Why is global warming a problem?

>They can move, they'll have to eventually anyway, it's not like the continents are going to stay put forever.
Sure but it's about how fast things are changing, and no one wants to move. We are still paying for Katrina and Sandy, and every inch higher sea level gets, that's an inch higher the flood waters are when those storms hit, and millions more dollars in damages. And we are paying for it.

There have been significant changes in climate in small periods of time, like during the middle ages like I said.

How fast are we talking about exactly?
Also kind of unrelated but isn't construction pretty much the only industry making the US any money these days? I've heard Florida is actually kind of hoping a Hurricane hits them because they're a bit stale.

>There have been significant changes in climate in small periods of time, like during the middle ages like I said.
then those were bad too

Changing climate is not a problem, fossil fuel depletion is a problem. You will notice that the solutions offered up so far address the real problem and the make believe problem. It's a win win situation. Well, unless you are a typical civilian consumer of copious quantities of fossil fuels living in the first world, then you also have a problem with no real solution in sight so keep your eye on the weather! It's less painful that way!

>the cooling down of the planet around the middle ages took more or less that time I think.

Dude absolutely not true. The little ice age the best we can tell was ~0.3 degree C cooling of global T over 400 years. Current measured rate of warming is 0.8 degree total since the preindustrial, so 0.8 degree C in 120 years

Figure source
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051260/pdf

its not a problem

Annoying, but hardly critical.

I tough it was more significant than that.
Funny, tho, the industrial revolution brought us back to the regular levels.

Isn't there a theory/hypothesis (i'm not sure if there's evidence to back it up since I've only heard of it) that we're actually delaying a major ice age with our activities?

That much I agree, we need to stop being dependent on oil like right now. Kind of hard tho, since even solving the problem of fuel for vehicles, we then have all the other things we make with oil.

Here's another figure from Mann 2008, again showing that the rate of cooling over LIA (Little Ice Age) was ~0.3 degree C over 400-500 years, and our current rate of warming is unprecedented

>Annoying, but hardly critical.
no
global warming bad
much death everywhere
no food more disaster more disease

>Isn't there a theory/hypothesis (i'm not sure if there's evidence to back it up since I've only heard of it) that we're actually delaying a major ice age with our activities?

Yes. We're skitting past the average length of interglacial (our interglacial period, e.g. the Holocene started about 10ka ago) but not so much as it is beyond the natural variability.

The yellow line is MIS (marine isotope stage)5E/Eemian period, the last interglacial period where the Earth was possibly a tad warmer than today, and the Holocene was following that trajectory.

Interglacial 2/MIS7 and interglacial3/MIS9 was short in comparison while Interglacial4/MIS11 was the longest interglacial ever recorded in Earth's history

Is it inside the margin of error that there was a drop during the 80s? Or what happened during that time? Was it because of the oil crisis?

Then again, i'm not arguing that the climate change happening right now is natural, rather, i'm arguing that changes in the planet's climate are not unheard of.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the graph, what are the numbers at the bottom?

>global warming bad
>much death everywhere
>no food more disaster more disease

I believe in manmade climate change too, and overall I think it's shown beyond doubt that it has negative impact on us but this is an overly simplistic argument. For example, here's a local news article from the town where my parents live. It's the 7th record lobster catch in Maine and New England area. The yield was so large that lobster price tanks locally.

Where I live now in Upstate NY, the consequence of global warming is that we have less miserable winter, more enjoyable summer, and the ideal wine belt would shift northwards to upstate new york area, so more local wine. Also overall a positive impact.

People in sub saharan Africa, Middle East, and Pacific Islands are fucked though. However as a scientist I find it hard to convince local people where I live, and people from my hometown on how climate change is bad, because honestly the projection is not so bad for them and I don't want to lie through my teeth and be an AGW alarmist

>I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the graph, what are the numbers at the bottom?
They are the classic ice core records glacial interglacial cycles like pic related, but they're all squished and plotted together on the onset of rise coming out of the ice age to compare one interglacial to another. You can see interglacial1,2,3,and 4 there with Holocene (current) being interglacial 0

The real problem is that the ocean is absorbing a ton of CO2 for some reason that we can't figure out, and this could lead to a catastrophic dieoff of certain marine life that can't cope with higher concentrations of carbonic acid in the water.

>Is it inside the margin of error that there was a drop during the 80s? Or what happened during that time?
No it's not. That's exactly where the global cooling articles start to pop up. The reason for the cooling was probably because peak aerosol pollution. Smog and dust actually cools down the climate as it increases the reflectivity of the Earth, via their capability of seeding more clouds.

Clean air act passed in the 80's reigned down on particulate aerosol pollution, which is directly detrimental to public health but as a result it also removes the anthropogenic cooling forcing onto the planet.

>the ocean is absorbing a ton of CO2 for some reason that we can't figure out

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law
You increase partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, more CO2 would dissolve into the ocean. It's literally grade school chemistry.

Ok I get it, who cares if a bunch of niggers and chinks get fucked? The problem I have is that pure, innocent white children are going to suffer in the long run too.

Displacement of people can cause serious problem. There will be refugee crisis beyond what's happening in Syria when the Middle East that contains a lot of young population become close to inhabitable without massive terraforming, just like inland Australia.

It's not a direct problem for us who live in high latitudes, but the refugees are gonna be knocking louder on the borders of Western Europe and America. The pacific islanders climate refugee are gonna be knocking the doors on the borders of Australia and New Zealand. It is undeniable that these countries will have to accept more refugees in, become more multicultural. If you don't want your pure innocent white daughteru get BLACKED or AHMED'd then better do something about climate change

Yes there have always been changes in the Earths climate and all have been associated with mass extinctions. The difference is this time it' our choice.

Wouldn't the middle east and the Saharan regions actually benefit from this? Wouldn't bringing the temperature to the levels it had 5000 years ago make their region relatively humid and good for agriculture again?

I mean it wouldn't solve all their ethical and political issues, but it could help some of them right?

That one is a lot more clear, thank you user. Seems like this last period since humanity appeared has been shaky as a whole.

What would the consequences of a glaciar age be, in comparison? Or of a natural spike in the overall warmth of the planet?
The climate is going to change one way or the other, wouldn't the only difference be that we'll have to deal with this rather than our grand-grand children?
I mean sure, having more time to plan things out is nice, but we're only accelerating the inevitable, or delaying a different type of crisis, aren't we?

>we need to stop being dependent on oil like right now. Kind of hard tho
We needed a plausible alternative a generation ago. This is why the powers that be are resorting to religion and calling it science. If there is a scary problem with no solution in sight what does anybody do? Pretend to have a solution, to maintain some sense of control, it's only natural.

Absolutely, facing an issue on this scale requires a change in human thinking on a grand scale. It's a difficult process, but it is occurring all the time.

when I see threads like this a part of me hopes there is actually enough methane gas trapped in the permafrost to kill us off.

>Wouldn't bringing the temperature to the levels it had 5000 years ago make their region relatively humid and good for agriculture again?
We are already beyond 5000 years ago. You would bring the Middle East closer to what it was 400,000 years ago during MIS11, or even 3 million years ago back when the Earth was absolutely beyond reasonable doubt warmer than today. Civilization didn't exist back then, so we're plunging into the unknown.

>What would the consequences of a glaciar age be, in comparison? Or of a natural spike in the overall warmth of the planet?
Plunging back into glacier would mean that probably part of Alaska, Canada and Scandinavia becomes more miserable and near inhospitable. The tropics and subtropics however wouldn't cool that much, as the temperature swing between glacial interglacial is only amplified in polar regions. Colder ocean can hold more oxygen, so it is almost assured that fisheries from all over the world, especially the tropics would have higher yield and the ocean would be more productive. Practically we're would be the one who's knocking on Mexico's border if the Earth plunges back into glacial period.

Not gonna happen.

Actually the consensus has been shifting away from the clathrate gun hypothesis. Just last month, a review study was published by Carolyn Ruppel the Chief Scientist of USGS (United States Geological Survey) Gas Hydrate Project. Here is the press release for the study
usgs.gov/news/gas-hydrate-breakdown-unlikely-cause-massive-greenhouse-gas-release

Before this review, which is kind of a nail in the coffin, several other studies like analyses of CH4 isotopes in ice cores,
>citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.6061&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/emorhardt/159/pdfs/2007/Sowers 2006.pdf
>science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5790/1109
have shown that there was no trace of clathrate release in the past, so it is unlikely that this will happen in the near future. Moreover, study from the latest catastrophic clathrate explosion we had, the deepwater oil spill shows that all of the methane got eaten by bacteria in the water column and none of it made it to the atmosphere
>9bb9afe9-a-017ed1b7-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/uw.edu/ess-418-geoscience-communication/Science-2011-Kessler-312-5.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coTSjSfBv_XVogThgRCYYwFVgYiVkWE8KW-cJsCcHixN0viZTivh76-LBNirCpw-cpp97TaBIEsrvl62Zs79Cf4Wo1FYjt0bcOsvaCLi-GORlL6O9Vfiv6ulD2sWM9b5ZMQ7JFGjRKK1Ie8yNe6xmOc8pcsW4DaP11iZKJHYCFgGABtC_DKeZnqSARqf7LqgXA4stKhrTIUa7ReCq4FCcysm33-8cwnJq2siKzT0MWjeL45K9sr5x809P5EAZKuqb7hKGZK&attredirects=0

As a result of these series of recent studies, the IPCC AR5 synthesis shifted the prediction on catastrophic methane hydrate dissociation to UNLIKELY which means less than

>Bait

I think we've reached the limit of human progress. Great job much effort. Try again tomorrow, and everything just might be okay.

We're not going to WW3, super technology isn't going to blow everything up, we're aware of what has to be done and we're moving in that direction.

>b-but we won't be affected right, chinks, indians and niggers can get fucked
not true

People in Florida and Netherlands can also fuck themselves though.

Name one negative thing that would happen to Orono, Maine

Disease is gonna spread, floods will happen more often, how about not being able to get shit you used to be able to get (like bananas)? Also, everywhere is eventually going to get too hot.

If we just practice better sanitation and have pandemic management we can avoid pandemics

If only someone had connections to the healthcare industry

Hey guys, if you're up early tomorrow you might be interested, hearing on climate science with the usual suspects.

Of course, look who they invited again, fucking Curry the cunt, Christy the clown and Pielke the Pussy. An endless revolving door of the same contrarians over and over again in a lame attempt to add credibility to their unfounded arguments. Of course, they also invite Michael Mann to be the sole representative of climate science.

Should be interesting with the past conflicts between Mann and Pielke though. For once I wish they would invite more than the same shits over and over again.

Oy vey a social life? WHAT WOULD MOM AND DAD THINK?!

ayy

youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

I literally meme full time

Is that a science?

Memetics? Richard Dawkins thinks so

What the hell are you talking about?

>studies
fgt

Is this streaming anywhere? I'd have to start driving from now if I want to make it on time.

well this is good
in a way

clathrate gun hypothesis =/= gas trapped in the permafrost

the first is in the seas, the second is on land

Yes mr trump... thank you mr trump....

> Name one negative thing that would happen to Orono, Maine
The whole of the US is going to be destabilized by tens of millions of refugees streaming up out of Latin America because of the decline of agricultural output in the tropics. That will lead to rising food prices, causing civil unrest, then starvation, and finally civil war. Those conflicts will drive huge waves of migrants north to escape the violence and to get to a place where they can afford food. You think it's bad now? Right now the numbers crossing the border each year are measured in the thousands. No wall is going to be able to stop ten million a year, not for long anyway.

> Wouldn't the middle east and the Saharan regions actually benefit from this? Wouldn't bringing the temperature to the levels it had 5000 years ago make their region relatively humid and good for agriculture again?
The Sahara is already too hot for agriculture. Most staple crops have a maximum temperatures above which they will not grow. The yield of rice, for example, follows a curve with a peak at around 28 degrees celsius. Any increase beyond that results in a sharp reduction in yield. At 40 degrees celsius, rice simply cannot grow at all. The Sahara's average temperature is already 40 degrees, with highs pushing up to 47 degrees. At that temperature practically nothing can grow, and certainly not anything edible. Making it even hotter won't help agriculture.

Orono Maine is very north, I doubt it'd be affect significantly by immgration from the south.

Damn that's a small town.

No it will not. But only %1 I think of America even engages in agriculture anymore. We could realistically feed the whole world like 5 times over if we really put our mind to it.

>the first is in the seas, the second is on land
Methane in permafrost are pretty much clathrate. They are in clathrate form, have mineral structure of methane clathrate. See pic related. Currently the Arctic overall is a net sink of GHG, due to intense growing of vegetation and expanding tree lines.

Check out the IPCC chapter on Biogeochemistry
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf

They had special subchapter addressing your questions

Whoops forgot pic. See those dots on land? They're clathrates. By definition clathrate is CH4 enclosed in frozen water crystal structure

wow much science, you should be a science journalist! ;)

That's not the problem, the problem is the location of the food production. Sure, humanity in total produces more food than humanity's total consumption. But food price depends hugely on the distance it needs to be transported. You think a nation like India can afford to import enough food to feed more than a billion people? Food prices in countries closer to the equator will rise sharply as their domestic food production drops, which will lead to large swaths of the population no longer being able to afford food. This is one of the things that contributed to the civil war in Syria. Food prices rose, which made a lot of people very unhappy with the government. A nation that cannot feed its people cannot survive for long. It will become a failed state, and people will flee the ensuing violence as refugees.

Yeah I saw that episode of CPG Grey too, it was great

clathrates are cool
you can light them on fire so you have burning ice!

Rural America is heavily dependent on federal infrastructure to remain connected to the world. What do you think will happen when the federal government buckles under the weight of tens of millions of refugees?

>War nerves

yes goyim... we are invesing in,, uhhh, space... Yes... Do not worry about the man behind the barbed curton, nor the creator beneath the free flag, those hoods are there for your protection and the media these days is the size of corpses

there is a war going on for your mind

Not Orono, Maine. The largest employer by far is University of Maine which is a private institution, funded through overpriced college tuition with very little support from government.

>you should be a science journalist! ;)
I'm actually already a climate scientist. This is what I do for a living

I'm not talking about employers. I'm talking about the roads, the mail, the power lines, etc. Orono doesn't actually make most of the things it needs, practically everything that is required for modern life has to be imported. That means needing transportation and communication links to the rest of the country. Lose those, and Orono can't maintain anything.

Never really thought of that, always just lived in a world where there wasn't all out total war.

I mean there was constant small wars with "Rogue States" and all of that bullshit can of worms, but nothing like WW3

I was gonna say that too, climate change will likely cause resource disruptions and shortages globally, especially food and water shortages. An extended drought or severe monsoon in one part of the world disrupting agriculture can have global impacts. Most of our crops are grown in regions that are vulnerable to climate change. I think a lot of people misjudge how fragile our society / civilization actually is. There's so many people out there and when shit hits the fan in the future, I just hope human civilization doesn't completely break down.

If you think the whole US government structure gonna collapse due to climate change then you're just fearmongering.

There are winners and losers for climate change. Overall, the losers outweigh the winner. However the losses, even in the most dire prediction is not sufficient enough to topple a country with 20 trillion USD annual GDP, and like 5 trillion USD operating budget for the government. There's enough money in the US to build wall along the seashore to mitigate sea level rise. There's certainly enough money in Manhattan island, NYC to do so.

Climate change is an ethics problem for people who are least impacted. Are we content that there will be massive suffering happening down South while we do nothing to help? The answer is probably that we should care about those people, because it is moral, ethical and just to do so, but there's no reason to fearmonger beyond that into the collapse of modern civilization. Rich people are gonna be fine, and all of us in the US are top 5% rich people globally, all of us

It caused panic. That's what it has done. It hasn't done really much else too drastic. First world countries need to get their long term stability plan in order before they can focus on other countries. Hard to help someone else when you're drowning

In the long run everyone loses (even the USA), if we do nothing it'll get to a point where it's out of our hands.

Never said the whole US government would collapse, but priorities get messed up when you're in a crisis. Infrastructure spending in the US is already abysmal, and that's completely self inflicted, no actual crisis required. A refugee crisis coming out of the global south will put a lot of strain on the entire rest of the world, including the US.

The US isn't going to remain unaffected just because it's in the top 5% globally. Its geographic location north of regions that are going to be hammered by the decline of agricultural output in the tropics means that it will have to deal with a lot more than just sea level rise. It's already a destination for people fleeing violence in places like Honduras. The problems with rising sea level will be fairly minor compared to the rising number of refugees from Latin America.

Yeah but the chlathrate **GUN** is about the seas killing us in 10 years.(**)

A lot of people don't believe it, they say some feedback will prevent it from happening anytime soon.

The permafrost melting on the other hand is uncontroversial.(***)

It doesn't help public understanding at all to confuse the two,
all that it does is cast doubt on the permafrost melting.

(**) youtube.com/watch?v=zqIt93dDG1M

(***) youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=17m45s

Here's what I love about the refugee crisis. That's not my decision to make, and really, not my problem.

Can't be everywhere at once...

it might be worth mentioning there's methane trapped in permafrost too

> not my problem
Considering the amount of resources that are going to have to go into dealing with it, one way or another, it's going to be everyone's problem.

Oh u environmental scientists... when will politicians learn they can't fool people with "Global wamring isn't reel!!" forever....

They don't even believe it, they're just lying.... They have to either address the issues people care about, or be voted out of office and lose their job.

You're fired ;)

I mean, it's not my job. I've gave my spiel, I want to get out from under my parents and have a life and have fun. For reasons not everyone on this board would understand.

Stem kids.... join a frat, I know they're stupid but you'll be the smart cool guy, and here's the secret about frats

They're just a way to be able to do drugs and party and have sex and not get in trouble

yeah this is a real issue
NIMBY: "not in my backyard"
NIMTOO: "not in my term of office"
people often want to help but not when it affect them directly

Nobody is disputing that, but the permafrost won't kill us in 10 years - it isn't a wild-eyed crazy professor theory.
It will however seriously damage the world's bread baskets in 20 years, by drying up of the subtropical zones.

youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=23m10s

>most people from /pol/ do not like coalburners
>but the very same people also want to burn coal

An impetus for reflection...

omg a doggo

>I mean, If we are talking from a purely egoistic point of view, global warming is still a lot less deadly for us than a big asteroid impact.
Nigga u dumb.

See Currently there's still low confidence on slow permafrost carbon release. The reason for this as I mentioned before is that trees are growing so fast in the permafrost region, the sedimentation rate goes through the roof, so you bury the old permafrost with layers and layers of organic material. Currently, and still for the forseeable future the Arctic will still be a NET SINK in GHG emission. The slow release would be detectable, and defined as not an "abrupt" one.

Not being an elitist or anything, people like guy on the video, who's a historian and has no relevant background in either atmospheric chemistry, or permafrost dynamics shouldn't give a talk like that to scare the public, because it undermines the whole other very serious climate change argument.

Couldn't we just stick to stuff that is virtually certain? Sea level rise for example, affecting Florida and the Netherlands, or massive droughts in sub saharan africa, reduced rice yield in south/southeast asia, and more heat waves in the middle east. All these are already pretty bad repercussion without adding the scary boogeyman of plausible scientific hypothesis, where the science is literally not settled yet, or it is settled towards the non alarmist side of things

I need that dog's hat

Are you a retard? What are you going to do if 10,000 spics move there and take over?

Beg the government to help you?

...

The AGW religion is open to everyone and anyone can read the prophecies and scripture, stop being a disgusting elitist. How popular do you think Christianity or Islam would be without an End of Days scenario?

But like aliens.. Politics and aliens.

>
>Name one negative thing that would happen to Orono, Maine

It's only 100 or so feet above sea level, once the continental ice starts melting there won't be an Orono, Maine.

I need that hat's dog.

>once the continental ice starts melting there won't be an Orono, Maine.

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is predicted to be stable, even growing slightly in size. The West Antarctic Ice sheet could collapse, and there is a nasty positive feedback loop called the marine ice sheet instability because the ice sheet is sloped inwards and grounded below sea level. A complete collapse of WAIS could take as short as 100 year and will yield 3.3m / 11 feet worth of sea level rise without thermal expansion. This is the "scary" worst case scenario projection Al Gore showed when he had the World Trade Center memorial in Manhattan to be underwater.

Even a disastrous collapse of WAIS still won't touch Orono, Maine which is 100 ft above sea level. Disastrous collapse of EAIS is incredibly unlikely, as the ice sheet is grounded above sea level. Not that there's anyone living down south in the salt marshes and maine tidal flats. In fact turning Orono into a semi seaside beach town would create a boon in tourism.

Anyway, a lot of people talking about crop production, but can't we cultivate food on artificial climates already? There's a lot of chemicals and genetic engineering for letting us cultivate in bad climates.

We definitely have the technology to deal with situations like this. Central america is a shithole, sure, so is Central-Africa, but south america isn't that bad, neither is North Africa, or South Europe for that matter, and those countries (at least the ones with an important crop and livestock industry) invest a lot in agricultural technology, and they're definitely at least aware of the risks that might arise in the future due to the climate change. Especially because a lot of these changes are already occurring gradually, so they get enough of a headsup to at least prepare.

The areas of the world that are filled with actual fucking monkeys that wouldn't be able to at least figure out how to at least survive or adapt to the new conditions is actually a lot smaller than you guys are making it out to be. Not all third world countries are babies that need babysitting.

Syria, Irak and the middle east in general are an exception because they have many conflicts going on at all times, and that gets in the way of their technological development, and it drains them of funds to improve their infrastructure, or invest in new better equipment or master new techniques, so they're definitely going to be fucked with yet another layer of problems to deal with, but considering they're already escaping in mass from their homes, I'm not sure if a climate crisis would change the situation a lot, it would be the same old discussion with the same old arguments that you all know and love.

> can't we cultivate food on artificial climates already
For a lot of money, sure. Money that people in places like India don't have. The problem isn't that we as a species will not be producing enough total food. The problem is that much of the population is living in areas where the domestic food production is going to decline, leading to a rise in local food prices, and people in those particular areas not being able to afford it. The result is widespread unrest in those areas and mass migration out of those areas, which is never a pretty thing.

> Syria, Irak and the middle east in general are an exception because they have many conflicts going on at all times, and that gets in the way of their technological development
India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are going to be in the middle of a big conflict as their food production declines. Bangladesh is going to be underwater, since in addition to being an extremely low lying country as sea levels are rising, the country is also physically sinking for reasons of its own. That's going to displace many millions of its primarily muslim population into primarily hindu India, which has a history of conflict along those exact lines. At the same time, Pakistan and India are hugely reliant on meltwater from glaciers in the Himalayas, glaciers that are quickly disappearing. Conflict over the shrinking supply of water in general and the Kashmir region in particular will further destabilize the area.

So it sounds to me like the areas around India are going to be the ones primarily affected by this.

Good, now we know where to focus.

> The areas of the world that are filled with actual fucking monkeys that wouldn't be able to at least figure out how to at least survive or adapt to the new conditions is actually a lot smaller than you guys are making it out to be. Not all third world countries are babies that need babysitting.

No one is saying that they're too stupid, the problem is that they're looking down the barrel of some pretty nasty reductions in crop yield. India is looking at a 25% drop from 2 degrees C. China is looking at a 38% drop. That's a civil war right there.

You're looking at what is theoretically available if cost is no object. That isn't something you can apply to feeding billions of people. The problem isn't that they're stupid. The problem is that they need to make food affordable for massive populations who don't necessarily have much money.

It's not just India, though India will be very hard hit. Southeast Asia and China are also going to get hammered, as temperature rises and rice yields plummet. All of Africa above South Africa is going to end up with very little agricultural output. Central America and South America aside from Chile and Argentina are similarly going to have serious problems feeding their people. Most of the human species lives in a country that is going to see significant direct harm as a result of increased temperature.

It's not the sun. The sun is currently going down in total output yet we keep rising in temperature, that much is certain.

The Milankovitch Cycle takes 22,000 years to complete a full circuit. Since we have risen in temperature about 1.5 degree in 100 years that means after 11,000 years, a full circuit the oceans, rivers, and lakes of the world will LITERALLY BOIL as temperatures rise above 212 degrees

So it can't be Milancovitch Cycles.

The rate of rising temperature closely matches the rate of human CO2 emissions, a well understood greenhouse gas.

Guess which one it is.

i meant after 11,000, years a half circuit. Sigh.

Hes right though. Things have been to easy for too long. Thats why we have an abundance of morons and SJWs. Hard times are necessary because the developed world doesnt need anything anymore. Its all wants. You dont go live out in the woods because the option to live with the luxuries of modern society is there. Humanity would benifit greatly if that option was taken away for a little while.

Temperatures are changing either way though. Im sure humans are partly to blame for that but shouldnt we be more focused on what we do WHEN temperatures rise instead of trying to stop the unstoppable? Those people living on the coast are going to lose to the ocean no matter how much CO2 we are pumping out.