GLOBAL WARMING

>I've been hearing on Twitter about how the oceans will rapidly acidfy in 50 years or so and the soil will become unusable soon after.
>Is any of that shit true?

I'm not a scientist, but what I do know is that the planet has been much hotter in the past and the previous interglacial event was actually hotter than our current one. The polar bears survived the previous interglacial and the coral reefs have survived over 7 interglacial warming events already. This historical data leads me to believe that these catastrophes will not happen.

Attached: temperature_data-02.png (2551x1524, 348K)

I'm fucking freaked out man, I hope you're right. I don't want this all to be for nothing (meaning, the planet goes to shit in the next 100 years).

What the fuck can people do when most of it is coming from China?
And what's the harm in trying to be "green" or push for greener regulations in corporations?

Well I'm glad you provide an argument that is at least based in reality. However, those cycles occur over many thousands of years - with the rapid change we are currently seeing what makes you sure that is the cause?

With you're talk about CO2 you don't seem to think it should be enough to have an effect, though you do realize the issue with an increasing population and such.

It seems like you are putting your faith into one thing a bit more than the other - even though from your vantage point they seem pretty equal, no?

Sun spot activity on the sun controls the temperature of the earth. We are entering a period of low sun spot activity that will result in a grand solar minimum.

"Plants can't absord all the CO2 we're putting out!"
Actually they can. Earth's current CO2 level is 411 ppm. Plants can consume more than that, in fact in greenhouses the level is much higher to speed up growth of plants.
Here's a link to a Canadian government website dealing with this very subject: omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

The pic below shows the curve where plants begin to stop growing after a certain level of CO2.

Tl:dr you can triple the current CO2 level and the only side effect is more plant growth.

Attached: 00-077f1.jpg (211x241, 6K)

>We are entering a period of low sun spot activity that will result in a grand solar minimum.

We had a grand solar minimum in 2006 bro, it's not like we're entering an Ice Age yet

incorrect, the grand solar minimum has yet to occur. When it does, we can expect a decade long winter at least. Much like the Mauder minimum which occured in the 1600's commonly called the mini ice age.

Attached: sidc-dailysunspotnumbersince1900.gif (750x370, 41K)

I don't like a lot of the alarmist media hype as it is often either wrong or taken out of context. Though ocean acidifcation is true, I have never heard of it in that timeline nor having such an immediate effect on the soil.

I would look into it more but that doesn't sound right to me.

Unfortunately many people don't believe it is happening. I'm hear to answer peoples concerns.

Looking at long scale timelines, it's important to note that yes humans can survive in these conditions. The problem is when you have 7 billion + humans scattered all over the place, it is going to cause a lot of problems.

Bruh what can we do? It's nearly all China and India who's dumping shit into the oceans and air.

>I don't want this all to be for nothing (meaning, the planet goes to shit in the next 100 years)
I don't think you should get yourself so worked up about this, it's extremely difficult to fuck up the planet and even when the worst types of things happen like a meteorite impact, it still takes hundreds of years for the climate changes to happen. Our situation is going to play out over several thousands of years. The alarmists make it out like shit will hit the fan in a decades, that's just simply not geologically / climatically possible.

I think the biggest threat is if things change so fast that key organisms on the planet cannot adapt fast enough. That would hurt the biosphere a lot. I don't know if that is happening right now, but my suspicions is that it is happening slow enough that organisms can simply migrate north / south as the equator gets warmer and the poles start to thaw out and become hospitable.

The long term climate changed Earth is not bad. The entire planet will become tropical mostly.

Attached: temperature_data-01.png (2550x1524, 253K)

>The entire planet will become tropical mostly.
Bleh.

Why does our planet swing back and forth? Solar changes? Is that it?

Unfortunately we can't control China, we can only do what we want to do. I'm not sure what the gripe of pushing for greener technologies is since many are already/rapidly approaching being cheaper than coal. It's "Big Solar" man.

So you are correlating lower sun spot activity (true!) with increasing temperatures? It's been going on for 35 years, when are we going to start seeing that drop in your model? See:

Attached: temperature2049129.webm (1600x720, 1.22M)

>Mauder minimum

That wouldn't happen again for two hundred years though, at least. These maximum / minimum cycles tend to be separated by a few hundred year gaps and the modern maximum only ended in 2007 or something, so the next minimum wouldn't happen for a while

>Why does our planet swing back and forth?
Orbital mechanics mostly:
1) The Earth around the Sun changes from circular to oval over thousands of years
2) The Earth's tilt changes over thousands of years
3) The Earth also wobbles, harder to describe, watch a video

These all change how much solar energy falls on the planet. Sometimes all the cycles line up and you get palm trees growing at the South Pole. Sometimes they line up the wrong way and you get frozen water all the way to the equator.

Then some smaller effects like continental landmasses blocking air / water flow sometimes.

A good book that explains geological climate change without too much propaganda is "Fire, Ice, and Paradise"

Thanks...

We can measure atmospheric CO2. See image. The image you are posting is usually used for people arguing more so that "PLANTS LOVE CO2 WHAT'S THE PROBLEM LOL!!?!?!?" - which is obviously dumb because it doesn't matter what plants like if we're gonna get fucked. However you are using it to suggest that they are "consuming" it when that chart shows that the rate of photosynthesis.

>I think the biggest threat is if things change so fast that key organisms on the planet cannot adapt fast enough. That would hurt the biosphere a lot. I don't know if that is happening right now ....

I'm glad you are able to realize all of this - unfortunately, your "suspicions" are no correct here. The reason why people are making a big deal of this is BECAUSE the rate of change we are seeing. I believe the term that is being used is "unprecedented" - which yes leads to mass extinctions.

And again - 7 billion humans did were not around with civilizations millions of years ago.

Attached: co2_10000_years.gif (500x334, 8K)

>2019
>still believes Obama campaign meme
>still reveres bill nye

kys

Attached: IMG_0423.jpg (866x677, 91K)

No one is opposed to greener technologies it is the cost associated with them. You overstate what they can do. If solar were cheaper than coal we would be using it. It is currently dependent on rare earth metals which aren't unlimited and we don't have sufficient batteries to use effectively. Hydroelectric is good but we already use that extensively. Wind isn't very good due to maintenence costs and bird genocide. If you actually wanted to make things better you would be shilling for more nuclear power instead of trying to sell a doomsday scenario.

What does atmospheric CO2 have to do with the point? The chart shows the rate of photosynthesis and then explains by increasing the level of CO2 1,000 ppm increases the growth. The chart you posted only shows the rate of CO2 over a couple thousand years as to show "hey look we have WAY more now guys isn't this bad?" It's not bad. We're at 411 ppm. Plants can consume that. They can consume 1,000 ppm. They can consume 1,411 ppm. CO2 levels are no danger at that level.

The debate is over. Its not any warmer today than it was in the past. Also, cost of reducing CO2 is greater than cost of a warming climate.