Honest non-shitposting question about climate change

It isn't going to render the entire world non-arable

The ridiculous amount of people who cluster around the equator are probably going to be fucked, yes

>billions of people are going to die
>this isn't "the end of the world"
I get what you mean. It's not like we're facing total human extinction; but it is going to suck. It's going to suck so much that wars are going to start because people are going to find out how much it's going to suck.
Hope we don't nuke each other over drinking water.

global cooling is way worse tho

I tend to think of things a little more globally than just regionally. Half of humanity will adapt fine, the other half is in for a rough ride.

I guess it's disaster for the humanitarian minded. The most powerful countries on the planet aren't going to have as hard a time though so I doubt it's going to cause world war as much as a panic/exodus situation that will probably lead to demographic upheaval.

No, we are currently in an ice age that has been going on for millions of years. Ice age simply means that there is ice at the poles.
The temperature hasn't changed this much this quickly since humans existed. We are dependent on an ecology and infrastructure built for this specific climate. We are not reverting back to anything humans or the current ecology have ever experienced, and our understanding of the climate and the earth tells us that on the whole this will have negative consequences. No one is saying it's the end of the world, it's just bad for us.

If anything, our history and migration patterns suggest to me that we are not particularly "dependent" on any particular climate that isn't categorically deadly (average temp under -17 C or over 38 C)

Especially with modern knowledge and technology

I haven't seen any model that predicts our entire world is going to burn up, just that the equatorial zone will become generally unbearable

but then again there are maniacs living in Qatar so

Excuse me, what? Yes it does.

The omnipotent arbiter of causality has arrived

You have a point but that will cost tens of trillions of dollars. All so a few old oil men can keep making money

It's sucks no matter how you spin it.

So which do you deny, basic physics or chemistry?

I'm in favor of pragmatically approaching the issue, I'm just wondering how much we can really do at this point anyway. It seems like we have accelerated a natural process in our industrial ardor.

Everything good and bad in our history is driven by greed anyway. I'm just wondering how we're going to roll with the punch here

You don't roll with anything, just move to a northern country if you don't live there already, and protect your family and people.

no it doesn't, and if you exercised the slightest amount of critical thinking you would know this
I do not deny anthropogenic climate change, by the way. But I will attack non-evidence wherever I see it

How recently the co2 reached the atmosphere says absolutely nothing about co2 and its ability to warm things. If someone did not believe in man-made climate change, saying "there's been more co2 in the air recently" will not convince them. Don't be an idiot. You might see the correlation between a recent string of car accidents and the "free case of booze with purchase of a used car" from the disreputable salesman down the street, but good luck arguing that drunk driving is bad to someone who doesn't believe that substances can impair people.

No.
Milankovich cycles.
Read about them. Then come back.

Cause it's happening REALLY FAST compared to when it's happened before.

Like sonic fast

Gotta go fast

lel

You just went full retard.

No that is actually a pretty heated discussion on what is causing what, the co2 in the atmosphere the heating or the heating the co2 in the atmosphere (for example from the forests or oceans)
I am neutral on global warming, but this is a pretty relevant point

the climate didnt change just because.

Ironically enough, deniers have no problems when a climate scientists says "100 million years ago the climate changed due to supervolcanoes releasing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere". But they do have a problem when they say "humans are releasing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, this will cause climate change". They are even using the climare scientist's first statement (100 million years ago...) against his second statement.

Three big reasons:
1) We're producing more greenhouse gasses than at any point in history (and can measure it in the atmosphere).
2) The absorption of greenhouse gasses peaks in the thermal-IR range, so we would expect greenhouse gasses to hold onto heat.
3) There's a strong statistical correlation between global temperature and greenhouse gas emission: bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

It's not a heated discussion at all. Climatologists know that CO2 causes warming and warming increases CO2. It's called a feedback loop. They also know that man's emissions are forcing it.

Oh nice argument man.
>They know that emissions started the loop

You literally made the same exact thread using the same exact filename less than a week ago. Stop making these shitty identical threads over and over again, you're just using them as an excuse to argue.

Are you suggesting that warming caused us to do emissions?

No I didn't.

Uh yes, you or someone made basically the same thread with the same filename, these threads are only made for the purposes of arguing, not actual discussion.

Not him, but I guess this is a pretty high up result on google search. It would be different if the threads had similar texts other than "lets discuss global warming"

>How do we know
...bcoz a metric fucktonne of data
that is easy to find online, even for
a dishonest shitposter