Hey guize, I have a question about the CO2 global warming

Hey guize, I have a question about the CO2 global warming.
So, ok, the Earh is getting warmer because we releasing a whole fuckton of CO2 in the air, and that traps heat.
And the CO2 is being released from burning fossil fuels.
And the fossil fuels are from decayed organic matter.
But then, if they're decased organic matter, doesn't that mean that they used CO2 that was in the atmosphere before?

Like, all the coal is just very old trees. And the trees grew by taking CO2 out of the air.
And all the oil is dead organism, that also received the carbon in their structure from somewhere and they couldn't have received it from anywhere else.

So, why wasn't CO2 a problem back then, when it was in the atmospehere, but CO2 is a problem now when we're returning it into the atmosphere?

What has changed?

Other urls found in this thread:

news.com.au/technology/environment/natural-wonders/nasa-study-suggests-an-antarctic-supervolcano-could-make-the-ice-sheet-vulnerable/news-story/14ee668fa018e7f7d861ccbe63a3cd2f
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>What changed?
Alot more people. Alot less trees.

I don't think you understand. If the fossil fuel CO2 used to be in the atmosphere, why is it a problem to put it back there?

A lot of it has to due with food production.

If shit was in your gut before it came out, what's the problem with putting it back there?

>>So, why wasn't CO2 a problem back then
Because we weren't around.
You really, really wouldn't want eocene climate today.

THAT'S IT!??!?!?!?

A FEW DEGREES?!?!?!?

NIGGER, I'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT ANOTHER PLANET VENUS. NIGGER, ACID RAINS, NO LIFE EVER AGAIN, NO MORE SURFACE WATER, METING METAL, SHIT LIKE THAT!

Science! What the absolute fuck?

>this is your brain on pabst blue ribbon

Did human civilization exist hundreds of millions of years ago? Did a population over 7 billion people and growing, with resource scarcity looming in the near future exist back then too? Did this same civilization that 70%+ of which lives within 100 miles of a coastline exist back then too?

You're extremely ignorant if you cannot see the implications of global warming on human civilization, not to mention the other organisms on this planet that have adapted to the conditions that have prevailed relatively stable over the past few hundred thousand / million years. We are inducing rapid climate changes on an unprecedented scale and it will have large ramifications on not only human civilization, but many ecosystems as well, which leads to positive feedbacks exacerbating the changes and causing more damage.

The Venus shit is hyperbole to scare brainlet into being more climate conscious. The real problems will come when certain types of microbes die off, oh and deserts where we used to have farms. Oh and some of the most dense population centers being flooded causing massive migration, wars over that, and wars over arable land. It will bad, not extinction level, but very bad. Society may regress over 200 years.

people think that the refugee crisis to europe from the middle east and asia is bad now. this is like practice for the actual climate refugees

Several reasons:

First of all, the sun was dimmer back then, so amounts up to 4 times the current level of CO2 were necessary so the earth wouldn't freeze over, except for those times where it did and you get a horrible mass extinction. It happens.

Second, the earth is constantly emmiting those gasses from vulcanism, and the microbes, plants and weather are constantly capturing those inside rocks (sometimes made from their decayed corpses). So it averages out to livable conditions, except for those times where it doesn't and you get a horrible mass extinction. It happens.

Thirdly, ignoring asteroids and maybe supernovas, all of the mass extinctions are somehow related to the amount of gasses in the atmosphere becoming a problem for almost every living thing. Have you heard about 99% of species being extinct? Yeah.

>Did this same civilization that 70%+ of which lives within 100 miles of a coastline exist back then too?
Fuck 'em.

Society is not going to regress 200 years. That is just as much hyperbole as the earth turning into venus. The worst that will happen is major cities located near oceans may have to rebuild further inland. There are already plenty of developmental technologies to help circumvent climate change. Vertical farms being one of them so that many countries that lose arable land will still have the potential to produce a sustainable amount of food. Not to mention automation is only going to get better in the years to come. There are drones out there right now that can reforest locations in a fraction of the time humans could.

Sure there are insects and important microbial life forms that are at risk but first-world countries will be able to maintain sustained populations of those species in controlled environments.

(((Global warming))) is a myth

The problem is that we're burning organic matter that was accumulated in the earth over the course of millions of years in about 300 years, causing an inbalance.

>Did this same civilization that 70%+ of which lives within 100 miles of a coastline exist back then too?

We didn't cause the sea levels to rise though.

news.com.au/technology/environment/natural-wonders/nasa-study-suggests-an-antarctic-supervolcano-could-make-the-ice-sheet-vulnerable/news-story/14ee668fa018e7f7d861ccbe63a3cd2f

Pretty much. The rate of accumulation in the atmosphere is terrifying.Also humans aren't sea birds, we build permanent structures near coastlines that will be underwater displacing billions of people (yes, with a B). The simpler solution is to stop burning fossil fuels and move to renewable energy.

Here's how it'll work.
We don't slow warming enough.
Billions are displaced.
Mass migration causes war
War leads to drastic population decline.
Less people, less cO2.

The problem will fix itself eventually.

A change in climate of a few degrees is a hell of a lot more of a problem than you think.
It doesn't mean you'll have more mild winters. It means significant chunks of polar ice will melt, raising the sea level. It means plants and animals going extinct in droves as their environment changes faster than they've ever been able to adapt. It means the regions where we can grow essential crops will shrink or disappear entirely. A climate hotter around the world by 4 degrees would cause famine like we've never seen.

>We didn't cause the sea levels to rise though.
What are you referring to? Of course humans didn't cause SLR events hundreds of thousands of years ago.

The sea level rise we are experiencing right now is almost entirely due to thermal expansion, not because of antarctic or arctic ice. Ocean temperatures are rising relatively rapidly due to global warming. Once the greenland ice sheet itself starts to rapidly melt that will change. It is thought that the rate of melt (which is already increasing) will increase further in the future as there is less and less sea ice around Greenland during the summer. This allows glaciers to rapidly retreat without protection from the sea ice (which insulates / protects the glaciers from warmer summer waters).

Some glaciologists theorize that once you lose annual sea ice we will see this rapid melting of the actual greenland ice sheet occur, but it will still take a very long time, possibly thousands of years, for the entire thing to melt away, but even a small fraction of this meltwater going into the oceans will lead to substantial SLR globally. A few feet and we're looking at many low lying areas like Bangladesh and Florida being inundated.

I don't see what the mantle plume in Antarctica has to due with this though.

...

this