Global warming isn't re-

>what is the younger dryas

Weren't there vineyards in scotland during the high medieval period? Pretty sure it was hotter back then than it is now

Your graph is bullshit

>about the toxicity of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration for the human body, At 1200ppm

Jesus, the ACGIH-TWA for CO2 is fucking 5000ppm.
You can revive mouth to mouth resuscitation and have no lasting effects where the CO2 content is 4-5% or 40-50 kppm

ha-ha oh wow he thinks humans can control the climate and stop the natural heating and cooling cycle

Attached: glasses pepe.jpg (600x600, 43K)

also you only need to wait 500 fucking years till you reach that concentration.

cities hold on to heat longer than natural landscapes. your chart illustrates the rise of large cities, and does it well.

>statistical manipulation isn't re-

the earth naturally warms and cools who cares

Nobody says that global warming isn't real, it's just not man-made, so it's useless to try and stop it.

>1997 we have intill 2000 to do something about global warming
>2001 we have in till 2005 to do something about global warming
>2006 we have in till 2010 to do something about global warming
>2009 we have in till 2015 to do something about global warming
>2013 we have in till 2020 to do something about man made climate change
>2018 we have in till 2030 to do something about man made climate change

Attached: thestare.gif (400x222, 722K)

user, I...

Attached: Hos_8.png (900x449, 30K)

here is a video from 2009:

youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI

No goy you need to trust us we have data!

Attached: 1540879098717.jpg (1904x1650, 620K)

What the fuck are you talking about? 1000ppm is where health concerns start. And if it’s 1200ppm outside, it’s typically 2000ppm or above indoors even with ventillation... and 4000-5000ppm without ventillation.

Attached: FA41B6EB-E230-4266-8667-4E8260B459F2.jpg (652x337, 70K)

>history started at 0 AD

>What is the sun?

Attached: the leftist black pill.png (954x806, 892K)

Canada truly is the great satan on Jow Forums

>he bought the top
welcome to literally bitconnect 2

>1000ppm is where health concerns start.
>Posts graph showing they start at 6,000 to 30,000.

I get that some people value productivity over the environment, but it annoys me when people don't accept facts because it'd be inconvenient.

you provided no sources either

Ok now show me the raw data they used before changing it to this graph.

What do you think the threshold of 1000ppm at “tolerable indoor level” means? At 1500ppm you already suffer various symptoms of CO2 toxicity.

CO2 is present in the atmosphere at a concentration of approximately 385 ppm, and serves as an essential trigger in the human body for respiration. CO2 produced by the human body exists at a slightly higher partial pressure than that inhaled, allowing the diffusion of CO2into the lungs ready for exhaling. However, an increase in the concentration of CO2 by just a percentage point alters the partial pressure of the CO2 in the inhaled air; the concentration gradient is reversed and more CO2 diffuses into the blood, increasing its acidity. The subject is likely to begin to breathe more frequently and/or deeply as the respiratory system mechanisms react to stabilise this imbalance. If the subject is in an asphyxiating atmosphere, an increase in the depth or rate of breathing will only serve to worsen the situation as the subject takes in more and more CO2. The effect of CO2 on the human body according to level of exposure is documented in Table 3.1. At concentrations of 1 500 ppm CO2 subjects are likely to suffer symptoms such as headaches, tiredness and increased breathing rate as CO2 is absorbed into the bloodstream and increases its acidity. A further increase in CO2 concentration can induce visual impairment and/or loss of consciousness. Above 100 000 ppm (10 % by volume) rapid unconsciousness will occur.

>medieval warm period

and how was the temperature information from this time period gathered? time machine?

>cities hold on to heat longer than natural landscapes. your chart illustrates the rise of large cities, and does it well.
Which is also where they recorded the temps.

you know all values before 1900 are just guessed right?

aragonvalley.com/effects-of-co2-in-humans/
>CO2 is a gas present in the atmosphere in a natural way in a concentration of 250 to 350 ppm.
>350 to 1000 ppm is a good quality concentration in an enclosed room. This is what the Earth is, a confined space.
>1000 to 2000 ppm, the air quality is low.
>From 2000 to 5000 ppm, CO2 concentration starts to cause problems (headaches, insomnia, nausea). It is a dirty air.

Your claim of 1500 "subjects are likely to suffer symptoms such as headaches, tiredness and increased breathing rate" Is 500ppm low. Or is too low by more than our current atmospheric total of CO2.

Climate Scammers can never stop lying even when holding onto the evidence.

>Your claim of 1500 "subjects are likely to suffer symptoms such as headaches, tiredness and increased breathing rate" Is 500ppm low.

The 1500ppm is based on medical trials. Go here and kmock yourself out hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/hazard-analysis-offshore-carbon-capture-platforms-and-offshore-pipelines/32-general-hazards-associated-co2

So, at 1250ppm in 2100 at current baseline trajectory, humans would probably be close to not being able to live indoors without CO2 filtration systems.

>At 1500ppm you already suffer various symptoms of CO2 toxicity.

yeah you might suffer light headache, with strong pronunciation on might.
and agian at the current rate you need fucking 500 years to reach 1200ppm.

>So, at 1250ppm in 2100

the current rate is 1,6 ppm (50 year average) per year

>earth has been around for billions of years
>lets be nice and assume 1 billion
>1,000,000,000/2000
>0.000002
So you're basing your belief about the global climate on 0.0002% of data?

>Israel discovers a large supply of oil and gas within its borders (Leviathan)
>Begins construction in 2015
>At the same time a climate change denier with a large Jewish family makes a bid for President
>The US is now leaving the Paris Agreement and abandoning support for renewables
>Americans will defend this

Attached: Abstract S.png (208x243, 7K)

Baseline is 1255ppm in 2100

>What are ice cores?

Attached: replacement.png (2000x1557, 1.08M)

Ice cores aren't reliable because glaciers drift.

ice cores only show the temperature fluctuations in one region. there are many regions on earth subject to many different fluctuations, taking a core sample from one geographic location doesn't represent the entire globe at that time.

>Baseline is 1255ppm in 2100

>believing "climate simulation"
according to the ipcc data from the 1990 we already should have been past 450ppm with all the growth in emissions we had (which outpaced their predictions).
We are now at 405ppm, thats just an error of 50%, but whatever CO2 turbo emissions will kick any year now.

>ice cores only show the temperature fluctuations in one region. there are many regions on earth subject to many different fluctuations, taking a core sample from one geographic location doesn't represent the entire globe at that time.

funny, you know that all the climate models make the exact same assumption. they base their models from most deserts/poles and remote locations on a handful stations that span million of km2.

>it only valid when its supports my standpoint.

>climate models

models, so not 100% fact?

They faked the data you shit eating faggot

Of course not. Did everyone forget climategate? All this shit is made up so that the (((scientists))) can get gibs from the government.

a terrifyingly short amount of time desu

As a free market libertarian I get so fucking pissed when I see other people on the right just automatically align with climate change denialism. It just goes to show that most people aren't actually thinking and just believe whatever their ideology tells them.

Just because you think communism is a bad idea doesn't mean climate change is a liberal communist conspiracy to tax people into communism, its just so fucking stupid.

There is several orders of magnitude more money and incentive for rich energy companies to conspire to hide climate change than there is for climate scientists to lie about it. I mean who the hell is getting rich off climate change? When was the last time you saw a climate scientist driving a lambo? Most scientists make the same or less than blue collar workers.

Attached: 1521948.jpg (400x400, 27K)

Correlation does not imply causation.

>As a free market libertarian
Kek.
See:

Attached: 1538450264427.png (1386x1080, 328K)

get rid of the black line that starts in the modern era and let us see the real data

Sweden used to be much warmer than it is today. They've found fossils of seaturtles and other animals that can only survive in tropical climates.

>temperature anomaly

Now show the chart of actual temperatures going back millions of years that shows what an idiot you are for believing in man-made global climate change.

I think reasonable people on the right believe the climate is changing, its the fact that we dont know if its man made or not and its become a political talking point. "science denier" and "settled science" is a liberal talking point to smear dissenters. Before you start accusing me of being a flat earther, keep in mind there are real scientists out there who don't believe the hype of manmade climate change.

The other reason its a political talking point is that even if man made climate change is real, there is nothing the US can do about it without crippling our economy. No one on earth gives a fuck about the CO2 emissions of Denmark its negligible. The real problem is china, USA, and India. If the USA went zero carbon it would only be a small piece of the pie contributing to climate change.

You expect the USA, the worlds most powerful country, to voluntarily give up fossil fuels and to immediately halt our industry powered by them? You expect us to just hand our foes Russia and china a huge geopolitical and economic advantage because some fucking danish faggot and the EU cried about it?

What exactly do you propose that makes economic sense? There needs to be a balance.

>I mean who the hell is getting rich off climate change

energy companies.
Funny thing for every MW installed solar/wind energy you need a MW in compensation. This is usually done via pumped storage hydro power station, but they are geographically limited sites, so the vast majority is done via gas powered power plants.

Also many of the large energy companies built wind parks an mass as long they got subsidies and subsidised electric rates.

What reason would the liberals have to lie, you ask?

Carbon taxes, vastly expanded unelected government bodies + government control, using tax payer dollars to fund their friends unprofitable "green" energy startups, and of course smearing their competitors.

>an "audit" done by a blogger that works for a mining company
Fucking kek. Imagine being such a retard that you actually take this seriously.

>I mean who the hell is getting rich off climate change?
bing.com/search?q=climategate
The faggots lying to you about it, retard.

Post in store prices, fgt.

Attached: faa.png (1090x1087, 312K)

all recent "climate change" protocols/pacts/agreements or however you want to call them are just disguised wealth transfer programs.
The recent one is just paris.

You are absolutely right, the economy of a country is usually directly linked to how much Co2 it emits and thats where the crux lies. The EU and the US all agreed to reduce total carbon emissions from certain levels. China the biggest "Co2 polluter" just agreed to reduce their CO2 emission RATE , this rate is tied to GDP. Which means they just reduce their CO2 emission rate by growing their GDP.

You are lucky to have trump that he saw through this scam.

I means its comical to think that somehow the world is going to rid itsself of fossil fuels. Lets say we do stop using oil. How are people going to get to work to keep the economy running? Battery powered cars? You have to get that energy from somewhere. Imagine the environmental impact and damage that would be caused by mining rare earth metals for enough advanced batteries to power 350 million cars plus buses, trains, etc, and thats just for the USA alone. We have not developed the technology for planes to be battery powered yet. They are too heavy to be practical for flight.

Not only that, but you have to use energy to charge those batteries so where the fuck does that insane amount of energy come from if not coal?

Its unbelievable liberals are so fucking stupid they cant see how impossible it is with the technology we have to stop global warming.

Complaining about climate change without addressing the root of the problem
>too many people
>Fiat debt (((slavery))) ponzi that requires more people
Kys

It annoys me when I smear my windows with human shit and rain just washes it off a couple of days later.

Just plant more plants

Last bit because I'm wasting my time writing all this shit out.

If the governments of the world truly thought that their coastal cities, usually their biggest and best cities, would be underwater in the next 50 years, there would be a Manhattan style project to create a fusion reactor.

I know some faggot is going to reply with a picture of the german tomahawk reactor. Yes they are working on it, but im talking about a Manhattan project where a huge amount of the GDP of a country is put into that one project, not a couple million a year.

You really think the USA would allow New York and 35 other enormous productive US cities to be completely destroyed in 50 years? Impossible.

Climate change is natural. It's cyclic. Look at pic related. That is how much we actually contribute to this "change". It's a false narrative, a hegelian dialectic - problem, reaction, solution.

it's just another big scare to tax people and generate wealth for the few percent.

Attached: 1541012478720.jpg (582x240, 79K)

>You really think the USA would allow New York and 35 other enormous productive US cities to be completely destroyed in 50 years? Impossible.
Hopefully a good tension quake in California can help us out with this.

Yes trump is smart about it. Liberal and the media keep smearing him as wanting to destroy the environment but what else is new.

>ignores obvious findings

>In Romania one September the average temperature was reported as minus 46°C.
>St Kitts in the Caribbean, the average temperature for December 1981 was zero degrees, normally it’s 26C.
>three months in 1978 one place in Colombia reported an 82 degrees Celsius average
>ships would report ocean temperatures from places up to 100km inland.

YES long nose, dont believe anyone who is not a certified climate researcher, they never make any mistakes, they only know the truth.

Attached: 1419097032584.jpg (800x764, 254K)

I had school textbooks in the 90s showing London being underwater by 2050.
We've made zero progress towards this. Nothing is underwater, nothing at all.

Holy shit what is the ice age gonna be like?

based real China

The idea that we'll have to turn into communists just to fix one issue is a flat out lie based on a talking point that communists WANT us to believe.
Want to combat global warming? Start by cutting off fossil fuel subsidies so the market can become more competitive.

can't wait till we reach 2050, and nothing of the predicted will have happened.

To bad most of the people who made this predictions will already be dead.
Also can't wait for new people in 2050 making predictions for 2150, which will never become true, but they don't care as they are dead by this time anyway.

>Start by cutting off fossil fuel subsidies so the market can become more competitive.

cut off all subsidies

>cut off all subsidies
THIS

Sorry, as a farmer, I like being paid not to work.

>global warming

Attached: uncommun smug pepe nacsoc.jpg (484x569, 37K)

>"no sources" - canuck with ms paint chart that has no source whatsoever

When is the bear trap? Wait is this a crypto thread?

K, so why aren’t you faggots pushing solar if you care so much about CO2

*Nuclear

sorry but you have to work now, but on the bright side, you will get a fair price now and your goods will supply local populace.

Good news, it's super easy to remove atmospheric carbon, the only problem is that the UN arrested the last guy who tried to do it.

>thinks random blogs of people employed by companies that have a vested anti-environmental interest are legitimate sources of information
Have you looked into these claims and verified that ships actually reported temps from 100km inland? Or are you just blindly repeating something you read somewhere?

(((Reconstructed))) Temperature

Look at the scale on the Y axis. Small as fuck to make any deviation look huge.

How much money do we have to pay before the temperature comes down?

What do you wanna do about it? Nuke China?

>Have you looked into these claims and verified that ships actually reported temps from 100km inland?

yes I actually did

researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/1/52041-mclean-2017-thesis.pdf

page 196 onwards, 201.

I'm going to set up a banana plantation up north.

Control? No. Affect significantly due to their activities? That's exactly what's happening.
Urban heat island effect is accounted for.
The current trend is caused by humans though.
not the cause of the current warming trend

It's from the wikipedia

>The current trend is caused by humans though.
We gonna be to blame when the 'trend' reverses too?

It is man-made retard. You're not being rationally skeptical, you're being unduly skeptical and pretending evidence you don't like isn't real.

We'll cross that bridge when we get there (never).

Has OP discontinued the use of fossil fuels and other products that depend on the use of fossil fuels? Well... Have you?