half as bad as either of those places it would take well over a century to do so. Giving us multiple generations, decades upon decades to prepare our cities and societies for the change. If we can create bunkers now that are capable of sustaining human life on another planet with today's technology think of what we'll have 100 or even 50 years from now, things we can't even dream of. Things like genetic engineering of plants and animals(like I mentioned in the OP about monsanto making flood resistant rice), solar panels + batteries, fusion reactors; all these things are coming into the picture now and would completely nullify and side effects of 'climate change' completely, and they're becoming more and more advanced year by year. And so the sea turtles and polar bears might die, so what? Who gives a shit? It's sad and unfortunate but are we really going to stop the progress of society, stop the industries which have been continuously leading to an increase in the human development index for decades now? Are we really supposed to put a stop to all that and deny millions of families and communities the right to pursue a better life for themselves all so we can have sea turtles? I say the later is nihilistic and goes against human destiny.

>>10999517
No, that's not what I was implying at all.

>>10999471
>Climate change is real
is it though?

>>10999514
It was sulfuric acid. How many humans were alive? Apes? Mammals?

>>11001160
Quiet cultist

When climate change triggers WW3, I hope OP will die so that he can never make a thread this shitty again.

>>11001194
>For decades bases in Antarctica have operated, people have lived in those frozen conditions for years.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>Giving us multiple generations, decades upon decades to prepare our cities and societies for the change.
We aren't going to get decades.

>>11001371
>>11001473
>REEEEE WHY AREN'T THEY JOINING MY CULT

>>11001488
Those outposts only survive because of constant resupply from outside sources, the imperial valley, the Mississippi river basin and southern Russia are going to dry out long before we can get a handle on whatever magitech is going to supposedly save us.

>does it really suggest a grave and threatening future for humans?

-Constant cascade effects will occur in the majority of nations economies due to local economies needing to shift their trade resources.

-Health care costs will increase North America and Northern Eurasian countries due to increase presence of tick population/lyme disease. Not to mention other increase of parasitic diseases exposure.

-Weather patterns will shift which will lower accuracy of forecasting in multiple regions since it's primarily based on historical records.

-Various Costal cities throughout the globe will lose land which will increase relocating and cost governments.

It won't be the end of man but the adjustments will sting like a bitch. Also the above are just the surface level problems we know will happen.

>>10999503
>By way of comparison, from one season to the next, or over the course of less than 6 months, pH levels naturally change by +/-0.15 pH units, or twice the overall rate of the last 200 years.
This is a meaningless comparison. One is a rate of decrease while the other is a measure of variation. If the variation remains the same while the average decreases, this means organisms will experience more acidic conditions than what they previously did. This is true *regardless of how much variation there is.* The only reason to compare the two is to mislead naive readers. This fallacy is repeated throughout the image. It has been shown that these more acidic conditions damage marine life such as phytoplankton, which play important roles in the global foodchain.

Also, the graph shows pH for one region off the coast of China experiencing below average acidification, but the graph is not labeled to indicate what it represents. This also seems done in an effort to mislead the reader into thinking it represents an average ocean's pH. The paper it's taken from acknowledges rapid ocean acidification being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and its negative consequences.

>>10999514
The image is highly misleading. It labels the pH graph as "West Pacific pH" when it is merely a pH measurement from coral at one location that does not represent the entire West Pacific. It then uses this graph to make sweeping claims about "ocean pH values" as if this one measurement represents global pH. In fact, the paper it cites directly contradicts these claims: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JC011066

>>10999471
>Sure the weather might become really fucked
20 year old Mediterranean detected.
Weather has been fucked since time began.

Oh boy, an other denier image spam thread! I love seeing these images again, it's been MINUTES since someone last refuted them!

>>11001759
Right, I'm secretly happy that these fuckers are going to get swept away by a super hurricane.
Any day now...

>>11002347
>Accumulated
>Doesn't show spread or peak energy of single cyclones

>>11002355
Reaching for straws, the post.

Earth has been freezing and warming throughout its entire existense. Several times entire planet was encased in miles thick ice. its natural process. Last Ice Age ended less than 10k years ago.

>>11002358
At what rate did the climate change?

>>11002358
Look at the rate in which the CO2 increased over the last two glacial cycles and then look at how CO2 has increased in the last 100 years.

>>11002358
>Climate cycling through interglacial warming and glacial cooling phases
>industrial warming occurred 10K years ago so we should be slowly cooling over the next few tens of thousands of years
>instead we are rapidly warming on top of interglacial warming from 10K years ago
>see it's totally natural guys

>>11002368
70 ppm in 10000 years vs 140 ppm in 200 years. So we're a factor 100 less than what we're experiencing now.

Why is /pol/ raiding with denier bullshit? Are they really this triggered by a Swedish school girl?

>>11002359
>>11002368
>>11002370
Can you idiots to not fall for obvious bait?

>>11002375
should we listen to a child? what's next, elect a child president ? she's just talking because she's just a pawn for somebody to make money, to raise taxes, to fuck with the poor and middle classes, etc. She blaming just the west, but nothing INdia and China. I am afraid of the future if retards like pic related will vote and decide the future of mankind.

>>11002386
>should we listen to a child?

1+1=2 regardless of how old the person saying it is.

>>11002386
>51% of young voters believe life on Earth will end in the next 10-15 years
Fake news

"Half (51%) of voters under 35 believe it is at least somewhat likely humanity will be wiped out in the next decade or so."

>should we listen to a child?
You're absolutely right, instead of listening to a child, getting triggered and shitposting on /sci/, you should listen to adult scientists.

>inb4 retarded excuse to not listen to scientists

>>11002386
Listen to adults then:
https://www.scientists4future.org/

>what's next, elect a child president
Can't be worse than the orange monkey

>>11002393
great logic anon, next step is to listen to a retard in a wheelchair?
>You're absolutely right, instead of listening to a child, getting triggered and shitposting on /sci/, you should listen to adult scientists.
so where are the adult scientists, because i can't see them talk on the news like that stupid kid all the time for 1 year already, also are bringing any solutions or just talking ? how do you find a plastic replacement? and not something that is 10 times more expensive and costs a lot of energy, because you know, you can't spend a lot of energy if you want to protect the planet
>>11002409
>https://www.scientists4future.org/
so where are the solutions anon ? i can't find any on that link, also i don't speak german

Agreed, people always underestimate themselves. We can handle climate change.

>>11001473
>oh I'm sure this apolyptic prediction will work this time, I just can feel it
Try harder

>>11002581
>so where are the solutions
Reduce CO2 output, move to renewable energies bla bla bla, you know.

>also i don't speak german
Uncultured Schwein

>>11002370
Sounds advantageous to keep things warm to combat the next ice age.

>>11002677
>It's kind of chilly, we should keep pouring petrol on the housefire.

>>11002581
>so where are the adult scientists
They're being ignored as always. This kid has managed to rile people up to take attention to the issue.

>>11002677
By that logic we should massively reduce fossil fuel use to maintain interglacial temperature, instead of rapidly rising out of it abs running out of fossil fuels in a few hundred years.