CO2 levels have passed 410 PPM

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

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

>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.

you are free to tell Pentagon that

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

the permafrost will thaw in your life time.

then you will die.

>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?

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

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.

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

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

>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.

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

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

youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?t=48m40s

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

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.

south Georgia and north Florida is already farmland.

>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 user 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.

[citation needed]

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00323.1

climatesignals.org/climate-signals/hadley-cell-expansion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell#Hadley_cell_expansion

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

...

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

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.

you think you're really clever don't you

really fucking clever.

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

dumbass.

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

>he thinks it will progress linearly
bless your heart

We are so fucking fucked.

Found the special child.
>Autism speaks

...

a

>Believing in the Clathrate Gun meme

*tips*

M'lady.

>everything else is unsubstantiated bullshit and not science.
>not science
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

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

Cheap labour brah.

Desperate people work for dick

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

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

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.

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.

And here's immigration/emigration

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

jetstreams did change substantially

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

>2002

this.

underground farms powered by solar panels if needed.

trump wall m8.

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

> 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.

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.

>2-3 degrees

will turn half of Spain into a desert.

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

Yeah but hurricane and shit

the bedouins will win in the end

neat

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.

>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.

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

Doesn't sound especially reassuring.

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.

>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

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.

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

He didn't say "all" smartass.

>>

>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

>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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Weren't C02 levels really high during prehistoric times?

...

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

>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]

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

>adapt to underwater life

kek

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

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.

>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?

It's already happening
youtube.com/watch?v=TzNeg9D-EZ4

It's so fantastical

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

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.

>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.

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?