Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 01:36:08 UTC No. 16280884

>>16280728
So overexpansion of corn fields and urban sprawl are good for the biosphere now? You have no idea how close you are to extinction, do you?

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 02:41:34 UTC No. 16280921

>>16280884
>made up graph based on no data
how dumb do you have to be to fall for that?

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 02:43:31 UTC No. 16280925

>>16280728
inb4 "akchually, nobody ever said they'd become arid wastelands"

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 02:54:07 UTC No. 16280936

>>16280921
>Prophecy by science created in 1970 that has accurately predicted the past >50 years
Delusion won't save you now anymore than it erases the dark ages you created by worshipping jews and destroying Rome.

Your entire neoliberal system is going to be destroyed by your own hubris.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 02:58:25 UTC No. 16280939

>>16280936
ok you're a schizo with a messiah complex, thanks for demonstrating your level of stupidity for us

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 03:10:58 UTC No. 16280949

>>16280939
Eglin Air Force Base.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 03:11:59 UTC No. 16280950

>>16280939
Also, refrain from using hebrew in my presence.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 03:21:20 UTC No. 16280962

lol “greening”
> farming and suburbia expansions over desert areas with….water from drying river beds
> rampant flooding in tropical areas causing bursts of growth before catastrophic decay

Also drought doesn’t last forever. It means that the land becomes unable to support a minimum level of vegetation for majority of the year NATURALLY, which means us and animals won’t have enough food without human intervention. Just because it “greens” in the winter or rainy seasons means jack shit if it’s arid the rest of the time.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 03:24:57 UTC No. 16280967

>you will have 100-degree summers and be happy because slightly more grass is growing in africa
Least deranged sci user

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 04:41:22 UTC No. 16281006

>>16280962
Don't forget draining aquifers and literally stealing water from neighboring areas.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 04:42:24 UTC No. 16281008

>>16280967
It's a neoliberal. Their existence on this planet is cancer.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 12:44:31 UTC No. 16281320

>>16280728
Is the greening the effect of urbanisation, higher rainfall or higher CO2?

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 12:47:22 UTC No. 16281322

Whoa so you degrowth cultists think you're not jewbrained? Wild

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 12:49:16 UTC No. 16281323

>>16281320
It's just more land being used for farms. That's literally it.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 12:50:18 UTC No. 16281325

>>16281322
>Neoliberalism MUST continue!
Get in the fucking dirt already.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:07:35 UTC No. 16281334

>>16281323
In China and Europe it is mostly abandoned cropland. The farmers send their children in the cities because the work in the cities is paid more.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:09:21 UTC No. 16281336

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 18:23:36 UTC No. 16281537

>>16280728
lmao that the scientist were exactly wrong. how do those people even still have jobs in the profession? they should've been laughed out of academia.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 18:47:54 UTC No. 16281555

>>16280728
life is a curse, the planet would be happier dead

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 19:37:05 UTC No. 16281582

>>16280884
This looks like a baboon shoved some yarn up its ass and tried pulling it out again

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 20:11:52 UTC No. 16281604

>>16281325
Buddy save the planet by killing your family. Go vegan too lmfao

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:36:17 UTC No. 16281700

>>16281325
>>>/pol/

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:37:27 UTC No. 16281702

>>16280728
>source: my ass?
200kb twitter screenshots and googled graphs aren't sources.

Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:53:06 UTC No. 16282964

>>16281702
You're attacking the source because you can't refute the central part of the argument being made and the fact that you can't refute the central part of the argument being made means that you're as much as admitting that it is correct.
It is laughable how outraged people who call themselves environmentalists get whenever they see good news about the environment.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 00:49:18 UTC No. 16283044

>>16282964
No dumbass, I'm attacking the source (or lack thereof) because meaningful discussion is based upon sharing and comparing multiple well-vetted sources.
Those that can't understand the importance of solid sources don't actually care about discussion, they're just looking for the tiny pathetic adrenaline rush that comes from reddit-tier virtual arguments.

I want the good news, just like you. The subject of your thread is interesting and one I would like to learn more about. I just want to make sure what I'm absorbing and engaging with is reliable and built upon a well-studied foundation. I do not want to absorb or engage with twitter slop that was generated specifically to prey on emotional adolescents.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 20:33:30 UTC No. 16284042

>>16283044
>see good news about the environment
>become outraged and angry over it
why are the self styled "environmentalists" all like this?
how come seeing good news about the environment makes them angry instead of happy?

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 02:27:40 UTC No. 16284427

>>16284042
I think you replied to the wrong post.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 18:23:42 UTC No. 16285360

>>16284042
This is why

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 18:35:02 UTC No. 16285396

>>16281008
Neo'liberals' are the ones demanding we pay more taxes and reduce our quality of life to help the environment.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 20:16:09 UTC No. 16285515

>>16280728
It seems like the effect has to do with less efficient plants being unable to survive harsh conditions thus freeing resources for more efficient plants that were previously being outcompeted. Interesting.

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:05:59 UTC No. 16286248

why?

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:30:02 UTC No. 16286570

>>16280728
What can we use this information for?

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 11:20:42 UTC No. 16286934

hebe

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 04:15:03 UTC No. 16288049

Atmospheric CO2 hasn't been as high as it is in all of human history going back millions of years.
We are so lucky to be living in an era with enhanced atmospheric CO2, there is no downside to having more CO2 in our atmospheric gas mix, only benefits. Nature and agriculture will reap the benefits of adding CO2 to the atmosphere massively, humanity is literally terraforming Earth to become more hospitable to life and more productive overall.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 01:16:56 UTC No. 16289083

>>16281334
per acre production on farmland will necessarily increase as atmospheric CO2 increases, that means a decreasing amount of farmland is needed to feed the population.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:11:45 UTC No. 16289747

>>16280728
>Good news fellow environmentalists!
It's not good ecological news either, anon: it means the local ecosystem is being replaced by a new one, and it also means that it's grasses and shrubbery that are doing the invading, not trees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNLJJf89Jfs

Is it "better" like so than turning into a desert over time? Errr... economically, I guess it is?

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:23:12 UTC No. 16289758

>>16282964
>It is laughable how outraged people who call themselves environmentalists get whenever they see good news about the environment.
samefag:
>>16289187
It sounds like you have some sort of personal trauma brought upon you by someone with environmental concerns (maybe someone mocked you, embarrassed you, made you feel inadequate or ignorant? step beyond that) which has left you susceptible to triggering when someone brings up a counter-argument to what you interpret as "good news", when talking to people who care about the environment.
The problem with Earth's ecosystem is that it is so complex that what at first seems like "good news" even to environmentalists, turns out in the long run to actually be detrimental to the environment. That's why you'll always get someone with a counter-point to make, thought not necessarily valid, so many are the factors to consider. That is a good thing; it's good that we take all factors and potential outcomes into perspective for our future actions.
I encourage you go leave your bubble of comfort and engage with as many environmentalist scientists as possible, but especially ecologists, since laypeople tend to be a bit ill-informed as they're not within their realm of specialty and hear information from second-hand sources.
Cheers

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:27:33 UTC No. 16289760

>>16288049
>there is no downside to having more CO2 in our atmospheric gas mix, only benefits
the downside is that not all plant species will adapt: grasses and bushes can adapt and colonize new locations easily since their life cycles are short. Trees aren't adaptable, they are slow growers and did not envolve for drastic changes. It is likely that forests won't be able to migrate onto new geographic regions, and so we're bound to lose many tree species in the long term.
Not to mention, that such swift and invasive species will effectively "delete" the ecosystems in the new areas they take over.
Greening, from this massive ejection of CO2 from the earth's crust into the atmosphere, isn't the pretty ecological story someone has been telling you, I'm afraid.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:38:20 UTC No. 16289770

>>16289760
Close but no cigar. You said it yourself; the environment is highly complex and what seems good news at first could be bad news. I would argue the opposite is true too. Personally I wouldn't mind more grasslands, at least where I live, because they have all been converted to forests since the arrival of europeans. My area has very little tall grass prairie left.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:44:21 UTC No. 16289774

>>16281323
Really? That's ALL that it is? So all the greening in Northern Canada and in Siberia showed in OP pic is from farms?
Retard.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:46:41 UTC No. 16289776

>>16289747
>It's not good ecological news either, anon: it means the local ecosystem is being replaced by a new one
There's nothing inherently good or desirable about an area remaining static. Life is change. Every region on Earth has undergone dramatic changes in climate and ecology. Nothing stays the same.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:50:01 UTC No. 16289777

>>16289747
It starts off as grasslands and shrubs BECAUSE they have the shortest life cycle.. But after the grasses, the trees follow.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 16:54:45 UTC No. 16289780

>>16289747
Great talk

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 17:37:16 UTC No. 16289835

>>16280728
Oh they don't love the environment they just hate people, they use environmentalism as an excuse to impoverish and take away peoples freedoms. They'd be up for debate if this were not the case.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 17:51:18 UTC No. 16289853

>>16289835
>Oh they don't love the environment
look at how angry they get over the ever improving health of the environment caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 content

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 07:26:14 UTC No. 16290571

>>16289770
>Personally I wouldn't mind more grasslands, at least where I live, because they have all been converted to forests since the arrival of europeans.
If somehow the greening would convert those artificial forests back to the same exact type of grassland, with the same exact native plant species and fauna, that would be a good thing in my view, yes. But, theoretically, and assuming that it will get warmer where you mention, that is not what will happen: it won't be the native grasses, it will be grasses that will move in from warmer areas. Invasive species.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 07:34:39 UTC No. 16290580

>>16289776
>There's nothing inherently good or desirable about an area remaining static.
An ecosystem isn't "static" but it is stable. Two different things. If you destabilize that ecosystem beyond recovery thresholds, it will become unstable and turn into something else.
This occurs naturally, obviously, but at slower rates than those which we are inducing. We will lose ecosystems which we depend on economically. Not to mention, the natural beauty and the enjoyment that we get from them, that too will be lost.
Obviously, the planet will carry on, life will carry on, but it's us who lose value because a mass extinction eliminates natural value.
As a simple analogy, the natural world is a savings account, and their natural replenishing rates are the interest on the principal; we are deleting the principal that sustains that interest. We're getting poor.

The economy must not overwhelm the ecology, that is suicide.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 07:38:05 UTC No. 16290583

>>16289777
>But after the grasses, the trees follow.
There are many tree species, so each species is a its own story, but in general terms, the trees can't keep up with the climatic changes. That's the problem, it's happening too fast for trees to colonize new regions as fast as grasses and shrubs do.
It's going to be an ecological mess, there's no way around this.

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 07:47:08 UTC No. 16290591

>>16290583
what climatic changes?

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 14:02:29 UTC No. 16290843

>>16290591
>what climatic changes?
the ones you pretend not to know about, ya know, the ones that are causing the greening here:
>>16280728

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 17:42:25 UTC No. 16291033

Sure is nice to know that enhancing the atmosphere is CO2 is making life better for all life on Earth.
We're doing it bros, we're terraforming a planet

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 18:46:11 UTC No. 16291144

>>16285396
>Neo'liberals' are the ones demanding we pay more taxes
what the fuck