>>8380952

>giant CO2 scrubbers

They are called forests

Plants need water, what do you think happens when things get hotter?

Probably because the change isn't uniform and some areas will get too hot and some will get too cold. I'm sure global warming will open up some new areas to farming, but the problem is what happens to the areas being currently farmed.

So why are they using the word "permanent" as if natural order won't correct it?

more clouds and more rain?

So basically we need to cut back significantly, but we're not yet fucked. Good to know

Forests are pretty crappy CO2 scrubbers. Think about what happens to the carbon in the plant when it dies or gets eaten: the sugar is digested by heterotrophs and turned back into CO2. Something like a coral would be better because it can fix carbon into its exoskeleton.

California disagrees.

newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/
Also plants are generally in serious crisis right now. Bees dying, predators, disease, drought lack of space to form healthy communities due to urban sprawl, etc...
Not to mention that most of the CO2 that plants absorb get returned into the atmosphere shortly after they die unless preserved in some way, like peat bogs or being buried.

Tipping points and positive feedback loops make that very unlikely. Once we reach 450 ppm we're very likely headed towards becoming Venus. You wouldn't say Venus has a chance of becoming habitable by natural causes would you?

California never had much rain in the first place. That's like wondering why Lake Mead is running dry when it's the primary source of water for a giant city in the middle of a desert

It's politically impossible to stop in time,
We're going to climb to 500+ ppm even in the optimistic scenarios.

youtube.com/watch?v=M1cMnM-UJ5U

Wouldn't it just end up interacting with our normal, lava-based sun? Would we become a binary star system? I wonder if this would create a more extreme winter or if the ice sun would sync up so that it cools down our summer while the lava sun warms up our winter...

.com doesn't mean anything, scientificamerican and nature are .com sites.

That's how it works. The subtropics will dry up everywhere. There go the world's breadbaskets.

>graph is improperly labeled and ends at 1855
Deniers are so gullible.

Problem with Coral is that it gets fucked by ocean acidification, which is caused by increases in CO2

Coral fucking sucks. It can get fucked by like a bajillion things. I was reading about a thousand-year-old coral reef that was just knocked over and killed by an ocean trawler net. What a retarded animal/algae/whatever.

...

Humans are good at adapting.

If we're so great at adapting why are we still using fossil fuels?

It's a fucking desert. It's the opposite of tropical, so no wonder it doesn't have rain. I get what you're saying, but saying Cali is an accurate representation of this is idiotic. Use a better example next time., because you really do raise a valid point

Post yfw farmland increases but quality of farmland decreases.

By 2100 food production will have grown (assuming 0 technological increase) by about 30% because of the huge gains in very agriculturally developed nations like Canada, Russia, and the States.

The loss of European farmland will mean that Europe will be almost completely dependent on Asia and N. America for food.

It rose 4 degrees in 150 years? I thought 4 degrees was the tipping point for the apocalypse

One place in Greenland is not the same as the globe user.

I'm calling bullshit on this picture, the Canadian prairies are certainly not new farmland.

Cos we know we can adapt to a higher CO2 world.

Those aren't the prairies, though.

Green is the current farmland (easily visible)
Everything else is shitty non-farmable land. The source says by 2100 all the red circled area will be farmable which is a massive increase in the total farmland.

Plants fucking love CO2, if anything farmland will both increase in quality and quantity.

Time to start dumping iron sulfate powder into the oceans.

The folly of the Climate Change hippies, was thinking we could prevent it by cutting carbon before things warmed up.

We should have always faced this by engineering around the consequences, and reversing things after they have gone bad.

Except all of the research we have shows the opposite of that occurring.

Until we stop the problem from getting worse, no amount of engineering will be enough to stop things from getting bad.

>Greenland is the entire world

So basically, politics are going to kill us. Yaaay.

>opposite of tropical,
California isn't in the tropics, what's your point?

To play devil's advocate: because we haven't run out of fissile fuels. Meaning we have nothing to adapt to

The ice age will save us.

>1855 was 95 years before 2000
nice

yay 100,000 years, bring out the champagne

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste"-Rahm Emanuel

youtube.com/watch?v=EeBeq0i03bg

That's why solutions like nuclear power and geoengineering are shot down by bastards like . They are using global warming as an excuse to control your life and to bring about the worker's "paradise".

Pic related

>They are using global warming as an excuse to control your life and to bring about the worker's "paradise".
AGW "scepticism" in a nutshell.

Global Warming crisis will cause standard of living in the west to be lowered. Food shortages, population relocations, pandemics, energy shortages, etc.

Get everyone moved into dense urban areas, living in commie block apartments. accepting their meager lives.

You're an idiot if you think geoengineering will do anything more than give a 20 year breather.

We're probably going to need that 20 years,
but all the hard work will still have to be done.
If we blow that last chance, the wheels will fall off,
make no mistake about it.

Cooling will begin in 2030.

sure buddy
time.com/4179783/ice-age-global-warming-climate-change/

skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

we can still colonize mars before this happens right guys?..g-g-guys?

Its alright guys.

The water crisis will hit our planet first, that should kill off enough humans to help balance things out. Food is going to get expensive, african and middle-eastern populations descend into water-wars. The american mid-west will dry up as the groundwater is getting all used up, becoming like cali. There is not enough water for everybody.

Thomas Malthus to the rescue.

Well ... we're screwed?

>Stupid Liberals always complaining just because we are all fucked
>Why wont they shut up already?

Wait till China and India fight for water.

Pakistan and India too

youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=39m20s

Just because the temperature is suitable for farming does not mean that the soil is. It will take decades to properly dry the former tundra. Large areas of that land have just a few centimeters of proper soil and it would take thousands of years until they grow to a point where farming becomes an option.

The closest you'll ever get to that is when
you shove a Mars bar up your colon.

Alright so, I get it, we cannot go back. Positive feedback, runaway greenhouse effect, etc. We're fucked without some kind of massive engineering project to remove CO2 from that atmosphere that is not currently feasible.

The real question now is: Will I be able to live out the remainder of my natural life (assuming I die of old age) or will I be dead in 10 years because the oceans boiled off and the average temperature is 300C?

Also, should I invest in soon-to-be beachfront property in the Arctic circle? I feel like I stand to make a lot of money when everyone decides it's a good idea to move North.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management

>trusting a mainstream media website, complicit in pushing global warming

>hurr

archive.is/wvav1

>hurr

nowtheendbegins.com/

>literally says polarchive in the filename
Maybe you should go back there and stay there.

>LAVA SUN

But he put a Whole Foods in the ghetto, aren't we officially green?

>iflscience

OP, you're the kinda guy who posts shit like this on FB, telling the world how you hate capitalism for ruining your planet.

Atleast keep your cancer there, not here.

You mean shifts food production to a different part of the planet?

Maybe you should be mad and stay mad

wohoo here we go

swarajyamag.com/insta/india-hints-at-revisiting-indus-waters-treaty-as-retaliation-against-pak-perfidy-at-uri

...

>not just processing the CO2 so you end up with solid blocks of carbon and vent the oxygen back into the atmo

>you will never see solar-powered flying wing aircrafts flying through the atmosphere, processing the CO2 and occasionally dropping a small glider made of pure carbon out of the back so it can safely descend to earth

let them eat cake

Can we all just take a second...
>Lava-sun

the problem isn't the lack of viable solutions, it's the lack of people actually making it happen. There is no 'they', it's just us.

God I hate newfags.

>solar-powered flying wing aircrafts flying through the atmosphere, processing the CO2 and occasionally dropping a small glider made of pure carbon
Why would they need to be flying?

Can you not read? The graph is labeled wrong. "Present" means 1950. 95 years before Present is 1855.

So what can we do, then? I don't want to burn alive in 30 years.

I thought we were in an ice age right now?

>trees stop working
ok

>AGW "scepticism" in a nutshell.

I couldn't help but notice that you ignored the part where I mentioned nuclear power-the source of energy that doesn't emit CO2 and doesn't stop working when the sun isn't shining or the wind is blowing. But then again, it's easier to argue with a post selectively edited. Also, you'd had to explain why wealth redistribution will stop CO2 emissions and not nuclear power.

>I couldn't help but notice that you ignored the part where I mentioned nuclear power
Because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making - that most objections to AGW are fundamentally rooted in politics and not climatology.

>Also, you'd had to explain why wealth redistribution will stop CO2 emissions
No-one has claimed that. What HAS been claimed is that any kind of reduction in CO2 emissions would necessarily redistribute wealth - people who's wealth is tied up in fossil fuels would become worse off.

>and not nuclear power.
You're arguing against points I never made. Why?

There's a small chance of triggering a catastrophic feedback loop that makes most of the planet uninhabitable, but the most likely scenario is slight warming and sea level rise requiring moving coastal cities inland and relocating farmland as rainfall patterns change.

If the climate was really as sensative as some people claim Earth would have turned into Venus a long time ago. The Earth was a lot warmer than now in the Mezozoic era and dinosaurs survived just fine. (Until the meteor)

It make me think to this.
(It's "Hotel" a one-shot)

What a wonderful world.

We're not dinosaurs.

Proper source on this bullshit? Which one is made up garbage and which is real?

>pic
>says volcanic eruptions trigger cooling
>yet in the last cooling it shows tons of volcanic eruptions while everything is WARMING back up again
>says 75 major temp swings in that time period for the image but only shows 10

CA here.
Historically its cooler temperatures that have caused our droughts in the past.

all the continents were squashed together then, about where antartica is now

>450 ppm CO2
>positive feedback loop triggered

Oh look! The Earth turned into Venus 600 million years ago. We were doomed!@!!!!!!11111oneone

Those are really nicely drawn hands.

Is there anything stopping us from simply removing CO2 from the atmosphere? beside the massive scale of the operation, I mean.

>Is there anything stopping us from simply removing CO2 from the atmosphere? beside the massive scale of the operation, I mean.
Not really.
It would require vast amounts of power and money, but it''s not impossible.

Is this the AGW ASYLUM run by a single resident inmate and his sock puppets?

youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s