where did the lie that CO2 is bad for the planet come from?
the data speaks for itself
Who gives a fuck about "the planet", I care about humans and it's not good for them. It can lead to reduced intelligence, see >>16123798
>>16123892you're replying too seriously to a joke post
>>16123798Progressive "environmentalists" hate it when you do things that are good for nature like make it easier for plants to breathe / eat.Plants grow larger in higher CO2 environments. Larger plants have deeper roots. Deeper roots make plants more drought-resistant.Higher CO2 also means plants lose less water in the first place when they breathe in CO2.The carbon trapped in the world's coal beds used to be part of the carbon cycle of life. Plants around the world grew larger faster.It may be disruptive to humanity to increase CO2 levels dramatically, but the benefits of 800-1000ppm would far outweigh the costs.
>>16123892>are you concerned enough about the issue to own a co2 meter?NTA, but living in a suburban area, CO2 meter is a great way of being able to gauge how fresh the air in my house is.Overnight in my bedroom (2 people sleeping), the CO2 level hits 1500-2000ppm if there is no ventilation. With window slightly open it gets to 1100-1500ppm.When Im airing out the house, I know I'm done when I get below 500ppm. Great devices, I recommend them to everyone.
>>16123798Of course plants love CO2, but we're so retarded we paved over many of the areas with the most greenery and created heat islands in their places, so the greenhouse effect is not as regulated. And since we put more CO2 into the air then we can take out, or even that plants can currently take out, we're going to have a problem. A slow gradual problem, but still a problem. But of course the real issue isn't even greenhouse gasses, it's all the seriously rank pollutants that we have put into our atmospheres and lands and waterways.
>>16123892>if what you're saying is true, then the rest of the urbanites are the dumbest people alive... um.. not the same anon, but... by that logic, what he's saying must be true, since we already know that urbanites are the dumbest people alive.
>>16123943And since the plants of the temperate zones aren't currently enough to take out the CO2, the Algae is going to be able to absorb more of the CO2, and that can lead to nitration which is bad for fish populations, and what's bad for fish populations and waterways, and what is bad for fish populations and life in waterways is bad for everything that uses those things. Which is everything.
>>16123955Now Geoengineering and planting more, creating urban rooftop greenery and other such things, might be able to abate this all, but it's such a complex network of cause and effect that it will be almost impossible to truly fix things without causing other worse problems, since humans are stupid.
>>16123955>the Algae is going to be able to absorb more of the CO2, and that can lead to nitration which is bad for fish populationsTell me more about this nitration
>>16123892Anon... consider that the problem might not be that I might breathe in a slightly elevated amount of CO2 but rather that my entire country might flood or be consumed by wildfires whilst I starve due to crop failure
>>16123976But at least the ruins of humanity will be nice and green real quick!
>>16123976>flood or be consumed by wildfires whilst I starve due to crop failureThere is a non-zero risk of these things happening no matter what the CO2 levels are.No-one knows with any certainty if these things will all become more or less likely as a result of higher CO2 levels.>>16123977Yes.
>>16124016Retard take
>>16123935Is this why I keep getting headaches and feel like shit when sleeping with the windows closed in my room (no vents) but otherwise feel fine when the windows are open all these years?
>>16124061once plants die off this planet will become an even more hellish version of venus due to extra co2 deposits
>>16124125Basically yes, but it's probably got more to do with the decreased oxygen rather than the increased CO2. Headaches, dizziness lethargy etc are known outcomes of hypoxia. Higher CO2 levels without the lowered O2 levels, as we would experience if ambient global CO2 levels were raised, shouldn't cause the same problems.
>>16124061Where are the plants on venus?
>>16124296What's the surface air pressure / atmospheric density on venus compared to earth?
Nobody in this thread has ever grown a plant or passed a science class.
>>16124403nobody has attempted to answer OPs question, so on that basis, yeah, they would fail an exam
>>16124513The answer is that it came from where he got his quote, which he won't provide. You may as well be asking what number you are thinking.
>>16124533hmmm well how about the NASA, the nazi organisation
>>16124536That's true statement and not what you wrote in the OP though. Do you have dyslexia?
>>16124544You're acting so cute anonSo do you think that climate change, whether happening or not, is bad for the planet? Or good?
>>16124548Why not read the answer from OP's source?
>>16123798USSR/homegrown leftwingers
>>16123822this is the opinion the fake environmentalists that have gained dominance really hold. they think humans are so above other living things.
>>16124617Right, but only enlightened humans who hold the same opinions as them. Most of us are useless eaters who can be dispensed with once AI and robotics are sufficiently advanced.
>>16123926>Progressive "environmentalists" hate it when you do things that are good for nature like make it easier for plants to breathe / eat.Exactly.Iron salting oceans could grow vast amounts of seaweed fit for human consumption and animal feed, but this is deemed bad. Shirkey's principle in action, and many want to deindustrialize the West.
>>16123798Thank fuck we're choping, burning and poisoning all that green shit before it gets out of hand! Not only that, all those C3 niggers and CAM fags will be genocided by the heat!
>>16124129I have sleep apnea so it might just very well be the oxygen rather than the CO2
>>16124725Oh, so CO2 is also directly harmful to humans, you say? This is supposed to be an argument in favour of CO2 how, exactly? And if I'm able to spot the glaring flaws in your argument, what must you be huffing that's worse than CO2? Fucking fart-sniffer innit
It's not about the content of CO2, it's about the rate of emission causing extreme weather and runoff effects.
>>16125473there's people living on volcanoes and some wipe from time to time. thirdies don't really care. firsties are the most affected
>>16123822Maybe you shouldn't have decimated all the flora that sucks up the co2 and produces oxygen?>oy vey, it's the consequences of my own jewish actions, how could it be?!?!?
>>16123822Leftists are funny creatures, they "care" about a little CO2 in the air but not about mercury, aluminium and gene modifiers in vaccines.
>>16123798>water is good for plants therefore it's impossible to drownYou idiots.
I'm tired of seeing this stupid lie everywhere. CO2 will not increase plant growth outside of highly controlled conditions.The law of the minimum governs plant growth. It states that growth is limited by the most scarce factor. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is like building a barrel with one stave taller then the rest and the "CO2 is plant food" crowd insists that it will make the barrel hold more water. It won't.https://www.cropnutrition.com/resource-library/the-law-of-the-minimum/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimumhttps://soilsfacstaff.cals.wisc.edu/facstaff/barak/soilscience326/lawofmin.htm
>>16125630translation: giving a plant more CO2 won't help it thrive if there are other things limiting it, such as not enough sunlight, water, or spaceI agree with thisBut you must break free from the lie that producing CO2 is evil
>>16125657You shouldn't keep shitting when the toilet is clogged
>>16125664I think you're being disingenuous, rude, and not just unproductive to this important argument, but disruptiveperhaps you don't really care about this issue, and care more about being seen as correct or intelligentwell we all suffer more because of people like you
>>16125657>>16125677Exactly the opposite, you illiterate moron.you can't even parse the picture demonstrating the law of the minimum?Nobody cares about your feelings.
>>16125693I understood your image, and I simplified it for the sake of everyoneBut my point is that it's only tangential to the popular argument that CO2 is badIf you really want to discuss your barrel, then okay fine, please tell me what you think the smallest planks are which are limiting plantlife right now
>>16125677The pointYour head
CO2 where probably really bad for it, but it built up and the mother earth had to fold and catalyse it and now it's good for it.
Consider the carboniferous periodOxygen was around the same level as it was today, but CO2 was much higheras a result, the surface of the planet was full of thick forests (and giant insects)
>>16125700Typically water, nitrogen, and phosphorus are the limiting factors to growth. Adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does nothing to help plant growth for the vast majority of plants on Earth.
CO2 is bad for human civilization and its continued existence
>>16125766I thought most of our atmosphere was nitrogen? How can that be a limiting factor? Or is it nitrogen in a different form?
>>16125780Plants need it in a soluble form. That's why we use the Haber Bosch process to make nitrogen fertilizers from atmospheric nitrogen. Nitrogen fixing bacteria can provide a significant amount of nitrogen for a field provided that there are enough host plants, but that doesn't mean that any random patch of land will have an ideal amount of nitrogen.
>>16125952Ah yesAs I understand, one of the best sources of this is in fertilizer made from natural gassadly, natural gas is another thing deemed evil by the powers that be, and is slowly being phased out
>>16124351Where are the plants on venus?
>>16123807This is kind of saying you don't think there's an upper safe limit to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you just keep adding CO2 it just keeps getting better all the way up to 100% CO2 where everything is the best
>>16125630CO2 often IS the limiting factor, and when it's not CO2, it's usually water. Higher CO2 levels allow plants to use water more efficiently by not losing as much when they breathe, and they grow longer roots which allow them access to deeper water.
>>16124351I don't know, but earth is 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere now and Venus is 96.5% CO2 in its atmosphere. About 150 years ago earth was 0.02% CO2. Clearly we're a long way from 96.5%, but we don't need to get to 96.5%, the runaway greenhouse effect begins apparently at about 10x from where we are now. So we have a lot of time, I don't really know how long, but it's highly unlikely going to be this century
>>16126091that picture is like saying because having 2 drinks of alcohol one after the other makes me feel good, then having 1000 drinks of alcohol one after the other can only make me feel 1000x good
>>16123798Yes, C02 is plant food.We must aim for a 100% C02 atmosphere.
>>16126127hmm but then the plants will try to convert it into oxygenso we should destroy all plants first
>>16126105Even if our atmosphere was 100% CO2 we wouldn't reach the temperature of Venus because our atmosphere is 1/90th the density.There's no proof that "runaway greenhouse effect" is even a thing that can happen on Earth.>The most distant period in time for which we have estimated CO2 levels is around the Ordovician period, 500 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm!Let's split the difference and say 6000ppm is the most Earth has ever had. That's much more than 10x current levels, and we didn't turn into Venus.
>>16126087aquariums normally have 2-4ppm of CO2 and you can push it to 30-35ppm for fish. if you don't have fish you can go even higher. but a 30ppm should be fine with fish. that's 10x increase in concentration.
>>16125630>I'm tired of seeing this stupid lie everywhere.I am sure you are.In real science, however, facts and measurements trump theories and hypotheses. If the hypothesis fails to explain observations (>>16123807) the theory is stone cold dead.Climate stuff differs in that the warmeristas just complain about seeing stupid facts.
>>16126112>that picture is like sayingTypical low grade propaganda. Face realities, it is "like daying", measurements are measurements. And drop the whataboutisms.
>>16126048Where is the life on venus?
>>16125780The problem is that N2 is ridiculously hard to 'digest' and effectively an inert gas. That's why your own body isn't affected at all by 70% nitrogen. Despite being surrounded by it, plants can't use it. Water water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.
>>16126087>If you just keep adding CO2 it just keeps getting better all the way up to 100% CO2 where everything is the bestWe couldn't do that even if we wanted.1) fuels would become so scarce and expensive that the renewable shit would naturally become the preferred economic solution long before we reached the atmospheric optimum for plants2) there is a negative feedback loop keeping the concentration from getting too high because plants will pull more CO2 out of the air as we get closer to their optimumI would get worried only if our use of fuels wasn't decreasing by the time we reach the optimum for plants.
>>16126284Venus is almost ALL greenhouse gas
>>16126284Why won't you just answer the question? Are you really that asshurt about the fact that CO2 chokes planets to death?
>>16126386Stop pretending that Venus is a hell scape because of CO2 and not because it's atmosphere is 90x denser than Earth's.>>16126328Stop ignoring the density of Venus' atmosphere. It's like comparing steam to ice.
>>16126386>Are you really that asshurt about the fact that CO2 chokes planets to death?Only planets that are dead to begin with.
With the existence of life a Venus-type atmosphere for Earth is completely impossible. At absolute worst reckless pollution could raise the Earth's temperature in a few thousand years. To really fuck over Earth you need extinction of plankton, from highly acidic oceans. That means acid rain needs to stop. Acid rain is totally different from global warming. Solving it means we need to wipe Beijing off the face of the Earth.
>>16126300Carbon hydrates are generated abiotic by a big part. And I think solar (especially for chemical plants to produce Methan and fromse sugars) and nuclear are the way even if fuel becomes too expensive to pump.
>>16126441https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
>>16123976Religious doomsday bullshit. Embarrassing.
>>16126433A Venus type atmosphere is completely possible and we're reaching the tipping point for it. Photosynthesis is impossible near the equator if global temperatures go above 10 degrees on average, and it only gets worse from there due to widespread fires that burn away all oxygen until everything suffocates.
>>16123798Blame Paul R. Ehrlich. That retarded moron first pushed for global cooling, later global warming, climate change, etc. Only idiots believe in that shit.
>>16126778>global cooling>global warmingNobody ever used these terms outside of the media. It's always been climate change.
Isn't OP saying CO2 is good for plants, not necessarily for planet?
>>16126091No it isn't. Are you lying or just stupid?
>>16126091>>16126201>Typical low grade propaganda
>>16126802I'm OP, and I'd say that what is good for planets is also good for the planet
>>16126768>A Venus type atmosphere is completely possible and we're reaching the tipping point for itSource: I had a scawy dweam :(
>>16126837When reality conflicts with your hypothesis, it's time to change your hypothesis.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282867205_Winners_always_win_Growth_of_a_wide_range_of_plant_species_from_low_to_future_high_CO2
>>16126992I don't particularly like the guy you're arguing with, but these experiments aren't disproving what he is sayingas you can see from your own images, there's minimal difference between ambient CO2 and high CO2, suggesting that there's something else limiting further growth
>>16127000>minimal difference between ambient CO2 and high CO2They also maxed out every plant on nutrients too, so nutrients weren't a limiting factor. Remember, these plants were harvested at only 3 weeks, and already there is a difference. This would only compound with time in real world scenario.And observe how tiny the 160ppm plants are despite an abundance of every single other growing condition. The climate cultists want us to be closer to 160ppm than to modern ambient levels.
>>16127008nta and I agree today's values are far from catastrophic, but the real question is about the upper limit.there is an upper limit, that much is certain. where exactly is that upper limit is a more nuanced conversation. why? well because it's not so clear. at some point there will be some extra effects vs today. how much can we deal with them? how much life starts to get wiped? can we live with that?the issue with upper limit is that it becomes a resource. if there's a limit you want to get as close as possible to it (because energy is cheaper) but not fuck it up.thinking people running shit will leave anything on the table is retarded, highschool commie flower power retarded. if it's a resource it will be abused as fuck. question is, how much can it be abused?as it stands now, we're absolutely fine, but (((they))) know there is an upper limit, that energy requirements for their shit will skyrocket, and that there's no way around it. that's the real issue, actually, the fact that energy that increases carbon is cheaper.
>>16127020>nta and I agree today's values are far from catastrophic, but the real question is about the upper limit.The catastrophic level for CO2 is anything below 200ppm, see the plants on the left >>16126992>there is an upper limit, that much is certainIs it? According to which theory or experiment?
>>16127049>Is it? According to which theory or experiment?I mean bro, can you breathe 99% CO2? cmon
>>16127049>Is it? According to which theory or experiment?https://www.2hraquarist.com/blogs/choosing-co2-why/co2-fine-tuning-3-techniquesjust do it yourself in an aquarium. get fishes, plants, start pumping CO2 and watch fishes die. do it enough times and you get a good idea about the concentration where they start dying. plants grow larger but no more fish in there, they can't survive the conditions.there is an upper limit, don't be a retard
>>16127052Please remain serious "bro". By what mechanism is it likely, or even possible, that CO2 is going to go from 450 parts per million to 999,000 parts per million?Cmon, 200 years of human industry has barely added 100ppm.You don't do your credibility any favours when you bring up ludicrous, nonsensical hypothetical like "99% CO2 atmosphere"
>>16127054read link from >>16127053 and stop being retarded anon. it's not cool.
also notice the aquarium is a very small and limited environment, with few species. few types of fish snails and maybe some shrimps. you go past certain levels and they die.the earth is a more complicated ecosystem, with way way more interactions and inertia and shit. I'm in the camp that earth can tolerate way higher levels than today, but there is a clear fucking limit, stop being idiots
>>16127053Your article recommends boosting plant aquariums to over 20,000 ppmv equivalent. 35ppmm CO2 in solution is around 20,000 ppmv. That's around 4 times higher than the highest level Earth's history and about 40 times higher than today.Once again, a ludicrous argument with.no basis in reality.Climate science has made lots of predictions, surely they have some credible estimates on future CO2 levels?
>>16127058>>16127056The level recommended in that aquarium article is 35 ppmm. Please look up the gaseous equivalent of 35ppmm and then tell me if you think that's a credible level that CO2 might reach.
>>16127059water has 2-3ppm CO2 which is in equilibrium with what there's in atmosphere today. most water life tolerates 10x increase and starts dying.how much CO2 in air translates to 10x increase in water CO2? simple as. that's the upper limit. once that limit is reached in air, water life starts dying. quit being a faggot. I was in "eco retards are gay" but the no limit retards such as yourself are also as gay as eco retards. fuck both of you
>>16127061the recommended level is the actual maximum fucking level you can have CO2 at before fish start fucking dying. it's the absolute top permissible limit if you want fucking life in your aquarium, different than plants. that increase, is 10x, from 3ppm which is normal for today's CO2 in atmophere, to 30ppm absolute max before life starts fucking dying, you fucking moron
>>16127062>but the no limit retards such as yourself are also as gay as eco retards. fuck both of youIf the upper limit is a ludicrous number like 20,000ppm then we don't need to worry.1ppm of of global atmospheric CO2 is 7.8 gigatonnes, or 7,800 million tonnes. To add another 19550ppm, we would need to release over 150,000 gigatonnes of CO2. At current rates of emission, it's going to take over 4000 years to reach 20,000ppm.Thats assuming that we don't improve our energy technology/infrastructure in anyway to decarbonise it in the next 4 millennium. It's just not credible.
>>16127069listen, I'm not stating the upper limit, I'm just saying it exists. which is a whole different mindset than thinking it doesn't.also have no idea if water CO2 has linear relationship to air CO2 concentration. if it has, means we get 4000ppm in air and life starts dying, at least in water. don't know if it's 4000 ppm or 8000 or actually 30000 ppm before water life starts dying. but if it's possible life starts dying at 10x today's values, we have a big problem, with estimated energy use with all the AI bullshit and war games and everything else.
Reminder that during the highest period of biomass in Earth's known history, CO2 levels were over twice what the worst basedentist predictions say will end the world.
>>16126105>>16126171>comparing a planet with no plate tectonics and an incredibly massive atmosphere to a remarkably thin-crusted and geologically-active planet with a relatively thin atmosphere for its massI don't care where you stand on climate change, trying to draw a parallel to Venus is just stupid and will make people assume you're lying about EVERYTHING you say. It's just a bad way to make your case.
>>16127992think all of today's life is still adapted to those levels? some life might still be ok, other will surely wipe
>>16128316think ALL life will adapt in 20-30 years to massive shift in CO2 concentration?
>>16128323How much do you think CO2 levels are going to change in 30 years? It took 200 years to go from 300ppm to 450.
>>16128362I clearly don't know, I'd just pull it out of my ass even if I were to guess. But ok I'll give you that I don't see how we could double it that fast.
they call you by a different name now, "new denier", it's where they took all your arguments and said that's new denialism. any argument you can muster will be labeled racist or nudenier or something else bad
>>16125473It's not really extreme weather though. It's just weather. Problem is it might destroy infrastructure and cost a lot of money. That's all they give a fuck about.
>>16132096>it has no downside at all.that's just retarded.
>>16132099NTA, the downside is that it might have a temporary destabilising effect on weather patterns, but no-one can prove if the apparent increased variability/extremes of weather are down to CO2 changes, land use changes, natural cycles, or, if its a combination of these factors, which ones have the strongest weighting.When it comes to modelling traditional linear physical systems like rocket launches or the forces acting upon a bridge or a skyscraper, we can simulate and model those things precisely enough to know with 5 or 6 sigma certainty what will happen under X or Y conditions, and direct comparisons and tweaks off factors can be performed. The global climate is too chaotic and complex for us to be able to simulate a counterfactual reality to ask the question: but how would things look if A had never happened or if we had done B instead. We only have hypotheses which are impossible to test about how responsible CO2 is for apparent variability instead of say land use changes.It's naive to pretend that the continent-spanning ways in which humans have energy and matter modifying effects on the environment don't have a massive, fixed impact on the climate. Just consider albedo, water runoff, verticality.
>>161321402If you believe in determinism and that there is no such thing as free will, you just also believe all the arguments underpinning the fact that wind farms change the weather by absorbing kinetic energy from the atmosphere. Every single little microscopic level of how we change the world around us has a direct and fundamental and MACROSCOPIC effect on our immediate and long term environment. It's psychotic and delusional to think that plant food that has existed at 5x today's levels, that was on course to dip below extinction level the next few times that the glaciers advance, is somehow our problem, and not the polluted wild areas and invasive species and contaminated food supplies.Everything else we ever do has such a bigger effect on everything on our carbon that it doesn't matter, and measures to combat climate change often end up worsening carbon footprints and impoverishing people, which directly lowers theirs proclivity to care for their immediate environment for aesthetic or holistic reasons.
>>16132195Statistically, somewhere in the world is going to go through SOME kind of "freak" weather or a divergence from long term trends just about all of the time. Permacrisis.But it's always been that way
>>16132919How come meteorologists and "climate experts" don't mention statistical realities like this whenever record X is used as proof for why we need to reduce our carbon footprint by not having children ie laying down and rotting.
>>16132195>10^4 knots^2What kind of energy is this??
>>16123798>CO2 is bad for the planetIt's not, the planet keeps going, one mass extinction after another, this is just the 6th. Global warming will be, and is already being bad for us.
>>16132980Because they're paid to mislead people
>>16134750it's funny to me that the lie of "global warming" became so deep and widespread, that their attempt to change it to the more believable and ambiguous term "climate change" failed
>>16135649>"climate change"that was a GW Bush administration implementation to avoid the term "global warming", you realize that, yes? It wasn't the scientific community who came up with that term.(By the way, CO2 greenhouse global warming is not a lie.)
>>16135655I didn't know that, but I'm willing to believe that's trueso long as we're discussing conspiracies, which government was it that started seeding the atmosphere to block out the sun? nobody cares about man made climate change when they do it, right? it's just a tool to restrict citizens and change fuel prices
>>16135660>which government was it that started seeding the atmosphere to block out the sun?Though there have been tests, as far as I know, no government has started such a program.
>>16134750CO2 doesn't cause mass extinctions, for most of the history of life on Earth, atmospheric CO2 fractions have been far, far higher than they currently are. If CO2 caused mass extinctions then all life would have long since perished
>>16136648>atmospheric CO2 fractions have been far, far higher than they currently areCO2 in the atmosphere is not the only factor influencing the climate. The Sun also used to be weaker, biosphere used to be different, there were different aerosols etc. on geologic timescales.Read a book on paleoclimate and evolutionary history of life before spewing such nonsense.
>>16136700Based
>>16126091does this even control for temperature
>>16136700Professional commercial greenhouses all run their atmospheres at 1500-2000ppm CO2 because thats the atmospheric CO2 fraction that plants do best at. They don't need to supplement any gasses other than CO2 to get the best effects.Anyone who wants there to be less CO2 in the atmosphere than there currently is, is someone who hates plants and who hates nature
>>16136935>They don't need to supplement any gasses other than CO2 to get the best effects.You are a retard who has no idea what affects plant growth.
>>16138282You are a larper and both of you are morons. Plants only use oxygen and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Everything else comes from the soil. Why would you need to supplement a plant with a gas it doesn't interact with?Moreover plants do not benefit from carbon dioxide unless all other limiting factors have been tended to which necessitates highly controlled conditions like a greenhouse.>>16125630
plants benefit from increased CO2 but other life doesn't. it kind of starts dying at higher concentrations of CO2. what is this effect named? where there's one statement and in short time there's two extremes formed around that statement, both as idiotic, both completely missing the point? makes it hard to properly judge the subject, becomes way more expensive on all resources, material, attention, time. there has to be a name for this retarded phenomenon.
>>16138297https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_industry_playbook
>>16138347but this place is practically dead as compared to reddit and other normie places. why tf would they care three nerds talking about random_subject on a mongolian basket weaving forum
>>16138351They don't. The propaganda is disseminated elsewhere and part of it is teaching useful idiots to spread that propaganda elsewhere. They convince people like OP that they need to challenge and expose the scientific conspiracy and people like OP figure that /sci/ is probably a good place to fight globalism and so he makes a thread. They rely on impassioning these people to spur them to action using slogans like "eat the bugs, live in the pod" and "you are the carbon they want to reduce" and so on.
>>16123798Jews wanting to profit from the air that we breathe.
>>16138454>Fast man-made transitions will go as well as slow natural decisions.Trump that argument I'll be Biden my time here.
>>16138494>tips
>>16138347https://youtu.be/hqiCLuOtXts?t=8m10s
>>16138450>>16138454>>16138579Useful idiots right on que.
>>16138494Find me a single plant or animal that won't survive being artificially enclosed in a 2000ppm environment. If an individual can adapt to 5x current levels, then a population can adapt to 2x raise spread over 100 years.
>>16123926have you ever been in a green house? it sucks doesn't it? now that greenhouse is managed soo it had a balanced level O2 in itimagine what happens if the greenhouse didn't have any checks or balances to stop it from being unbreathablewouldn't that be fucked anon
>>16139242When plants grow faster they need more nutrients which depletes the soil which limits growth and limits how nutritious the plants are to eat which limits animals. Meanwhile rainfall becomes less evenly distributed throughout the year. Instead there will be long periods with a lot of rainfall followed by long periods with little to no rainfall. This requires a lot of adaptation.
>>16139242are you genuinely retarded or just pretending?
The understanding that excessive carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions can have detrimental effects on the planet's climate and ecosystems is based on scientific research and evidence accumulated over many decades. The idea that CO2 is harmful to the environment is not a lie; rather, it is a well-established scientific consensus supported by a vast body of research.Here's a brief overview of how this understanding developed:1. **Greenhouse effect:** The greenhouse effect is a natural process whereby certain gases in the Earth's atmosphere, including CO2, trap heat from the sun, keeping the planet warm enough to sustain life. Without this natural greenhouse effect, Earth would be much colder. However, human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas, have significantly increased the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to enhanced warming of the planet.2. **Climate science:** Scientists have been studying the Earth's climate for centuries, but it wasn't until the mid-20th century that the link between CO2 emissions and global warming became more apparent. In the 1960s and 1970s, researchers began to recognize the potential impacts of human-induced climate change, and by the 1980s, scientific consensus was emerging that CO2 emissions from human activities were contributing to global warming.3. **Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):** Established in 1988 by the United Nations, the IPCC assesses the scientific literature on climate change and provides comprehensive reports summarizing the current state of knowledge. These reports, based on the work of thousands of scientists from around the world, have consistently highlighted the role of CO2 emissions in driving climate change and the urgent need for mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
>>16124127Except plants grow more when there is more CO2.
>>16139252You don't need to change the O2 level of a greenhouse to be able to breathe in 2000ppm>>16139266Imagine trying to make faster, more productive plants into a bad thing. The planet is literally MADE of nutrients, look up rock weathering.
>>16139481>The planet is literally MADE of nutrientsOh sure but that doesn't mean these nutrients automatically go where they are needed so that requires human intervention which requires money which means governments raising taxes to spend billions on climate change and that's not what you want. So are you going to take care of the faster growing plants for free?
>>16139488Less nutrient dense plants doesn't affect me because i filter all my plant food through ruminants, and then eat the ruminants instead.
>>16139496Obvious troll is obvious.
>>16136648I think you misinterpreted me, I wasn't implying that CO2 is causing the current mass extinction, but it will surely help
>>16139518>he disagrees with me about carbon and eating animals, he must be a troll!Lmao
>>16139496>it doesnt affect me so fuck the entire planetfascinating
>>16123807wow, do plants crave CO2?
>>16140448As much as they crave Brawndo
>>16140128It's a non issue for the rest of the planet too. If my potatoes grow to 80g of carb each instead of 50g of carb, but the micronutrients are simply more diluted, then my 80g potato is technically "less nutrient dense" if you're looking at vitamins and minerals, despite having more macronutrients than the smaller potato.Which plants are you even worried about? They're perfectly sufficient to be eaten when grown artificially at higher CO2 ppm.
>>16140805>Hurr durr just eat twice as much food!You truly are a moron.
>>16141150Nobody said that.Which plants are you even worried about?
Why should I care about global warming when the most powerful decisionmakers don't?
>>16141185
>>16140805plants in grown in high CO2 environments are healthier than their control study counterparts. they root deeper and consequently have access to more nutrients than those in a CO2 starved atmosphere do. if plants in high CO2 environments were nutrient poor then all life on earth would have dropped dead of nutrient deficiency during the many millions of years in history when this planet had far, far higher atmospheric CO2 levels
>>16123798It came from liars
>>16140805what point are you even trying to make? multiple people in the thread showed how the entire eco system would collapsealready we are undergoing multiple mass extinction eventswill life end? no but we will and i kind of like existing>>16141185because you will die along them regardless of who is the cause
>the thread is just variations of look at my correlation and ignore everything elseHoly shit, to think these midwits vote and graduate uni
>fire make some plant germinate>therefore fire good for planetHURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>>16141183How do you think you're going to get enough micronutrients, retard?>Hurr durr, food now has half the nutrients per calorie but that doesn't mean I need to eat more calories to get the same nutrition!
>>16141711Only when they're grown in highly controlled conditions.>>16125630
>>16142063wrong
Plants would grow more easily, but because of the higher temperature there would be less of the Earths surface that they could grow on. so less plants.
>>16123798it's not "bad for the plants" it's that plants are, in general, well adapted to current atmospheric CO2. extremely high or extremely low CO2 reduces fecundity. there's a small bump as it increases to about 320-450 ppm depending on the species. after that it crashes quickly.humans do great when you increase O2 by about 5%, but much more than that and we struggle to function as normal. it's the same with plants and CO2.a 1000ppm CO2 level wouldn't eradicate plants, but it would/will pretty severely impact our crops.
>>16143017i should add, that these things would most likely be temporary, until the plants most well adapted to high CO2 took over. that's a tens of thousands years long process though. if we starve before that we're SOL.
>>16123798They want a universal carbon tax to fund the NWO
>>16142939According to who?
>>16125657i wonder how do people like you function with brains this sizehow do you even arrive at the retarded conclusion that bumping industrial amounts of CO2 is not only not deadly, but somehow good for the planethow do you breathe daily without forgetting about it?
>>16125657so it's good unless some retards blocks the sun and cut off access to fresh water, but what are the odds of that happening!oh wait, oh no...
>>16123798It baffles me how intentionally stupid a group of purported math and science enthusiasts are.
>>16126328Venus's atmosphere is mostly supercritical CO2, its not even a gas. If you want to compare Earth to a planet with an almost 100% CO2 gas atmosphere why choose Venus when Mars is available? Mars has a gaseous atmosphere that contains over 3000% more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth has and Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect, this proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
>>16144108How do you even arrive at the retarded conclusion that bumping industrial amounts of CO2 is not only not good for the planet, but somehow deadly?
I'm so smart - I'm endangered by upper beings that want to exploit my mind to find new things
>>16144805you can't have a greenhouse effect if there's no greenhouse
>>16144828The greenhouse in this metaphor then would be an atmosphere of sufficient density, ie Earth's. We can agree that Venus is just as irrelevant a comparison as Mars, because Venus' atmosphere is 90x denser than Earth's.Any high school physics student can tell you that, at some level, there isn't much difference when it comes to temperature and pressure when it comes to matter.Just use your ideal gas law equations and assume that Venus' surface pressure is 92,000 mb and is 100% n2 by mass. What temperature would you expect at the surface, even with zero greenhouse effect from CO2's radiative forcing?Remember, you still have dense clouds of sulphuric acid extending from 30 miles to 42 miles in the atmosphere. Twelve miles of thick cloud constantly covering and insulating the planet. Remember to use what we know about the surfacing warming potential of thick clouds on Earth.
>>16144805>>16144828Both of you are completely wrong.
>>16145865Nope. It's humans.https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/
>>16145340The atmosphere of Venus isn't gas, most of the CO2 on Venus is supercritical, which means that the standard physics 101 equations you're familiar with don't apply
>>16146211That article just says its "mostly" humans. It doesn't deny that higher CO2 is contributing.
>>16123798Legitimate question. Trees absorb CO2 and emit oxygen. Deforestation reduces trees. Less CO2 absorption. So more CO2 in the air. How much of the increased CO2 is due to deforestation?
>>16146659Are you illiterate? Driving does not mean mostly. It's all humans driving the greening. It's mostly China and India putting in the work.
>>16146716>It's mostly China and India putting in the work.The images in your NASA link show greening globally, lots of it in places with little or no people like siberia and Northern/Western Canada.There's also the fact that the places in India and China being greened were almost completely arid and bare of vegetation before, so it doesn't take a lot of additional vegetation to create a large % change in leaf area.
>>16146716>>16146829The paper that the NASA article is summarising doesn't discount CO2's contribution to greening, so I don't know what qualifies a /sci/ anon to say that its not contributing>Cropland greening is mainly attributable to the direct driver [human land use changes] , without discounting the minor but opposing contributions of the indirect drivers (CO2 fertilization has been reported to increase crop production while climate change has been reported to increase or decrease in crop yields depending on location).https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6376198/
>>16123798>What is the greenhouse effect Why are right-wingers so ungodly retarded? What's wrong with their monkey brains?
>>16123798Not sure if shill...This is a complex question. It is called climate change for a reason. More CO2 causes more heat transfer and therefore more entropy in our ecosystems. This can cause some extreme weather patterns(drought) and storms: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10742505/ Also, I recommend you learn more about the carbonate cycle and the effects of ocean acidification.Though the main concern is the CO2 levels reaching a point were permafrost decomposition will rapidly heat the planet due to the methane production. Anyways, it ain't a lie. CO2 is good for plants, but the potential runaway is not. Generally speaking, most shit humans do is much worse. Our agriculture and waste practices are much more harmful in my opinion.
>>16146899>Though the main concern is the CO2 levels reaching a point were permafrost decomposition will rapidly heat the planet due to the methane production.Purely theoretical.
>>16123798oil companies made it up
>>16146835Let's get lunch and split the bill. I'll toss in a penny and yell at you if you complain that it's not enough.
>>16146829>lots of it in places with little or no people like siberia and Northern/Western Canada.>There's also the fact that the places in India and China being greened were almost completely arid and bare of vegetation before, so it doesn't take a lot of additional vegetation to create a large % change in leaf area.Would you like to reflect on those two statements for a moment?
>>16146925No, it's already happening.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissionshttps://www.space.com/methane-beneath-arctic-permafrost-climate-feedback-loophttps://earth.org/data_visualization/what-is-permafrost/
>>16147030>No, it's already happeningThe rapid warming part isn't.
>>16147020>Would you like to reflect on those two statements for a moment?No.
>>16147030>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions>These trends alarm climate scientists, with some suggesting that they represent a climate change feedback increasing natural methane emissions well beyond their preindustrial levels.[43] However, there is currently no evidence connecting the Arctic to this recent acceleration.[44] In fact, a 2021 study indicated that the role of the Arctic was typically overerestimated in global methane accounting, while the role of tropical regions was consistently underestimated.[45] The study suggested that tropical wetland methane emissions were the culprit behind the recent growth trend, and this hypothesis was reinforced by a 2022 paper connecting tropical terrestrial emissions to 80% of the global atmospheric methane trends between 2010 and 2019.[46]>
>>16147043Yes it is. The climate has never warmed as fast as it is now.
>>16147109still kinda cold here
>>16147057Overestimated does not mean there's no methane emissions from permafrost. Do a little thought experiment: There's some methane escaping from permafrost now. If it's warmer in the future can we expect the permafrost to release less methane, the same methane, or more methane? Really think about that one. While you're at it why don't you repeat the thought experiment with tropical wetlands?
>>16147113That's called weather. Local climate is about long term trends and global climate is about long term trends in globally averaged phenomenon.
>>16147119So its weather adding up.
>>16147114>However, there is currently no evidence connecting the Arctic to this recent acceleration.[44] In fact, a 2021 study indicated that the role of the Arctic was typically overerestimated in global methane accounting, while the role of tropical regions was consistently underestimated.[45] The study suggested that tropical wetland methane emissions were the culprit behind the recent growth trendI prefer real information not fake and gay thought experiments, literally "I am correct because I imagined it".
>>16147126Not quite, but close enough.
>>16147127>to this recent acceleration>typically overerestimatedWhat does this mean to you? That there is no methane being released by permafrosts at all?
>>16147109>>16147119>The climate has never warmed as fast as it is now.*in some places
>>16147156>That there is no methane being released by permafrosts at all?Much more comes from tropical wetlands and industry emissions. There has been no runaway feedback loop yet. Methane decays too quickly. It's much harder to accumulate a lot of and for it to have a sustained effect.
>>16147119People don't live in long term climate averages, they live in weather. And the weather and temperature both change much more between midnight and midday than the long term average you're worried about.
>>16147109
>>16148035>Blatant cherry picking
>>16147278>There has been no runaway feedback loop yet>yetSo you fully acknowledge that this will happen and it's only a matter of time.>Methane decays too quickly. It's much harder to accumulate a lot of and for it to have a sustained effect.You are legit a retard.
>>16147279You live in both, retard.
>>16147172Nope. Everywhere.
>>16125630>Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is like building a barrel with one stave taller then the rest and the "CO2 is plant food" crowd insists that it will make the barrel hold more water. It won't.No it isn't dumbfuck, increasing co2 will increase plant growth despite other limiting factorsNot only that in the real world most plants are in an ideal enough environment where other factors don't cap the effects of increased co2Not saying co2 is le good or le bad, simply stating what happens
>>16148649>other limiting factorsthere are none. plants with greater access to CO2 grow larger and faster than plants in otherwise identical conditions regardless what those conditions are.
>>16125630CO2 commonly is the limiting factor, both on land and in the ocean.https://web.mnstate.edu/chastain/assets/chastain-research-big-picture.pdf
>>16149076>All soil everywhere is perfect You are legit a retard.
>>16148649No it won't. You should try growing a plant once in your life. You'll find that if soil is deficient in a nutrient then your plants won't grow.
>>16150383plants that grow faster above ground also root deeper below ground, they have more access to soil micronutrients than they otherwise would in a low CO2 environment
>>16150659Into barren clay. What an improvement.
>>16150710Over time, the deeper roots are more deeply co-occupied with mycorrhizal filaments that help weathering from clay and rock. You don't see very much fungus on first generation roots into such deeper soil.
>>16151464>Over timeWhich doesn't matter because the plant has already died from a copper deficiency. Cope harder, retard. CO2 isn't magic plant food that can magically compensate for the lack of other nutrients. Providing an excess of one nutrient will not magically compensate for the lack of another. You cannot replace iron with nitrogen. You cannot replace phosphorus with carbon dioxide. You should have learned this in chemistry.
>>16151797>Which doesn't matter because the plant has already died from a copper deficiencyWhy doesn't this happen to the plants raised in enriched CO2 experiments? They just grow larger with deeper roots, they don't die from malnutrition like you claim.Do you have even a single example of this happening?
>>16152141Because the scientists use soil that has all the necessary nutrients in the optimal range to eliminate variables. Did you drop out of high school? A science class is a requirement to graduate and experimentation is taught in every single one.
>>16152358Plants grow better in high CO2 environments, why does that upset you so much?
>>16152811Not unless their in highly controlled conditions. Why does experimental design upset you so much? Is it because you're a dropout?
>>16152811They get angry about that because it takes away their excuse and justification for being demanding over the fake global warming meme
>>16152358>Because the scientists use soil that has all the necessary nutrients in the optimal range to eliminate variablesYou're assuming that. You made that up right now. You haven't read a single study on CO2 enrichment that specifies it has such soil.Such soil wouldn't be eliminating variables if it negates the benefits of the deeper roots of the CO2 enriched plant. It would constitute the introduction of a variable in favour of the uennriched plant, if the goal is to determine the benefit of CO2 enrichment in an otherwise normal/typical environment.
>>16153150>Not unless their in highly controlled conditions"Highly controlled conditions" yeah like higher CO2 and....?>The magnitude of the CO2 fertilization effect on terrestrial photosynthesis is uncertain because it is not directly observed and is subject to confounding effects of climatic variability. We apply three well-established eco-evolutionary optimality theories of gas exchange and photosynthesis, constraining the main processes of CO2 fertilization using measurable variables. Using this framework, we provide robust observationally inferred evidence that a strong CO2 fertilization effect is detectable in globally distributed eddy covariance networks. Applying our method to upscale photosynthesis globally, we find that the magnitude of the CO2 fertilization effect is comparable to its in situ counterpart but highlight the potential for substantial underestimation of this effect in tropical forests for many reflectance-based satellite photosynthesis products
>>16154337No, that's how the studies are designed. Can you find even a single example where it's not the case?
>>16154342Wrong.>>16125630
>>16153951
I will never understand /sci/fags' apocalypse fetish
>>16126768>A Venus type atmosphere is completely possibleOnly when the sun grows larger and the Earth's tectonic plates stop moving. What you're referring to was an old theory from one man that no one in climatology takes seriously anymore. Same goes for the clathrate gun hypothesis.
>>16156009soiyence is their religion and global warming is their dogma
>>16156956>scientists going to a science board like sciencea
>>16156009https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_eschatology