How much did the industrial revolution contribute to global warming?

>>8820472
It's actually the opposite. The industrial revolution happened because the world was getting warmer and it was fucking up people's crop yields. Correlation != causation.

>>8820480
>It's actually the opposite
>the world was getting warmer

???
How did victorian factories cool the world? Also isn't warmer climate good for crops since libertarians say so?

Doesn't matter


China and india need to be dealt with now. Third world genocide is the only solution to save the environment.

Prove me wrong

>>8820524
+US

File: Co2_glacial_cycles_800k.png (24KB, 818x580px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 818x580px

>>8820472

It is generally agreed upon that variations in the solar output of the Sun and Earth's distance from the Sun are the main contributing factors to ICE AGES, or more technically glacial periods during which the earth cools, causing increased ice expansion from the poles and alternatively during which the earth warms, causing a receding of ice. We observe that we have been in such an interglacial period (the Holocene Epoch) as of about 117,000 years ago. As such, I would say the industrial revolution likely did not contribute significantly to the current warming rate of the Earth.

>>8820524
>Third world genocide is the only solution to save the environment.

So, is murica also third world?

>>8820613
That argument makes no sense at all. We're towards the end of an interglacial period that's lasted thousands of years. Suddenly the temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate. The Milankovich cycle would have the next change be cooling, not warming. How does it explain current warming?

>>8820671

>We're towards the end of an interglacial period

Says who? The Vostok ice core samples demonstrated an interglacial period some 400 kyr ago that lasted roughly 28,000 years.

File: tina fey.jpg (26KB, 535x380px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 535x380px

>>8820613
>Forest fires happen by natural causes
>Therefore it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires

>>8820480
To look at people like you makes me wish for eugenics.

>>8820861
I'm sure he's kidding, geez.

>>8820862
I have stopped thinking people saying stupid shit are trolling because acting like retard can only make people think you're a retard.

File: UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6-550x317.jpg (47KB, 550x317px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 550x317px

The Truth About Climate Change http://vixra.org/abs/1309.0069

>>8820472
none

>>8820857

>f..forest fires are the s-same thing as millions of y-years of glac-c-iation

kill yourself


>therefore its impossible for humans to cause x

Where did I write that, oh wait, I didn't, I wrote "As such, I would say the industrial revolution likely did not contribute significantly to the current warming rate of the Earth." which is something totally different that when you intentionally misrepresented my argument to be.

>>8820472
>16,500,000,000 lbs of CO2 emission per day globally by breathing alone
>226,500,000,000 lbs of CO2 emission per day globally by fuel consumption
>no effect at all

A few degrees. Seems not much but it's a fucking disaster.

>>8820472
Hermann Harde, Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787

• An alternative carbon cycle is presented in agreement with the carbon 14 decay.
• The CO2 uptake rate scales proportional to the CO2 concentration.
• Temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates are considered.
• The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is found to be 4 years.
• Paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate are well-reproduced.
• The anthropogenic fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4.3%.
• Human emissions only contribute 15% to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.

Advanced Two-Layer Climate Model for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2
http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/846

>>8820472
About 3.5 standard carbon units.

>>8820472
0.