1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. We produce a lot of CO2.
3. ???
4. Earth is hotter now.

In the short-term, we can attribute most warming to mankind. That's not to say that it will lead to some catastrophic event, but it's hard to deny we're causing warming.

>inb4 gorefags flame you for saying anything against him

>how "man made"

current estimate is between four and five percent for the man made part

that does *not* mean we should waste energy

>newscientist
>some non-peer reviewed magazine
And I should care because?

>>4115553
Even if it's semi-catastrophic, FUCK YEAR SCIENCE will protect us.

Sure, some primitive cultures might suffer. Shame.

If you want to talk about climate change using perspective, you are better off comparing how it's changed over the last 100k or million years than over 500 million years.

Shit like this is why geologists tend to be very cynical about the whole anthropogenic side of global warming. Its been colder before. Its been much hotter before. Sea levels have been much lower, and have also been much much higher.

Yes, conservation and alternate energy things are good to invest in, and research in, but the whole 'OMG the world will end if we dont change stuff right now!' shtick makes me roll my eyes because they seem to ignore climate change on the large geologic scale.

Climate change even in ancient human history can be noted. Look at the ancient descriptions of Isreal, and compare that with today. I even went to a talk a few weeks ago where a geologist who had done field work in western Egypt described how they found ancient human tools on these large bluffs, in the middle of a huge desert, where there probably wasn't anyone besides the expedition for 200+ miles. They noted that on the bluffs, there were in fact, lake terraces, and those ancient lake terraces are where the found the ancient stone tools.

The world is a dynamic place and I have doubts as to how large the effect of humans really is. I have no doubt that we do have an effect, but I feel climatologists really overstate it.

>>4115659
The fact that the world has been hotter or colder doesn't change the fact that the current flora and fauna inhabiting Earth are adapted to the cold trend which has existed up until now, just as previous species were better adapted to live in a warmer climate. The problem is when the shift occurs, and what accompanies that. Namely, a whole lot of stuff dying out, even more than usual. That's the worry, not that the world will end. The world will go on, it will be just fine, it's a big old hunk of rock. The problem is the amount of stuff currently living on the Earth that won't follow suit. We're still reliant on a lot of things for food. Crops, fish stocks, and so on. If the world changes such that those things have a harder time living on it, then we have a harder time living on it. Which is a bad thing.

>>4115688

Life has adapted before. And we, as a species, happen to be very good at adapting to stuff. Hell, life in general is pretty damn good at adapting to change.

>>4115701
> Life has adapted before.
Which takes a lot of time and trial and error. And dying. A whole lot of dying.

Evolution is actually really messy when it comes right down to it.

>>4115705
>implying evolution is still a viable concept in modern times

We can genetically modify both crops and animals to be better suited to our environments, evolution is now invalid.

>>4115732

>my lack of a face when you understanding nothing about farming or how temperatures affect yields and the difficulty of making up for loss of production in previously productive regions

Jesus fuck, I actually do have to ask this question every single fucking day on this fucking board but, WHERE DO DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS LIKE YOU COME FROM?

An avalanche of motherfucking schmucks who thinks they can dominate problems and difficulties with their PIETIES CLOAKED IN THEIR PITHY AND INACCURATE WITTICISMS.

>>4115732
Which takes time, money, and effort. Also, a lot of people in the world don't have access to that kind of technology, and will suffer greatly because of it.

The sad thing is that industrialized nations, which are the most to blame for the current warming, are the most insulated for the negative effects. The people who will suffer the most are those living in nations that lack the advanced agricultural technology of the industrialized world, who incidentally have had the least to do with causing the problem.

The rich make mistakes, and the poor pay for it, as usual.

>>4115744
>WHERE DO DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS LIKE YOU COME FROM?

high school and community college

It's kind of stupid to show up with million year graphs if the subject is the recent warming of the last 100 years.
That time span isn't even a pixel there, it isn't even a thousand of a pixel.
1 degree in a 100 years is a thousand times more rapid than any of the warming in the graphs you provide.

>>4115793

Prove it.

Oh wait, you can't. Because past the cenozoic, or hell, even past the Eocene, there isnt enough resolution in the data available to know that the earth hasn't had such changes before. Id be willing to bet that during one of the major volcanic events that has happened in the past (Deccan plateau, that other big russian basalt field, etc) you could have very well had similar, temporary, jumps in temperature.

>>4115766
indeed. which is why im electing the nearest poverty stricken man for president next election. he'd know how to fix 'er up

>>4115744
Actually it's people like you who think global warming will have any meaningful short-term affects that are uneducated.

It's completely reasonable that 200 years down the road, when temperatures actually do start to affect our world, that we'll have overcome all such difficulties.

>>4117893
uneducated non-scientist detected

>>4116543
the Deccan Traps are of course linked to one of the largest extinction events in the history of life on Earth.

ah, a paleoclimate thread.

OP man, all of those warm periods happened during times of highly elevated CO2.

since sunspots and water vapor fluctuations and particulate dimming and orbital cycles were similar then to now, and the major difference between hot and cold times is CO2 content of the air...

we know that a shitload of the current warming is man made, because we're the fucks dumping CO2 into the air and pretending not to know it caused all those past warming events.

>>4117920
Any basis for that claim?

Global warming is a problem for the future generations, not for current generations. We have the technology right now to curb global warming by reducing CO2 emissions, it's just too expensive and quite honestly it's not worth bankrupting nations just to save a handful of species that are incapable of adapting to small variations in temperature (hint: they're going to go extinct someday anyways).

In many years, however, that technology will be much cheaper and petrol prices much higher. Which will of course lead to changes. For example right now batteries are both too inefficient and too costly to make sense for the global automobile market, however if petrol prices keep rising it will be merely years until batteries start becoming profitable - at which point petrol cars will become less abundant, lowering CO2 levels on Earth... Same goes for almost all petroleum based technology.

First off, OP, if I understand your argument, it basically goes like this:

Warming happened before humans
Warming is happening now
Warming cannot be caused by humans

This is simply a non-sequitur. To understand why, simply replace "warming" with something else:

Forest fires happened before humans
Forest fires are happening now
Forest fires cannot be caused by humans

The reason why we know that present global warming is caused by humans is because we know that the gases we're putting in the atmosphere (CO2, methane, etc.) block IR radiation. This is century-old physics, which you can test in a lab i.e

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

Also, there is no other viable explanation for the warming that has been observed.

>>4117974

>This is century-old physics, which you can test in a lab

The physics of the hypothesis that CO2 is a primary climate forcing demand that the atmosphere warm faster than the surface precisely because of the mechanism to which you alluded.

This has not happened. The hypothesis fails immediately.

>>4117997

>The physics of the hypothesis that CO2 is a primary climate forcing demand that the atmosphere warm faster than the surface precisely because of the mechanism to which you alluded.

Come on people, this is /sci/, we use citations when making claims like these.

>>4117974
Not quite.

If you had a graph of "forest fires per year" for millions of years and you saw little increase from the time in which man learned how to wield fire, you'd naturally come to the conclusion that most forest fires are natural.

In this case it's not so cut and dry, though it does seem like we've had quite a long cold period compared to other time periods. Man is certainly causing warming by dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, however the real questions is --> Does it matter?

A better question is --> Without mans influence on the climate, would we currently be in an ice-age? And the answer to that is probably.

>>4118021
>If you had a graph of "forest fires per year" for millions of years and you saw little increase from the time in which man learned how to wield fire, you'd naturally come to the conclusion that most forest fires are natural.

Wrong. Without further information, you'd have no way to determine whether the "little increase" is man-made or natural.

>A better question is --> Without mans influence on the climate, would we currently be in an ice-age? And the answer to that is probably.

Actually, we probably weren't due for another ice age in thousands of years. With all the CO2 in the atmosphere, we probably won't be seeing it for much longer.

>>4118014

Actually, /sci/ is a place where we demand citations only when someone says something with which we disagree.

That statement was true.

"Unlike the land surface, the atmosphere showed no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data. And did you know that the climate models, run on super-computers, all show that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface. What does this tell you?"

-Letter from Dr Fred Singer to the Washington Post

Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia.
Specialty is space and atmospheric physics.
Expert in remote sensing and satellites.
Served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service.
Served as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.

>>4115540
Cool, how many humans were around then?

>>4118058

Oh dear oh dear. Really? This is the best you can do? A letter from a retired industry shill stating that there is no warming at all?

How about scientific papers? How about direct measurements? (pic)

>>4118039
I never made a claim about a "little increase", just that most would be regarded as natural... Re-read. OP's question was just not a "non-sequitor" as you imagined.

And maybe "headed towards" an ice age would have been a better phrase to use. Though perhaps without mans influence over the last 5,000 or so years it could be argued that we'd be much colder then we currently are.

>>4118083
>I never made a claim about a "little increase", just that most would be regarded as natural.

But you never explained why would "most" be regarded as natural. OP's question is a non-sequitur because you cannot attribute present change by looking at past temperatures.

>>4118058
our satellite data are vulnerable to any argument that points out the fact that we've been using satellites to accurately measure temperatures for less time than most people here have been alive.

>>4118102
>OP's question is a non-sequitur because you cannot attribute present change by looking at past temperatures.

except that is the basis of anthropogenic climate theory.

we look at what caused past changes, we then surmise that if we mimic those causalities artificially we will produce similar changes.

OP isn't wrong, CO2 driven change has occured over and over again without us. That doesn't mean that the CO2 we produce is somehow magically different just because we made it.

>>4118102
Are you honestly saying we can't use past trends to predict future trends?

OP's question is not non-sequitor because the question was asked based on a past trend. As I have already stated, it's not cut-and-dry because the CO2 we've emitted certainly causes warming, but again, not non-sequitor - try again. I'm just pointing out that the analogy in 4117974 is just plain stupid.

>>4118133
Everyone knows Human CO2 is vastly superior to any animal based CO2.

Our CO2 would never cause global warming.

>>4118133
>except that is the basis of anthropogenic climate theory.

No. the basis of AGW is radiative physics.

>CO2 driven change has occured over and over again without us.

This is true. But how do we know that? Because we've measured that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

You cannot prove causation from correlation.

>>4118141

>Are you honestly saying we can't use past trends to predict future trends?

Obviously. That's why climate predictions are done by climate models. That doesn't mean that peleoclimatic studies are useless, but there is no need to resort to them to demonstrate that CO2 warming is real.

>>4115688
>1c warmer

>>4118150
lol
b4 anyone takes your jest seriously though- it wasn't animals that released the CO2 that triggered those past warming trends. Each warming period was accompanied by either major mountain building or mountain eroding events that released almost as much CO2 in several million years as we have in a century.

>>4118178
Man should not be afraid of inferior sources of CO2.

>>mfw the problem is the outrageous human population explosion of the last two centuries and a mass human extinction is a natural result of limiting resource availability

lrn2 population dynamics, we need this event so that only useful humans will survive said catastrophe/hardships

>>4118167
>No. the basis of AGW is radiative physics.
hardly.
the mechanics of greenhouse gasses is one basis, climatology in general rests on geological history. The greenhouse effect is only one player in a very large game... though an important one.

>CO2 driven change has occured over and over again without us.

>This is true. But how do we know that? >Because we've measured that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
and because we've measured other potential variables and ruled them out.

>You cannot prove causation from correlation.
lol
science can't "prove" anything, it is inductive.
we regularly demonstrate causation via correlation, it's the only method at our disposal.

>>4115766
Ecofags confirmed for West-hating Marxists

>>4118188

Ok, so let me get this straight:

Humans die because of lack of resources (speculative) = bad

but

Humans die because of global warming (less speculative) = good

Because this will somehow select who is and who isn't useful? What are you smoking?

>>4118204
Do you know what the fuck a resource is???

Everyone is bitching about catastrophe and famine. Well fucking guess what, space, climate availability and food are goddamned resources.

No one is going to give two shits about consumerism in the face of a global crisis and dumbshits who live just to purchase and reproduce won't make it two fucking days without their gas station job and basic cable, leaving people with actual knowledge and talent to prosper.

"The curious thing about humans is that they are at their best when things are worst."

>>4118167
>>Obviously. That's why climate predictions are done by climate models.

Climate models are built and verified by modeling past trends... They're not very accurate at all, and constantly are "re-tuned" to fit with real data, but they certainly use past trends to model future trends...

I don't even know why I'm continuing this, again all I was pointing out was that an analogy used early was completely and utterly stupid.

>>4118194
>the mechanics of greenhouse gasses is one basis, climatology in general rests on geological history.

Without an understanding of radiative physics, there would be no way to build a functional model of climate. No model = no predictions.

>and because we've measured other potential variables and ruled them out.

And how did we do that, with a time machine? We don't have many historical measurements, most of our knowledge comes from reconstructions.

>>4118078

You see those last 10 years in your pic? You see how there's no warming?

None of the models predicted that. They all failed.

>>4118227
> leaving people with actual knowledge and talent to prosper

They won't prosper without capital, moron.

The capitalists don't need to employ your sort of yuppie nightmare any longer. Sanjay does just as well for 1/3rd of the money.

>>4118248
Implying consumerism = capitalism

>>4118229

>Climate models are built and verified by modeling past trends... They're not very accurate at all, and constantly are "re-tuned" to fit with real data, but they certainly use past trends to model future trends...

Sorry, you have no idea how climate modelling works. See here, for example:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/

>Are climate models just a fit to the trend in the global temperature data?

>No. Much of the confusion concerning this point comes from a misunderstanding stemming from the point above. Model development actually does not use the trend data in tuning (see below). Instead, modellers work to improve the climatology of the model (the fit to the average conditions), and it’s intrinsic variability (such as the frequency and amplitude of tropical variability). The resulting model is pretty much used ‘as is’ in hindcast experiments for the 20th Century.

>>4118233
>Without an understanding of radiative physics, there would be no way to build a functional model of climate.
I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm trying to help you understand more. Quantum mechanics tells us almost nothing about behaviors of materials on fuckhuge scales in classical physics.

it's even more useless when forcing is overcome by dimming or albedo or other gasses or Milankovich Cycles or any of the thousands of real variables that affect climate. We build models based on observed climate, not just physics. The physics model never matches up with reality completely, and small errors become huge problems when extrapolating so far.

>And how did we do that, with a time machine? We don't have many historical measurements, most of our knowledge comes from reconstructions.

yes, we have proxies for almost any climate variable you can imagine. If you're actually interested I'd love to talk about some... however I've got a couple hours of work I need to do atm.

I'm on your side anon, I just don't want you thinking the science is other than what it is. Physics has little to do with observing or predicting climate.

'm building me a rocket ship
To go where womerns don't give no lip
I'ma blastin off
Baby I'm Venus bound

I've lost my patience with the womerns here
I'm bustin out of this atmosphere
I'm a haulin' ass
Baby I'm Venus bound

I stole a jet plan moter form the surplus yard
I'm gonna strap the thang on to my Cadillac car
I got some nuclear fuel from the power plant on the day they was closed for a meltdown

I gotta oxygen tank and a fireproof suit
A motorcylce hemet and some freeze dried fruit
I'm building me a big ol' launch pad too
Tomorrow I'm commencin' countdown

I'ma blastin off to that Venus place
I'll be the only country-western troubadour in space

I'm building me a rocket ship to go where womerns don't give no lip
I'ma hauling ass baby i'm Venus bound

>>4118259

Realclimate is a propaganda machine. Don't get information from there.

They delete honestly constructive questions if they don't conform to doctrine.

>>4118270
Hell yeah boy sing it.
Peace

>>4118234

You're cherry-picking the temperature trends

(see pic)

...

>>4118234

...

And you're wrong about model trends, too.

>>4118264

I don't know what else to say. We've been able to predict global warming when we had almost no observations of climate (e.g. Arrhenius), but whatever. Just please don't go around telling people that climate science has little to do with physics. That's really not helping.

>>4115601
>>4115601
>>4115601
This.

>>4118304
meh, I'm not here to convert unbelievers. You can't teach someone something they're paid not to understand. Especially true with religionfags that think they're earning eternal riches.

I'm looking for understanding of how things work, and perhaps ideas to improve them. Physics gives us a great model of how things SHOULD work in a deterministic system. We can then take that prediction and compare it to the chaos that is reality to guage which things we've overlooked or underestimated. In that regard it's useful. And when you get down to the reductionist truth geology IS physics. But in this case reality is the benchmark against which quantum mechanics is measured, and it generally fails by itself, or provides answers so broad as to be useless. There's no need to lie amongst ourselves, climatology is just the extrapolation of paleoclimatology. Physics tells us how, history tells us what.

I don't think the point is that it's all anthropogenic or that it's been hotter or colder before and thus it doesn't matter what we do. The point is that, yes we have contributed to artificially rising temperatures, which will actually make the inevitable next ice age transition a steep gradient and not a smooth one as expected. Humans did great during the last ice age, though, and we'll fare fine during the next. It'll just be, you know, an uncomfortable interim.

>>4118549
the next ice age is about 5000 years from now.

there probably won't be humans by then.

Give me 10 billion dollar a year for 10 years. I will reverse the co2 level trend.

>>4117943

In my college class we talked about the warming and cooling trends, but it was noted that the rise in C02 levels only correlated with the rise in temperatures. It didn't visibly proceed temperature rise.
So it could be argued that rising CO2 is actually caused by global warming.
And I'm thinking along the lines of decline in plant life like algae...but I need to do more research

>>4118624
>So it could be argued that rising CO2 is actually caused by global warming.

Yes, that's actually true, the initial forcing rarely comes from CO2, it usually works as a feedback, see here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4.html#6-4-1

>>4118624
it goes both ways.
warming temperatures cause the oceans and to a lesser extent the land to release large quantities of CO2.

in this case CO2 is a dependent variable, in that the increase in temperature causes the rise in CO2.

However you'll also find that CO2 can be released by processes that don't depend as much on temperature... erosion of carbonate rocks or long-lasting volcanic eruptions can both produce huge amounts of CO2 over time and will happen even during cold times.

in these cases the CO2 is an independent variable, it doesn't depend on temperature as much for release.

human industrial sources of course are an independent variable as well, since we release CO2 whether it's hot or cold out.

the thing that worries us is that we could release enough CO2 to start a warming trend that causes the planet to release far more CO2 drastically changing things. This has happened in the past, relatively small releases of CO2 at the end of the Permian and the end of the Jurassic contributed to huge climate changes by setting off a feedback loop where CO2 caused warming and warming released more CO2.

>>4118657
thank you for that explanation.

But seriously... climate science is not for laymen, just like removing and disassembling your car's transmission is not for laymen. Actually, its way harder.

There is a principle involved here but I forgot what it was

Pictured: Ruins in Alaska in 300 years after we screw up so fucking bad that the Earth's temperature does return to what would be considered "high" in deep geologic time. My descendents will hunt the OP's descendents through the jungle, and eat almost all of them.

Shit's not so bad. If we wait long enough, Earth will self-correct and turn all the green stuff back into coal again.

>>411879

Such a temperature change is pretty unlikely - we probably have enough carbon in the ground to get there, but extracting it will become way too uneconomical at some point, even if all the climate talks go nowhere.

>>4118778
laughed a bit since I study paleoclimates sometimes and I've rebuilt a few automatic transmissions in my day.

Transmissions are several orders of magnitude simpler. Not that I recommend the average person attempt fixing one...

I didn't read the thread, but is there any reason the graph keeps leveling off at 25 degrees?

like....what?

>>4118915
Lack of resolution in the oxygen isotopes proxy used to determine temperatures, as well as disagreement within the community regarding the upper margin of error.

note that it goes above 25 at the End Permian extinction event, and also during the Early Eocene marine extinction event.

both of these times temperatures went so dang high we disagree on whether or not we're reading it correctly...

though in the first case almost all life on Earth was wiped out, and in the second case most life in the oceans died.

anyways, the proxy has a resolution of about 2 degrees, a margin of error +/- 1 degree, only measures in ~1million year increments, and has a fair amount of room for interpretation at the top end. Since the results over most of that time are pretty consistent we just choose a point in the range that we can conservatively agree on and call it that.

graphs with better resolution certainly exist, though some parts of them are still widely debated.

>>4118778
The Dunning–Kruger effect?

>incompetent people will:
>tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
>fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
>fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;

>>4118657
>CO2 to start a warming trend that causes the planet to release far more CO2
>end of the Permian
Volcanic eruptions blotting out the sun are not "small releases of CO2" you disingenuous fuckstain.
>end of the Jurassic
>thinks CO2 levels were higher in the Cretaceous period

>>4118949
It's also possible there's some "hard" ceiling for the surface temperature of earth.
Maybe some major change in wind and evaporation patterns that increases albedo massively as soon as the temperature crosses some threshold.
though we really, really don't want to hit that point.

>>4119733
I mean relatively small on a per/year basis compared to human emissions.

the Permian CO2 accumulation went on for tens of thousands of years, or tens of millions if you just count accumulations higher than present. At no point during that time did the emissions of the Siberian Traps and the weathering of Appalachian rocks produce CO2 faster than we do. The emissions on a year to year basis were pretty damn small.

It's doubtful the eruptions of the Traps blotted out the sun for any significant amount of time since one of the most prolific survivors of the P-T Event was photosynthetic cyanobacteria.

Likewise during the Jurassic, orogenies in California and elsewhere produced an extremely slow but steady increase in CO2 peaking in the Kimmeridgian/Tithonian with concentrations of about 3 times current. These emissions occurred over many tens of millions of years, and at no time did they occur at anything close to the rate we're currently dumping the stuff.

regarding the Cretaceous, CO2 was reduced from the Tithonian-Berriasian, but went right back up again. The vast majority of the period is marked by significantly elevated atmospheric CO2 compared to present.

on a side note, you're an idiot but thanks for reading.

>>4119757
there is certainly a practical ceiling, though we've broken it at least twice in the past that we know of. You are correct in saying albedo is the likely limiting factor. Cloud cover increases significantly during warm times.

it wouldn't be bad to hit that point over say 10million years time. Hitting it in a couple centuries will destroy most existing life though. We're still on track to find out the hard way.

>>4120628
>Kimmeridgian/Tithonian with concentrations of about 3 times current
7
>regarding the Cretaceous, CO2 was reduced from the Tithonian-Berriasian, but went right back up again.
Nope.
>The vast majority of the period is marked by significantly elevated atmospheric CO2 compared to present.
And?

>>4120728
>Hitting it in a couple centuries will destroy most existing life though.
Not even close. Tundra and taiga comprise almost 20% of the earth's land area, warming would be a massive boon to biodiversity.
>We're still on track to find out the hard way.
Unfortunately, we don't have anywhere near enough economically viable fossil fuels to continue this warming for more than 50 or so more years.

>>4119757
>though we really, really don't want to hit that point.
I actually think it would do some good to humanity to have a real "natural" disaster that durably force it out of its comfort zone.

>>4121158
>Tundra and taiga comprise almost 20% of the earth's land area, warming would be a massive boon to biodiversity.
Biodiversity increases when new species appear. New species do not appear in a few hundred years. They can disappear, though, and so biodiversity will take a significative cut because of that warming.

>>4121178

And how "real" would you like it to be? How about a runaway greenhouse warming? (think Venus)

>>4121101
the irony here being that if you provide sauce on your estimate for Late Jurassic climates you're going to end up quoting me back my own work or that of someone that referenced me.

it doesn't matter. If you're the anon I responded to you've contradicted your earlier comment completely, so I expect we're on the same page regarding the Upper Jurassic.

Cretaceous, whatever. Your denial doesn't change the body of evidence. I suspect you're one of the few idiots still clinging to Chatterjee's debunked hypothesis that dinosaurs became larger during the Cretaceous because of lower CO2 levels. Unfortunately foram and geothite proxies indicate less O2 and more CO2 for most of the period. Chatterjee is a hack.

The fact that you're concerned with availability of fossil fuels instead of climate sensitivity indicates you really haven't given this any thought.

1. global warming is bullshit and alotta scientists get payed off or threatened to continue this propaganda.
2. it benefits the global elite because it's just a scam to get tax dollars.
3. it's dumb to waste energy so at least it made us be more efficient so it's fine in that respect.

>>4121226
see
>>4121158

>>4121227

Speak it, Brother!

>>4121158
hey look, you posted a graph showing that CO2 concentrations during the entire Cretaceous were much higher than current.

nice work.

idiot.

Anyone who says global warming is fake is fucking retarded. The changed in this graph occur over millions of years. A 15 degree change over millions of years is insignificant yet in the past 100 years, since the start of the industrial revolution, earths avg temp has risen by about 1 degree. Theres nothing to debate faggots

>>4121210
Not that much. 5 to 10 degrees more. Enough to change significantly most of our coastlines and climate zones, force mass migrations and evolution of living habits.

When the permafrost melts.

>>4121252

10 degrees! You're insane. How about "force mass starvation"?

>>4121274
Why a mass starvation ? things should get wetter on average and thus more fertile.

>>4121364

"On average" isn't very useful if most of the "new" moisture falls down in regions that are already wet (as it appears to be the case).

Also note that there are many other factors involved, such as heat stress, soil degradation, ecosystem collapse, etc. that will hurt agricultural production, even in wealthy areas (poor farmers would be wiped out completely).

>>4121202
>Biodiversity increases
Not increases, decreased losses. The greatest threat to biodiversity is habitat destruction, warming will drive temperate biomes northward and save species that otherwise might have gone extinct do to human encroachment.
>>4121210
>How about a runaway greenhouse warming?
Current CO2: 380ppm
Jurassic CO2: ~1800ppm
>>4121226
>sauce
GEOCARB III, I posted the wrong image, see: >>4121158
>contradicted your earlier comment completely
Cretaceous CO2 levels are lower than Jurassic CO2 levels, how did I contradict myself?
>climate sensitivity
Like the "catastrophic climate change" that happen and the end of the Jurassic caused by "small releases of CO2"
>>4121239
>hey look, you posted a graph showing that CO2 concentrations during the entire Cretaceous were much higher than current. idiot.
wat
>>4121274
>Oh, sure the CO2 levels and global average temperature are the lowest they've been for hundreds of millions of years, but if we let CO2 rise beyond 300ppm Earth will turn into Venus and the seas will boil!

>>4121424
>Oh, sure the CO2 levels and global average temperature are the lowest they've been for hundreds of millions of years, but if we let CO2 rise beyond 300ppm Earth will turn into Venus and the seas will boil!

Strawman. Very weak.

Also, please point me to a historical period where global average temperature increased ~10C on the time scale of hundreds of years.

THIS THREAD BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE AMERICAN LEAGUE OF LOBBYISTS, SPONSORED BY EXXON AND BP IN COOPERATION WITH SHELL

FOR A BETTER AMERICA

TODAY

No seriously, I really fear that stupidity and greed will fuck our entire race up if we don't act in time.

Sometimes those goddamn fucking neoconservative FOX brainwashed Reagan zombies drive me close to insanity and I don't even live in America.

>>4121424
I said "huge climate changes," not "catastrophic..."

I think I see the disconnect here. I'm not used to arguing with idiots so it took me a while.

you thought I meant to imply that Cretaceous CO2 levels were higher than Jurassic while I thought you meant to imply Cretaceous CO2 levels were lower than present.

funny stuff.

Proving the isolating of heat could not come worser than this.

>>4115561
we produce 1.77% of the world's C02
C02 is 14% of the greenhouse effect.
1.77x14 =/= 5%
you= math fail

>>4121445
exxon and others fund both sides.

>>4121468

Almost the entire rise in the co2 levels since preindustrial is man-made. Your comment displays a lack of knowledge about the carbon cycle.

>>4121468
CO2 is ~90% of the temperature-independent release of greenhouse gasses and thus the primary cause of new warming.

also fuck off, grown ups are talking.

>>4121468
>1.77% of 14% =/= 5%

it equals 0.2476%
which is practically nothing

>>4121484
>primary cause of new warming
indeed it is. Yet it is still 14% of the effect at the moment, increasing a few millifractions of a percentage each year.

you'll be long gone before we even approach 20%

>>4121481
>posts Gore's laughable hockeystick graph
>wants to be taken seriously
try again, this time without imaginary vertical lines and steplifts

>>4121494

You're not getting the point. The primary change in radiative forcing since preindustrial is from CO2 (and other GHGs, methane etc.) This is the major factor affecting the temperature at the moment. The other factors are feedbacks (water vapor, clouds) which are temperature dependent.

>>4121496

You have no idea what you're talking about. The graph comes from a paper published in 2008:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html

It has nothing to do with Al Gore. No go back to /pol/ and let educated people talk.

>>4121494
lol

I'd love to see how those numbers were figured.
they look like ass-numbers

>>4121397
>most of the "new" moisture falls down in regions that are already wet
There are few area that don't require irrigation for Intensive farming, more rain in wet regions is still a good thing.
>heat stress, soil degradation, ecosystem collapse
Even the doom & gloom projections don't have high enough temps for breadbaskets of the world to hurt, warming doesn't cause soil degradation, and it's Intensive agriculture, there is no ecosystem to collapse.

>>4121537

They are. See here for a real job:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml

>>4121544
>more rain in wet regions is still a good thing.

No. Any possible benefit would be outweighed by increased flooding, among other things.

>high enough temps for breadbaskets of the world to hurt

In the hypothetical scenario that the guy thinks is a good thing (+10C average), you get 15-20C warming on land. That alone would wipe out agriculture in many areas.

>warming doesn't cause soil degradation

Yes it does, through salinization and other process, e.g. see here

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hyp.1441/abstract

>no ecosystem to collapse.

Ecosystem collapse would decrease the potential food supply, hence more starvation.

>>4121439
>please point me to a historical period where global average temperature increased ~10C on the time scale of hundreds of years.
Who cares? The rate of rise is slow enough for species to migrate, the Doomsday Scenario is lost of frozen wasteland and gain of temperate/subtropical/tropicals. Oooo Scary.
>>4121454
>I said "huge climate changes," not "catastrophic..."
The end of the Jurassic didn't herald a huge climate change.
>You:CO2 rose at the end of the Jurassic
>Me:Ahh, no, they didn't
>You:UR IDOIT!!!!11!
Classy

>>4121706

Let's see if I follow you logic here:

>slow, huge temperature change in the past - mass extinction
>fast, huge temperature change in the present - Everything's gonna be fine.

Are you sure you're posting on the right board?

>>4121706
I'm calling you an idiot because in your initial comment you failed to understand what I was saying.

Did atmospheric CO2 rise during the Kimmeridgian and Tithonian?

yes?

of course it also fell at some later point.

"huge" is not really some objective metric, neither is "pretty small." More and less however we can agree on. I never said the End Jurassic CO2 levels lasted into the Cretaceous, you came up with that one all by yourself.

>disingenuous fuckstain
even classier, idiot