CO2 levels have passed 410 PPM Is it just nothing or are we

>>8887072
It will get a little bit warmer and some poor people will die. I'll be ok, you will probably be fine too.

>>8887072
getting there, at the current pace we're going past the point of no return of 450 ppm around 2030

https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

How many years until 1 million PPM?

>>8887072
Good. I hope the methane deposits in the sea crust are released and the feedback loop boils all the normies to death.

>>8887191
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-just-breached-the-410-ppm-threshold-for-co2/

>>8887072
>3 sets in graph key
>only 1 line graphed.
hmmmmm

>>8887206
Are you blind?

>>8887206
the Mauna Loa Measuring station hasn't existed for the last 400,000 years.

>>8887202
if that happens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis)
it'll be all over in 10 years

lots of scientists think there is some feedback that will delay it for quite a while

but we're fucked even without it happening

>>8887098
fine if you don't mind not eating
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

>>8887208
>>8887210
>people taking the bait this easily
What the fuck are you doing

>>8887222

>believing this nonsense

what he says about CO2 levels is true, everything else is unsubstantiated bullshit and not science.

The permafrost nonsense he is spouting is speculative at best. He also conveniently ignores the fact a net global warming of the earth will boost agriculture in areas that are right now inaccessible, but factors into his analysis the loss of agriculture in regions negatively affected by climate change.

>>8887245
you are free to tell Pentagon that

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mattis-climate-change-is-a-national-security-threat/article/2617369

the permafrost will thaw in your life time.

then you will die.

>>8887253
>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mattis-climate-change-is-a-national-security-threat/article/2617369

"Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has declared that climate change is a threat to national security and one military planners must consider in drawing up strategies"

Sure, climate change will cause instability in countries that can't deal with it, and that will have an effect on national security. How does that statement in any way confirm that we are going to run out of food because of global warming?

>>8887263

don't worry anon we will have widespread nuclear fusion by then and a space colony on uranus

File: Hadley cells.png (24KB, 537x351px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 537x351px

>>8887266
Global warming expands the hadley cells

>that feel when I will never know what it feels like to not believe in a God and always worry about bad shit happening

Feels good, mang.

>>8887223
What are you talking about moron? He obviously just didn't look all the way to the right.

>>8887277
If you look both ways when you cross the street you must not believe in god.

>>8887245
>a net global warming of the earth will boost agriculture in areas that are right now inaccessible, but factors into his analysis the loss of agriculture in regions negatively affected by climate change.
The loss of agriculture will almost certainly outweigh any local gains.

>>8887287
I'm talking about apocalyptic shit. Non-believers unironically believe humanity is capable of destroying the planet.

File: CC_farmland.jpg (105KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1500x1125px

>>8887290
Also, the gains will take a century to come,
the losses will/are happening in decades.

>>8887300
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s

>>8887303
>New farmland appearing on Australia's west coast.
I'd love to hear the justification behind that.

>>8887273
new power sources won't matter.

we need to actively pull carbon out of the air and oceans. into stable solid or liquid form. then make sure it doesn't become co2 or methane again for centuries.

>>8887303
south Georgia and north Florida is already farmland.

>>8887274

>hadley cells

That very primitive model from the 1700s will not accurately predict how global air streams adjust to the (demonstrably non-mean-field) elevation in the average temperature of earth.

I am not the anon you were responding to, I do agree with you global warming will have massive and negative societal consequences.

The "model" you are citing is garbage though. Hack climatologists took a model from 300 years ago and didn't understand any of the advancements in math and physics that correct and invalidate to a degree Hadley's model.

Then they used a very limited data set combined with the flawed 300 year old model and predicted in the near future the Earth's jetstreams will change substantially. Cargo cult science at its finest.

>>8887372
[citation needed]

>>8887384
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00323.1

http://www.climatesignals.org/climate-signals/hadley-cell-expansion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell#Hadley_cell_expansion

>>8887300
>destroying the planet
Nice strawman, retard. The only thing humans are destroying is the particular ecosystem they are heavily adapted to.

File: Sidewalk cat.jpg (54KB, 506x365px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 506x365px

>>8887206

File: Dog.png (282KB, 495x323px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 495x323px

>>8887274
>hadley cells expand
>current world breadbaskets turn to desert
sounds like you didn't think this through but okay

>>8887072
There's a good chance the marine food web will collapse over this. Besides lowering co2, the oceans create about half the earth's oxygen. Hope you don't mind not breathing.

>>8887197
you think you're really clever don't you

really fucking clever.

well I got news for you, you're not.

dumbass.

File: consumer.png (224KB, 500x384px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 500x384px

Earth is a very complex biomechanical heat engine; we are fucking with its components (elevated atmospheric co2, deforestation, nutrient overload of oceans), and literally no one knows exactly what the long term consequences will be.

The precautionary principle should in effect, but the consumers literally could not give a fuck.

>pic related

>>8887695
>he thinks it will progress linearly
bless your heart

>>8887072
We are so fucking fucked.

>>8887245
Found the special child.
>Autism speaks

File: 09122014-GMD-Fig-1.jpg (39KB, 669x395px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 669x395px

>>8887222

File: 08122015-gmd-fig-1.jpg (33KB, 684x463px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 684x463px

>>8887222
a

File: 1493330194234.png (2MB, 1147x1125px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1147x1125px

>>8887202
>Believing in the Clathrate Gun meme

>>8887720
*tips*

M'lady.

>>8887245
>everything else is unsubstantiated bullshit and not science.
>not science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)

is a very real mechanism to geoengineer

there's a reason why scientists don't talk about it though, but if indians are starving/in danger of starvation, they'll do it

with unknown consequences

>>8887098
Oh, and some other people will come further north from the south since you fucked up their climate, but I guess you're fine with that or otherwise you wouldn't have fucked it up in the first place

>>8887986
Cheap labour brah.

Desperate people work for dick

>>8888001
But Trump wants to build a wall to cut off the US from cheap labor...

>>8887303
>no mention of which RCP would lead to this outcome
>anything but alarmism

>>8887072
It means solar energy will be viable since more sunlight energy can pass through the atmosphere without being wasted.

We use that to fuel all the air conditioners and fans and we're golden.

File: pnm-remixed.jpg (109KB, 1400x1050px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1400x1050px

>>8887986
The term "Global South" is a misnomber, the Pentagon now uses the term "Non-Integrated Gap" since most political instability and emigration comes from this region.

File: 2_map416.gif (14KB, 416x281px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 416x281px

>>8888131
And here's immigration/emigration

>>8887072
400/300 is 133, so it is a 30% higher peak materially

>>8887372
jetstreams did change substantially

Unless we find a way to capture CO2 efficiently from the atmosphere soon, we're fucked.

>>8888136
>2002
>>>/his/

>>8887098
this.

>>8887222
underground farms powered by solar panels if needed.

>>8887986
trump wall m8.

>>8888136
Time to destroy the west through mass migration from failed states

Liberals see nothing wrong with this
That all the shitholes of the world are exporting millions of people to ruin successful countries

>>8887098

> and some poor people will die

Politicians have convinced brainlets like you that it won't affect your life and that only some poor Africans will get hurt. That couldn't be further from the truth.

>>8888495

2-3 degrees temperature increase wont hurt northern developed countries much. They will get warmer but will still be well inside livable climate and can easily deal with changes in weather.

The only way it can endanger those countries is through mass immigration of people from equatorial regions.

>>8888505
>2-3 degrees

will turn half of Spain into a desert.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/global-warming-could-turn-southern-spain-into-a-desert/

>>8888505
Yeah but hurricane and shit

>>8888521
the bedouins will win in the end

neat

>>8887217
A note on this. It has been observed that methane concentrations in the atmosphere have not really changed, even though there's more methane being put into the atmosphere. It has been theorized that there's a currently unknown mechanism for atmospheric degradation of methane into CO2 and water. This is something being currently researched.

>>8887245
>He also conveniently ignores the fact a net global warming of the earth will boost agriculture

The whole "global warming is good for plants and agriculture" line of thinking is so skewed. More CO2 won't result in more plant growth because CO2 doesn't limit growth to begin with. More areas open to agriculture doesn't matter when a host of other factors are driving lower yield.

For ever new agricultural zone opened up by warming, another is closed via getting too hot. All our established farming practices will have to be upended and reorganized.

Global warming causes more extreme weather. This means more periods of intense rain and more periods of intense drought, neither of which is good for sustained agricultural growth.

Warmer climates are also more conducive to pests and disease which wipe out crops.

>>8888798
>a currently unknown mechanism for atmospheric degradation of methane into CO2 and water.

Doesn't sound especially reassuring.

>>8888809
plant leaves burn up at high uv index. there will also be solar related earthquakes and sinkholes more frequently. the fault lines will unzip one after opening fracture systems giving magma a chance to escape more easily.

It's really a strange thought.

There's been previous periods with similar CO2 levels in the air, but the climate was so vastly different.

I can't help but think we've done something big here. That will have significant consequences for the centuries to come. Unless we remove CO2 from the air, which frankly we should do - just to make sure.

>>8888884
>There's been previous periods with similar CO2 levels in the air, but the climate was so vastly different.
And there were no human beings

>>8888809
We will either have to...

1. Enforce draconian population controls to mantain our current standard of living.
OR
2. Sustain a massive drop in our standard of living to lower CO2 emissions. (For example breeding and eating insects instead of cattle farming or restricting industrial manufacturing)
OR
3. Dump billions in funding to research alternative energy sources, hydroponic farming and ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
OR
Any combination of these three.

The future looks bleak no matter how you look at it. Climate change deniers will be seen like flat earthers in the future.

A way of life, a form of human existance with senseless expansion is coming to an end.

>>8888884
Yes, remove all the CO2 from the air and check out what happens to biomass. Hint: It dies.

I can't wait for global warming to fuck everything up because then shit'll actually change

>>8888984
He didn't say "all" smartass.

>>>>8888888

>>8888809

>More CO2 won't result in more plant growth because CO2 doesn't limit growth to begin with.

But it does you dumby-dumb. CO2 rich atmosphere is even used for increasing plant growth sometimes

>>8889051
>But it does
CO2 is only ONE factor for plant growth. And very rarely the limiting one.

>CO2 rich atmosphere is even used for increasing plant growth sometimes
Yes, in greenhouses with fertilized soils where every other nutrient the plants need are a plenty.

>>8889191
But that's wrong. Everything in a plants cycle is driven by CO2, thus they grow larger with more CO2.

It's the same reason bugs were significantly larger millions of years ago; when the oxygen levels of the atmosphere were much higher than they are now.

>>8889444
>Everything in a plants cycle is driven by CO2, thus they grow larger with more CO2.
No.

File: Buttery goodness.jpg (65KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 512x512px

>>8889444
CO2 is necessary but not sufficient for plant growth. it's not the ONLY thing they need, and in most cases outside of greenhouses, it's not the thing they're in shortest supply of (and hence limited by).
cakes are made with flour, but more flour only allows you to bake more cakes if you have sufficient supply of eggs, milk, sugar, etc.

>It's the same reason bugs were significantly larger millions of years ago; when the oxygen levels of the atmosphere were much higher than they are now.
that's also not entirely correct.
higher oxygen levels do help, but another major reason was a lack of aerial predators besides insects; Meganeura could afford to have a wingspan over a yard because there were no birds to pluck it out of the sky. even terrestrial arthropods (such as Arthropleura) benefited from different patterns of predation.

>>8889444
Wrong. The #1 limiter in the real world is WATER. By the time we get to 450 ppm CO2 / 2C, the subtropic 23.5-40 latitudes will lose 50%-75% of annual rain.

>>8887072
Weren't C02 levels really high during prehistoric times?

File: trees.jpg (168KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1080x1920px

>>8888164

>>8888486
>underground farms
oh wow and I thought the Trump wall was unrealistic

>>8888798
>currently unknown mechanism for atmospheric degradation of methane into CO2 and water

How is that a mystery

[math]
CH_4 + 2 \cdot O_2 = CO_2 + 2 \cdot H_2O
[/math]

>>8889909
>typical vapid "Gotcha!" argument
people who use these need to be exterminated

>>8889921
Because someone did the math on how long it takes for that reaction to happen at different temperatures, and there is less co2 present in the atmosphere than there should be based on that reaction alone.

So there is some unknown catalyst speeding the reaction.

I'd like to see the citation.

>>8889937
correction
*CH4, not CO2

I'm planning to buy a gun before things get too bad so I'll have a way of gently offing myself if the time comes.

Weren't C02 levels 4 times higher during prehistoric times than they are now?

>>8889949
Yes, during the Cretaceous period, coinciding with extreme warmth and climate. A climate which humans and the ecology we rely on were never adapted to live in.

>>8889971
Then instead of trying to prevent the climate from changing, why aren't we hastily working on a means of survival in such a climate? Instead of rushing to leave this planet before this climate kills us or holding back nature, why don't we adapt to underwater life or a climate of extreme warmth?

>>8889978
Scientists underestimated the stupidity of the the consumers.

Everyone thought it would be easier to just change our ways.

They should have been right, but instead they were very very wrong.

>>8889978
>adapt to underwater life

kek

You go first anon, step into the ocean and "adapt" to underwater life, just don't hold your breath underwater and you'll surely adapt!

>>8889984
You don't think we could use genetics to enhance our lungs to have gill like properties or something of that nature? Even then we wouldn't even need gills, if we adapted to the pressure, we could probably build a sort of Atlantis in the ocean considering we can create oxygen where there is none. If we can expand out to space, we can surely expand down into the oceans.

>>8889978
>Then instead of trying to prevent the climate from changing, why aren't we hastily working on a means of survival in such a climate?
Why would you put out that fire on the stove when you can simply adapt to living on the street after your house burns down?

>>8889991
It's already happening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzNeg9D-EZ4

It's so fantastical

>>8889991
Yes, surely that is a more practical solution than simply emitting less CO2...

>>8889995
CO2 will still be emitted though, and the planet will not destroyed as a result so I would consider that more practical though.

It would be easier to adapt to different environmental conditions than to constantly regulate the C02 content in the air for XXX years.

>>8890002
>It would be easier to adapt to different environmental conditions than to constantly regulate the C02 content in the air for XXX years.
No it clearly wouldn't.

>>8890010
So you would rather be forced to regulate air content for the rest of your life, then usher in an age of discovery to expand human limitations?

>>8890017
I would rather regulate air content and usher in an age of discovery while enjoying temperate climates, land, and agriculture. You are doing nothing but presenting false dichotomies.

>>8890017
Your house is on fire!
Do you A: Remove the source of fuel, and then try to extinguish the flames.
Or B: Explore the limits of human fire resistance?

>>8889978
What is wrong with you

I can't wait for another permafrost thawing induced anthrax outbreak.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/28/anthrax-sickens-13-in-western-siberia-and-a-thawed-out-reindeer-corpse-may-be-to-blame/


But we don't need to stop global warming. No big deal. I really hope it's smallpox or better yet some crazy ass XDR tuberculosis.

>>8890149
I really hope next*

File: 1493757836601.jpg (63KB, 640x698px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x698px

>>8887072
Post yfw alarmists get BTFO

>>8890149
it's a fact that people find and culture old bacteria from the ice by the way

so this is a possibility, that ancient anthrax can reappear

>>8890122
What do you mean?

>>8887072
not a big deal

>i believe humans are going to cause the sea level to rise

top zozzle

>>8892645
your mum causes it to rise 10 metres whenever she goes swimming at the beach

>>8892976
Your mom is so fat they are planning to launch her into space and use her as a solar shade.

>>8893293
your mam is so fat she agreed to have sex with me

>>8890149
>Sips carbonated beverage
Alarmist predictions have never come true but we'll keep making them anyway.

>>8893389
Good thing that it's not a prediction but an observed phenomenon.
Oh yeah, here's one of my favorite studies on reviving microbes from frigid environments:

http://m.pnas.org/content/104/33/13455.full
Although it's Antarctica and not Siberian permafrost, we have observed bacteria (albeit a bit limitedly due to DNA degradation) undergoing metabolism after being dormant for EIGHT MILLION YEARS. IIRC they didn't even have endospores like Bacillus or Clostridium species do.
It also links to similar studies done in some Antarctic subglacial lakes.

>>8893389
>an observation is a prediction
anthrax is pretty alarming

>>8893431
Reply was meant for another post.

File: CMIPGisTemp.png (30KB, 983x754px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 983x754px

>>8893389
>Alarmist predictions have never come true

>>8887191
>point of no return
wasn't there some research into binding atmospheric CO2? like artificial photosynthesis or something?

File: CC_global carbon cycle.png (7KB, 400x222px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 400x222px

>>8893492
Haven't heard of anything that can deal with gigatons/year

>>8889909
>>8889926
ok but imagine how fucking dope it would be if every tree WAS a wifi station

File: JPL-20161110-OCOs-0045-OCO2_XCO2_Krig_20160920_to_20162005_s.jpg (53KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 960x540px

Why the southern oceans?

>>8893615
seasonal variation?

>>8893669
>seasonal
Sept. 2014 - Oct. 2016
all seasons

This is you daily reminder that global warming is a net benefit to humanity and our planet

File: 1487609104811.jpg (33KB, 339x495px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 339x495px

and so is CO2

>tfw believe in global warming but I'm ideologically opposed to Democrats/modern liberals

Welp. I guess we are just fucked.

>>8888505
You realize that's an aggregate rise of 2-3 degrees which is way bigger than you think it is. There will be way more extreme highs and lows, which ducks the entire everything up

Convince me that global warming is more important than all of my other beliefs because that is what it will take for me to switch sides.

>>8893615

There is more ocean in the southern hemisphere compared to the north.

>>8894862
You don't need to switch side. The US and Australia need to catch up with the rest of the world and deal with this as a bipartisan issue like most of Europe is.

File: atmospheric CO2 graph.jpg (21KB, 600x463px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 600x463px

>>8887072
For perhaps some context, here is a graph that is shows the actual part CO2 comprises in the atmosphere, rather than zooming in on the small range such as in OP's graph that allows fluctuations to be seen more clearly.

For simplicity's sake, I've just graphed the extreme low on OP's graph, and the extreme high.

As can be seen, CO2 has grown from an almost totally insignificant part of the atmosphere to become an almost insignificant part of the atmosphere.

To the extent that one wanted to trace anthropogenic influence on climate, it might be worthwhile (though possibly much harder) to track more potent greenhouse gasses, such as methane, and to try and understand the effects of H2O as a gas and as a condensate (clouds) on temperature and heat retention over time.

CO2 is a red herring.

>>8887098
>It will get a little bit warmer and some poor people will die.

But in colder countries, where winter cold is deadly, some poor and elderly people will live instead of die.

Just a thought.

Any sort of change has positive and negative impacts. Due to the politicization of climate science (or at least of reporting of climate science) the pros and cons are not both being considered. Considering only part of the information leads to bad decision making.

>>8887949
Keep engineers away from our earth systems.
They've fucked us up enough already

>>8887284
He may have been noting that different forms of measurement, with different accuracy, may not be able to be reliably displayed as one continuous data line on a graph.

>>8887287
>If you look both ways when you cross the street you must not believe in god.

The Lord helps those who help themselves.

>>8887312
>we need to actively pull carbon out of the air and oceans. into stable solid or liquid form. then make sure it doesn't become co2 or methane again for centuries.

Ban Kindles and shit, and everybody build up a substantial library of paper books.

>>8887695
>literally no one knows exactly what the long term consequences will be.

Except the climate avtivists, on both sides, who claim to know EXACTLY what it will be. They don't, of course.

>The precautionary principle should in effect, but the consumers literally could not give a fuck.

But the precautionary principle must be applied with some discretion -- absolute adherence leads to everybody hiding in the basement in the dark until the starve or freeze.

Bear in mind that the precautionary prionciple can cut both ways. Allowing the climate to change from human activity MAY lead to very bad consequences -- but then, so may the economically crippling actions being advocated to address it. The PP indicates that we can't do either, if accepted blindly. But we will have to do one, or the other, or some other, intermediate, course of action which also entails some risks.

Risk is unavoidable -- using the PP to declare the risks associated with policy you don't like to be the only ones worth considering leads to bad policy.

>>8888837
>solar related earthquakes

Wait, global warming is making the sun heavier?

>>8889689
>Meganeura could afford to have a wingspan over a yard because there were no birds to pluck it out of the sky.

That seems speculative in the extreme. Unless you posit a lot of rocs flying around, the addition of birds to the predation pattern is not going to have much impact on a three-foot bug.

>>8889909
Implying forests are not usually neutral in O2 and CO2 production.consumption.

Implying I care anything about greentext "implication" conventions.

>>8896341
>forests are not usually neutral

they are sinks brainlet >>8893532

File: x.jpg (78KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 736x736px

>>8894862

>>8893431
>Good thing that it's not a prediction but an observed phenomenon.

What will happen in the future is not an observed phenomenon. Statements claiming to reveal what will happen in the future are indeed predictions.

Since much of the thread (and the climate discussion in general) center around warnings about what will happen in the future, much of the thread and discussion center around predictions.

Models for short-term prediction have been iffy, and the tendency of advocates and media to seize the most alarming extreme predictions and trumpet those have aided in creating a climate, for want of a better word, in which too many now regard any and all predictions on the topic as motivated more by media or political interests and less by actual science.

In effect, the Al Gores of the world, by saying crazy shit about what is about to happen, which a few years later can be seen not have happened, do a lot of damage to any fact-based efforts to mobilize public opinion and will to make any needed changes.

>>8894840
Fucking ducks ruin everything.

>>8896300
If you want to address global warming without draconian economic consequences, you may need to rethink your stand on engineers.

>>8896290
>Clouds
I hope you're not one of those retards who don't know what rain is.

>>8896304
>The Lord helps those who help themselves.
What a deluded psychotic religious fanatic consumer.

What is your position on gluttony?

>>8896366
Riiiiight...

If geoengineering ever starts, you know we are well and truly fucked.

>>8887072
I AM


in a world
of SHIT


7,62 ppt
FULL
GLOBAL
WARMING

File: image.jpg (126KB, 592x966px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 592x966px

>ITT climate alarmists predict things that never turn out to be true
God you useful idiots are predicable, what ever your prophets in the media and (((pop science))) say you just regurgitate it out like a zealot
If like to see just one of your predictions be correct without "tweaking" (manipulating) the data

File: image.gif (56KB, 333x512px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 333x512px

Now watch, I'm going to be attacked as a heretic for daring to show you how bad your "predictions" have been

File: arctic melt.gif (4MB, 264x136px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 264x136px

>>8887072

>>8896931
witch! burn him at a stake!
>if you die you're innocent

>>8896294
This is not how it works

>>8887245
>believing the denialist creed
fgt pls

>>8896921
>>8896931
> Citing a newspaper using an appeal to authority as a source
> Implying a few incorrect predictions invalidate the mountain of peer reviewed research suggesting otherwise

But it's probably all part of that enormous international conspiracy undone for the good of humanity by a couple of plucky oil billionaires, right?

Go back to your subreddit.

>>8896931
>But Climate Experts
Sullivan just stop pls

>>8897040
Show me a single prediction that has been correct and they can make correctly again, otherwise it's pseudoscience

File: 1487997007907.png (1MB, 2633x1350px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2633x1350px

>>8897371
>Show me a single prediction that has been correct
Loudly shouting "I DON'T READ" really isn't going to make your case more convincing.

>>8897502
>Loudly shouting "I DON'T READ" really isn't going to make your case more convincing.
Oh look, more predictions!
Also I love how the data only goes to 1990, didn't know we only had records going back that far, makes me wonder why climate alarmists were predicting an ice age a few decades ago, and gave up once that didn't happen

File: CC_trends_anthro.png (422KB, 1520x1230px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1520x1230px

>>8897371

>>8898056
>makes me wonder why climate alarmists were predicting an ice age a few decades ago, and gave up once that didn't happen
That never happened.
You're really not doing a good job of convincing me that you've read anything at all about the subject.

File: image.jpg (305KB, 750x1229px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 750x1229px

>>8898206
>using IPCC as a legitimate source
Nice, so the manipulated data shows exactly what you want it to show, shocking!
https://www.masterresource.org/site/uploads/2010/03/Section_VIIa1.pdf

File: image.jpg (160KB, 906x470px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 906x470px

>>8898758
>That never happened.
Why do you deny reality that conflicts with your religious belief in "man made climate change"?
I can find dozens of more articles, why do you think this claim was never made? History shows you're completely ignorant on the subject

File: 1890.jpg (9KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x250px

>>8898775

Is there an actual report that can be cited? I have heard this claim myself but I wouldn't trust anyone speaking about a scientific topic that has a (assuming) degree if journalism.

>>8898771
IPCC is actually too conservative in its estimates

>>8898803
>too conservative
this is why
https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=8m30s

>>8887191
I thought we were already past the point of no return. Why are climate predictions constantly shifting?

>>8893492
I heard about something that was easily scalable and converted atmospheric CO2 into ethanol or some fuel thing. Did that get debunked? It was being reported by reputable sources.

>>8898787
My mom was deathly afraid of the coming ice age. Dad would make fun of it all. But it was THE popsci of the time. Now alarmists want to pretend that scare never really happened. By saying no 'real' scientist supported it as they prop up up Nye, Gore, and any idiot who pays them lip service to the new fear mongering. It's history repeating.

>>8898814
>hurr I can't use context to separate two things that sound similar

>>8887245
>the fact a net global warming of the earth will boost agriculture in areas that are right now inaccessible, but factors into his analysis the loss of agriculture in regions negatively affected by climate change.

Just because the air heats up doesn't mean the plants are getting more sunlight, moron, and they won't be, unless somehow the earth stops tilting.

>>8896304
basically I do all the work, and God gets all the credit

>>8898831
>I heard about something that was easily scalable and converted atmospheric CO2 into ethanol or some fuel thing. Did that get debunked? It was being reported by reputable sources.

There are catalytic reactions that do this, but their development is still in its infancy. Iceland is doing it though, but not with atmospheric CO2. They're hydrogenating the CO2 produced in smelting plants using the preexisting excess of electricity to electrolyze water as a hydrogen source.

http://carbonrecycling.is/

>>8898787
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.lQIMPOw7.1oTZDzem.dpbs

>>8899086
The first example of a "global cooling" paper given says that aroesols cause cooling. Most of the rest are about aerosol cooling as well. Deniers are so fucking dishonest.

File: cooling.png (243KB, 802x1176px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 802x1176px

>>8899086
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

>>8899086
>http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.lQIMPOw7.1oTZDzem.dpbs
Just stop.
That list has been pulled apart enough times it's no longer funny. A third of those papers are discussing the 1940-1970 period, and third are discussing aerosol forcings, and the remainder aren't papers at all but newspaper articles.