Climate change and overpopulation

[Deleted member 76176]

Peer reviewed doesn’t matter as long as the methodology is right. There are good and bad peer reviewed articles along with everything in life.

Sources (incomplete)

THE "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT AND CLIMATE CHANGE https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q1jljbCAz7UjqqM8goboX2d_H3ooFnzj/view?usp=drivesdk Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: A multi-model analysis https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q3AehVvSSMnq...

docs.google.com

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

Look man, those estimates change all the time. Take the Beetlegues red giant for example. Current prediction models say it'll go super nova between 7-50 years from now.

Are you going to bitch about the weatherman because he forecasted rain, but you got none? I don't think you know science enough to understand how fallable prediction is because there is rarely ever enough data points to consider everything and have exact dates.

You said the same thing I did. Thank you for agreeing with me. If we can't even predict weather accurately a few weeks in advance , why think we can predict the climate?

I see you need to study up on how weather works beyond basic highschool science class.

Here's a basic explanation why you can get more blizzards from global warming.
1. There's a high pressure dome at the poles caused by equatorial heat pushing air to the poles.
2. Heat evaporates water. The more heat, the more water in the atmosphere.
3. The higher density air from being water heavy pushes against the poles in a non uniform pattern because of day/night cycles.
4. In the winter this will cause that dome to buckle and be wavy like a primary school kid art project bowl.
5. That created a rollercoaster effect of warm, cold, warm, cold for a larger range of latitude than normal.
6. What happens to the extra water in air? Blizzard waves.

Don't forget that as the entire world warms up so does the water in the air and so do the poles. This should make blizzards less cold.
I suspect our disagreement is based on differing definitions on the word "harsher".

Dunno about you, but being an adult I like to know the weather. Having watched it for 20 years, you see the patterns and changes. I'm expecting a heat wave from this el nino we've got building. And a mostly dry winter where I live, with a chance for a heavy snow dump if the weather from the Pacific yanks around the key stream.

Thank you for agreeing with my statement on oscillating weather patterns.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Dunno about you, but being an adult I like to know the weather. Having watched it for 20 years, you see the patterns and changes. I'm expecting a heat wave from this el nino we've got building. And a mostly dry winter where I live, with a chance for a heavy snow dump if the weather from the Pacific yanks around the key stream.

I pay attention to the weather as well.
I also think it’s funny that the best argument you had against CO2 emissions was never mentioned, despite me goading you.

CO2 in the ground coming out and “having no replacement storage and taking up oxygen.”

If you’re talking logically, the only mathematical argument that make sense is that we are adding Carbon to the air without having a quick enough way to convert it back into carbon storage (like trees or plants), thus using up the free oxygen molecules.

However, if we grow more plants, so more farming and planting trees could mitigate that and also produce more oxygen in the process. Even living things like animals are also “carbon storage” since when we die whether by starvation or something else, we turn back to dust (carbon) and are put in the ground.

Fat people store more carbon.

I just really don’t believe “preventing CO2 emission” is the best solution.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

The laws of thermodynamics are evil.

Btw, funny quote I remember now from years back from a Dutch engineer: We can another 3-5 m. Bangladesh less so.

Ironically, the most populated regions will be the hardest hit by climate change.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Sources (incomplete)

THE "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT AND CLIMATE CHANGE https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q1jljbCAz7UjqqM8goboX2d_H3ooFnzj/view?usp=drivesdk Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: A multi-model analysis https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q3AehVvSSMnq...

docs.google.com

Article 1 and 2 are well done, explaining how the potential for global warming can be effected by increased greenhouse gases being put into the atmosphere. Makes few assumptions and talks about how the climate changes based on what is in the ozone.

Most people accept this. Even people labeled as “climate deniers” won’t argue this. It’s just easier to label people who don’t agree with everything as climate deniers.

Article 3 wouldn’t load for me.

Article 4 - seems like a 5th grade essay. Draws conclusions from inconclusive tests.

Article 5 - while professionally written is terrible. Almost all climate change is irreversible, since even if we are contributing to it, there are factors far beyond our control. Not to mention gravitational factors from the moon moving further away every year, movement of the sun where more particles can enter our solar system depending on where we are in the galaxy, etc.

Not to mention if fossil fuels came from dead animals, then all that carbon was once also in the atmosphere from before, isn’t that irreversible? Or perhaps we are just going back to how it used to be?

not to mention the focus is on man made emissions without actually providing the methodology for how they arrived or calculated mankind’s actual contributions to carbon in the atmosphere.

 

[Deleted member 76176]

not to mention the focus is on man made emissions without actually providing the methodology for how they arrived or calculated mankind’s actual contributions to carbon in the atmosphere.

If I'm not wrong, what you were arguing about was whether the concentration of carbon dioxide is problematic and if reducing carbon emissions helps or not, which Papers 1, 2, and 5 answer. Papers 3 and 4 are exactly what they say, and the latter being more simple was intentional on my part. Also, it might be better if you watch the video I sent earlier.

 

[RepresentingCaution]

Humans have been practicing population control since ancient times. It's just that the method we use varies by culture.

 

[greyblob]

I never put this much effort into anything academic. not even my graduation thesis. you're awakening my imposter syndrome. i don't like this

 

[RepresentingWrath]

I never put this much effort into anything academic. not even my graduation thesis. you're awakening my imposter syndrome. i don't like this

Bruh.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Article 1 and 2 are well done, explaining how the potential for global warming can be effected by increased greenhouse gases being put into the atmosphere. Makes few assumptions and talks about how the climate changes based on what is in the ozone.

Most people accept this. Even people labeled as “climate deniers” won’t argue this. It’s just easier to label people who don’t agree with everything as climate deniers.

Article 3 wouldn’t load for me.

Article 4 - seems like a 5th grade essay. Draws conclusions from inconclusive tests.

Article 5 - while professionally written is terrible. Almost all climate change is irreversible, since even if we are contributing to it, there are factors far beyond our control. Not to mention gravitational factors from the moon moving further away every year, movement of the sun where more particles can enter our solar system depending on where we are in the galaxy, etc.

Not to mention if fossil fuels came from dead animals, then all that carbon was once also in the atmosphere from before, isn’t that irreversible? Or perhaps we are just going back to how it used to be?

not to mention the focus is on man made emissions without actually providing the methodology for how they arrived or calculated mankind’s actual contributions to carbon in the atmosphere.

What is your point?

 

[AnonUnlimited]

If I'm not wrong, what you were arguing about was whether the concentration of carbon dioxide is problematic and if reducing carbon emissions helps or not, which Papers 1, 2, and 5 answer. Papers 3 and 4 are exactly what they say, and the latter being more simple was intentional on my part. Also, it might be better if you watch the video I sent earlier.

No, I was arguing that the amount of CO2 emissions calculated is out of our control. I never got to explain why I believe we are doing very little compared to geothermal activity.

Also, articles 1 and 2 are inconclusive, only stating how they believe it could cause it. 3 didn’t read, 4 and 5 come to some conclusion about how a lot of it is man-made.
The real debate has never been about how the climate is changing but how much each person should be allowed to burn.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

No, I was arguing that the amount of CO2 emissions calculated is out of our control. I never got to explain why I believe we are doing very little compared to geothermal activity.

Also, articles 1 and 2 are inconclusive, only stating how they believe it could cause it. 3 didn’t read, 4 and 5 come to some conclusion about how a lot of it is man-made.
The real debate has never been about how the climate is changing but how much each person should be allowed to burn.

You know, the entire Mediterranean was once covered by extensive forests with a rich and diverse flora and fauna. Even lions roamed Europe. Now question to you, where do you think all the trees and lions went? Where do you do think all the Macchia came from?

 

[AnonUnlimited]

You know, the entire Mediterranean was once covered by extensive forests with a rich and diverse flora and fauna. Even lions roamed Europe. Now question to you, where do you think all the trees and lions went? Where do you do think all the Macchia came from?

How does that matter? Did you also know dinosaurs once existed and went extinct? What about the time there was no life on this planet?

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

How does that matter? Did you also know dinosaurs once existed and went extinct? What about the time there was no life on this planet?

Because it is anthropogenic, you genius. Your supposedly very little what we are doing is in fact huge. Humans leave an immense ecological footprint wherever we settled. We changed entire biota already in pre-industrial times.

The entire Mediterranean was once green. Now we are threatened by desertification due to human influence.

The Romans alone nearly deforested the entire Italian peninsula just to build warships.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Because it is anthropogenic, you genius. Your supposedly very little what we are doing is in fact huge. Humans leave an immense ecological footprint wherever we settled. We changed entire biota already in pre-industrial times.

The entire Mediterranean was once green. Now we are threatened by desertification due to human influence.

The Romans alone nearly deforested the entire Italian peninsula just to build warships.

Bruh.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Because it is anthropogenic, you genius. Your supposedly very little what we are doing is in fact huge. Humans leave an immense ecological footprint wherever we settled. We changed entire biota already in pre-industrial times.

The entire Mediterranean was once green. Now we are threatened by desertification due to human influence.

The Romans alone nearly deforested the entire Italian peninsula just to build warships.

Deforestation is not the same as CO2 emissions. What’s your point?

Can deforestation cause a change? Possibly since they’re destroying oxygen producers, but people who are telling us to stop CO2 these days don’t do pruning or even take care of the forests.

Just look at Canada, “we must stop climate change, but we won’t take care of forests.”

 

[Deleted member 76176]

Deforestation is not the same as CO2 emissions. What’s your point?

 

[melchi]

The atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2 and you don't see the martians complaining. (Sorry I couldn't help myself)

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Deforestation is not the same as CO2 emissions. What’s your point?

Can deforestation cause a change? Possibly since they’re destroying oxygen producers, but people who are telling us to stop CO2 these days don’t do pruning or even take care of the forests.

Just look at Canada, “we must stop climate change, but we won’t take care of forests.”

A climate model is more than just CO2 emissions, but apparently that is beyond you.

The fact is, human intervention caused a massive irreversible shift in Mediterranean climate not necessarily due to macroscopic factors, but rather due to microscopic factors already during the early stage of human civilisation.

You argument was that we humans have no influence. I disagree. We have.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

You argument was that we humans have no influence. I disagree. We have.

But we don't have any influence. Because humans are stupid and retarded.