Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[R-T-B]

Dur hurr, one is bigger than the other

Yeah, and a lot of other things. A greenhouse is literally a glass box with plants in it... The earth is a functional system.

What I'm saying is that all the information you've been given on the subject is wrong.

Frankly, you've demonstrated no understanding of the issue to be making claims like that.

If there were too much co2 we would all suffocate.

There was a good experiment on this called diesel submarines. The levels required to kill people are signifigantly higher than the planets present climate can sustain.

 

[SL2]

If there's too much co2, why do greenhouses need more? Because your data is falsified (everything that comes from NASA (a government institution) is pre-approved for public consumption, kind of like how CNN or FOX NEWS puts their own spin on everything), and everything you are told is a lie to control you.

Greenhouses are designed to grow plants as fast as possible (in most cases), you have a fairly controlled environment in a limited volume, where profit is the main focus.
The atmosphere, on the other hand, is several km high all around the planet. Changing the composition of the atmosphere can have severe consequences for all life on earth. I don't know how much CO2 is needed for plants, but I do understand that plants can't benefit from CO2 that isn't nearby, ie way up in the atmosphere where CO2 indirectly heats up the earth.

A good example is the ozone layer, which is NOT caused by the sun, and the damages we've seen through the years are NOT caused by the sun either. Still, the thinness of the ozone layer is a real problem in parts of the world that are right beneath it, like Australia.

Dunno why you limit yourself to NASA/CNN/FOX. If you don't believe in them, look elsewhere. (NOT youtube.. )

I

You say:
The plants needs CO2. There's too much CO2 in the atmosphere, but the plants will absorb that, no matter how high up it is.

An analogy would be:
The humans needs water. The sky is way too cloudy, and clouds are water. Let's drink more tap water, it will bring the sunshine back!!!?

If there were too much co2 we would all suffocate.

You compare apples to oranges. How much CO2 humans/animals can withstand have nothing to do with how much CO2 the atmosphere can have without altering the temperatures of the earth in a bad way.

 

[dorsetknob]

The plants needs CO2. There's too much CO2 in the atmosphere, but the plants will absorb that, no matter how high up it is.

No They will not !!!!!!!!!!!!
Plants thrive on a CO2 Rich Enviorment BUT IF THE CONCENTRATION GETS TOO HIGH ITS TOXIC

 

[SL2]

No They will not !!!!!!!!!!!!

Easy, I wasn't trying to actually say that. Read again.

 

[Assimilator]

Dur hurr, one is bigger than the other, and if it's true that we have too much co2, plant life everywhere would be thriving without needing even more co2. What I'm saying is that all the information you've been given on the subject is wrong. If there were too much co2 we would all suffocate. Since we're not all suffocating then there's no way we're producing enough co2 to harm the planet.

Since we cannot even at full capacity produce enough co2 to harm the planet or ourselves or even slightly affect our own climate I submit that your claims are false.

Hell, people believe in chemtrails and that the earth is flat, it's no wonder we have people that believe everything they're told from television (tell-lie-vision).

Also, NASA (your friendly government institution) has been lying to you for the last 50 years, why would they suddenly tell you the truth now?



My point exactly, we aren't breaking temperature records every day, Florida last winter got so cold iguanas were falling frozen from the trees, we are far from being overrun by giant plants, it's human nature to panic when presented with the falsities we are now force fed on a daily basis.

Any fool can use photoshop to turn the jetstream red and red makes people panic (because the military uses red alert as the highest alert phase, it is ingrained in most normal humans). In 50 years when nothing has happened I'll be here in my robot body saying I told you so.

I can't tell if you're really this stupid or just a really poor troll.

 

[oobymach]

No They will not !!!!!!!!!!!!
Plants thrive on a CO2 Rich Enviorment BUT IF THE CONCENTRATION GETS TOO HIGH ITS TOXIC

There was a lake in China that nobody lived near for thousands of years. One day a family settled there and after a few generations there were about 1000 people living near this lake. The lake was carbonated from lave underneath and one night it let loose all the co2 it was storing suffocating everyone nearby in their sleep.

My point is and has always been this, if the co2 levels were too high, we would all be suffocating in our sleep. Since we're not, and since there's no way we can do what that carbonated lake did, we're fine, stop worrying about it and either get used to the idea that you're wrong or simply live on in misinformed ignorance, I don't care.

* cough * CIA ADMITS USING MSM TO DISTRIBUTE DISINFORMATION

* ahemahem * Inside Operation Mockingbird — The CIA’s Plan To Infiltrate The Media

* cough * The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know

Sorry, just clearing my throat. Everything you know is a lie. You have been lied to since birth to conform to an unfair system of slavery.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

There was a lake in China that nobody lived near for thousands of years. One day a family settled there and after a few generations there were about 1000 people living near this lake. The lake was carbonated from lave underneath and one night it let loose all the co2 it was storing suffocating everyone nearby in their sleep.

It's carbon monoxide (CO) that kills in relation to lava gases more so than anything else. Carbon monoxide, in small doses, displaces oxygen making it extremely toxic. It's the same gas that kills in regards to natural gas/propane in houses and exposure to internal combustion engine exhaust.

My point is and has always been this, if the co2 levels were too high, we would all be suffocating in our sleep.

The air is principally nitrogen. CO2 is measured in the parts per million.

 

[dorsetknob]

There was a lake in China that nobody lived near for thousands of years. One day a family settled there and after a few generations there were about 1000 people living near this lake. The lake was carbonated from lave underneath and one night it let loose all the co2 it was storing suffocating everyone nearby in their sleep.

And there are lakes in Africa where this is a Regular occurance People still live in the area as its extremely fertile.

CO2 kills animal Life at levels well below what Plants can Tolerate

 

[oobymach]

It's carbon monoxide (CO) that kills in relation to lava gases more so than anything else. Carbon monoxide, in small doses, displaces oxygen making it extremely toxic. It's the same gas that kills in regards to natural gas/propane in houses and exposure to internal combustion engine exhaust.

The air is principally nitrogen. CO2 is measured in the parts per million.

Yes, carbon monoxide may have been the culprit in the Chinese lake story as it does displace air especially when concentrated.

And there are lakes in Africa where this is a Regular occurance People still live in the area as its extremely fertile.

CO2 kills animal Life at levels well below what Plants can Tolerate

Also yes but in lakes where it is a regular occurrence concentrations are much lower where the Chinese lake sat presumably for a long time before the fatal release occurred. And of course plants can tolerate much higher levels of co2 than animal life but we're not making nearly enough of it to harm ourselves.

The atmosphere is a massive ocean of air, if it were only 6 feet deep and constrained to that depth then yes, it might be possible to produce toxic amounts of co2 in certain places like high traffic motorways but it dissipates and settles and is absorbed by all manner of plant life. Even if you seal yourself in an airtight room you won't suffocate for days (co2 will kill you before you run out of oxygen). The first submariners died sealed in a wooden sub (Roman era?), the first of its kind, presumably from co2 due to multiple people in a tight sealed space.

I'm not saying it can't kill you, I'm saying we can't produce enough of it for it to be a problem.

Greenhouses are designed to grow plants as fast as possible (in most cases), you have a fairly controlled environment in a limited volume, where profit is the main focus.
The atmosphere, on the other hand, is several km high all around the planet. Changing the composition of the atmosphere can have severe consequences for all life on earth. I don't know how much CO2 is needed for plants, but I do understand that plants can't benefit from CO2 that isn't nearby, ie way up in the atmosphere where CO2 indirectly heats up the earth.

A good example is the ozone layer, which is NOT caused by the sun, and the damages we've seen through the years are NOT caused by the sun either. Still, the thinness of the ozone layer is a real problem in parts of the world that are right beneath it, like Australia.

Dunno why you limit yourself to NASA/CNN/FOX. If you don't believe in them, look elsewhere. (NOT youtube.. )


You say:
The plants needs CO2. There's too much CO2 in the atmosphere, but the plants will absorb that, no matter how high up it is.

An analogy would be:
The humans needs water. The sky is way too cloudy, and clouds are water. Let's drink more tap water, it will bring the sunshine back!!!?


You compare apples to oranges. How much CO2 humans/animals can withstand have nothing to do with how much CO2 the atmosphere can have without altering the temperatures of the earth in a bad way.

The hole in the ozone was above Canada for a long time and nothing bad happened because of it. Sure there were fearmongers trying to incite panic but nobody died from it, temperature didn't change because of it. The only thing it negatively impacted was our upper atmosphere radiation absorption.

Co2 is a heavy gas, it settles on the ground. I learned this when I was a child.

Your argument makes you look like you're uneducated, or severely misinformed.

 

[SL2]

My point is and has always been this, if the co2 levels were too high, we would all be suffocating in our sleep.

Nobody said we will suffocate from CO2, that's not the issue here.

The hole in the ozone was above Canada for a long time and nothing bad happened because of it. Sure there were fearmongers trying to incite panic but nobody died from it, temperature didn't change because of it. The only thing it negatively impacted was our upper atmosphere radiation absorption.

Co2 is a heavy gas, it settles on the ground. I learned this when I was a child.

The risk of getting skin cancer rises when the ozone layer is thinner because people get exposed to more UV light. UV light is the number one cause of skin cancer, this is a well known fact.
The temperature doesn't rise because of that AFAIK, dunno where you got that from.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than air, but the wind and other factors causes it to rise. Water is also heavier than air, but still you have enormous amounts of water in clouds, way above the much lighter air.

Fortunately, you are the uneducated one here.

You still believe that the amount of CO2 we can withstand is a measure of how much CO2 we can have in the atmosphere before the planet gets too hot - which is two different things.


Maybe you should join a flat earth forum instead, I'm sure they will agree with you.

 

[oobymach]

Nobody said we will suffocate from CO2, that's not the issue here.


The risk of getting skin cancer rises when the ozone layer is thinner because people get exposed to more UV light. UV light is the number one cause of skin cancer, this is a well known fact.
The temperature doesn't rise because of that AFAIK, dunno where you got that from.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than air, but the wind and other factors causes it to rise. Water is also heavier than air, but still you have enormous amounts of water in clouds, way above the much lighter air.

Fortunately, you are the uneducated one here.

You still believe that the amount of CO2 we can withstand is a measure of how much CO2 we can have in the atmosphere before the planet gets too hot - which is two different things.


Maybe you should join a flat earth forum instead, I'm sure they will agree with you.

The risk of getting skin cancer rises when the solar output (aka solar wind) goes from 600kps @ 0-1 protons per cubic centimeter density to 300kps @ 10-1000 protons per cubic centimeter density. That is what changes earths weather, that is what gives people heat stroke, not co2. See spaceweather.com for live solar updates.

There are no ties to earths temperature and co2, believing otherwise makes you look foolish. As I pointed out earlier Florida froze last year, where is your precious co2 argument for Florida experiencing actual winter weather last year, when presumably the co2 level was roughly the same as it is now.

Again, it's impossible for humans to affect earths climate, even if we all one day decide to start burning styrofoam, old computers, and plastic all day every day like China does, we will not affect earths climate. The ONLY thing that can is the sun, and if you can't figure that out you've not much of an education imo.

For the record the sun is a hydrogen-helium fusion star weighing in at 1.989 × 10^30 kg with a continual output of 384.6 yotta watts and it is the ONLY thing that can affect earths climate. Turn it off and we all freeze to death.

Also the medieval warm period guaranteed wasn't caused by co2, because the makeup of the gases in our atmosphere doesn't matter to the sun.

 

[Assimilator]

There was a lake in China that nobody lived near for thousands of years. One day a family settled there and after a few generations there were about 1000 people living near this lake. The lake was carbonated from lave underneath and one night it let loose all the co2 it was storing suffocating everyone nearby in their sleep.

My point is and has always been this, if the co2 levels were too high, we would all be suffocating in our sleep. Since we're not, and since there's no way we can do what that carbonated lake did, we're fine, stop worrying about it and either get used to the idea that you're wrong or simply live on in misinformed ignorance, I don't care.

* cough * CIA ADMITS USING MSM TO DISTRIBUTE DISINFORMATION

* ahemahem * Inside Operation Mockingbird — The CIA’s Plan To Infiltrate The Media

* cough * The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know

Sorry, just clearing my throat. Everything you know is a lie. You have been lied to since birth to conform to an unfair system of slavery.

I apologise for calling you stupid. It was unnecessary, since it's implied by the tinfoil hat you're wearing.

 

[R-T-B]

My point is and has always been this, if the co2 levels were too high, we would all be suffocating in our sleep

You don't need it at literally toxic levels to melt glaciers.

No comment on the rest.... you didn't even get the location of the toxic lake right.

 

[oobymach]

*sigh*

Since I'm up against a hippy bandwagon it's clear I'll not be opening anyone's eyes here anytime soon.

In 1859 the Carrington event melted the telegraph wires. Guess what wasn't the culprit then? You guessed it, co2. The sun is and has always been the ONLY effector of earths climate. The only people who believe otherwise are Al Gore and the bong water brigade, and since you seem to belong to that group I'll just leave you to it. Have fun believing your lies and disinformation.

"But the co2 is changing the planet man."

No it isn't you damn hippy, put the bong down and stop believing everything you watch and read on the internet.

*drops mic*

 

[dont whant to set it"']

"cough, smog, cough", now sit your arse down. Not particularly personal.
Surely I'd trade places with you if air quality is better where you is or if not me , maybe an asian living in a densely populated capital from East and far East Asia.

 

[dorsetknob]

"cough, smog, cough", now sit your arse down. Not particularly personal.

The sun is and has always been the ONLY effector of earths climate. The only people who believe otherwise are Al Gore and the bong water brigade,

hick-up burp followed by methane Fart.

Documented Evidence of Volcanic Atmospheric contamination and Fall out Causing Global Cooling
and yeh Scientists are mulling the idea of Aresol particles to induce man made Global cooling.

this is Nature's version of Nuclear Winter (have you heard of that!!!)

Volcanic winter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[FordGT90Concept]

*sigh*

Since I'm up against a hippy bandwagon it's clear I'll not be opening anyone's eyes here anytime soon.

In 1859 the Carrington event melted the telegraph wires. Guess what wasn't the culprit then? You guessed it, co2. The sun is and has always been the ONLY effector of earths climate. The only people who believe otherwise are Al Gore and the bong water brigade, and since you seem to belong to that group I'll just leave you to it. Have fun believing your lies and disinformation.

"But the co2 is changing the planet man."

No it isn't you damn hippy, put the bong down and stop believing everything you watch and read on the internet.

*drops mic*

It's really very simple science. We have a large variety of sensors which detect:
1) Rising CO2

2) Rising CH4

3) Rising N2O

4) Rising SF6

5) Sun spots

6) Rising temperature

Explain all of these points together, cohesively.

In science, there's only one way to upset the status quo: provide an alternative hypothesis. You like to blame the sun, well, #5 + #6 rapidly dismisses that claim: you can see the solar cycle having a +/- effect on the temperature but the upward trend isn't explained by the sun.

There's only one logical explanation: man is trashing the troposphere.

 

[dont whant to set it"']

One famuos example that's not in a good light wich came to mind, was the 2008 Beijing olimpics because it was highly covered. I knew about the smog prior to that but I atributed it to some whether phenomenon I have yet to learn about, allthewhyle wishfully thinking it's not man made, because it can't be, ah, so childish.

 

[witkazy]

The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day. (The exact quantity depends on your activity level—a person engaged in vigorous exercise produces up to eight times as much CO2 as his sedentary brethren.) That's it ,i quit workin out ,for future of mankind and planet of course

 

[oobymach]

Explain all of these points together, cohesively.

I have an apple and an orange, both grew bigger over time therefore the apple made the orange grow.

Implying correlation between 2 things that aren't really related at all just because someone else told you is not very scientific. If the temperature is rising the sun is to blame. Not the friggin gas in the atmosphere. Light passes through gas unchanged, SOLAR WIND on the other hand can make the sun feel 10 times hotter because solar wind density goes from 0-1 particles per cubic centimeter @ 600kps to 5-1000 ppcc @ 300kps. Generally on a bad day it hovers between 5 and 14 for the entire day, but trying to explain this to a monkey with it's head buried in the dirt getting raped by its government isn't getting me anywhere.

YOUR GOVERNMENT USES THE MEDIA TO MISINFORM YOU, ABOUT EVERYTHING, MSM INCLUDED, YOUTUBE INCLUDED, BLOGS INCLUDED, EVERYTHING YOU READ OR HEAR EVERY DAY IS LIKELY JUST WELL CRAFTED LIES TO MANIPULATE YOU INTO BELIEVING FALSITIES BECAUSE WHEN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BELIEVE NOTHING BUT LIES OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD WORKED AND THEY HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER YOU.

There, I tried again.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Implying correlation between 2 things that aren't really related at all just because someone else told you is not very scientific.

All four gases I referenced are greenhouse gases:

Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA

Information on emissions and removals of the main greenhouse gases to and from the atmosphere.

www.epa.gov

We know how humans are adding them to the environment (why they're trending up):

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

Sources of greenhouse gas emissions, inculding electricity production, tranportation, industry, agriculture, and forestry.

www.epa.gov

We know how greenhouse gases work to stabilize atmospheric temperature:

Greenhouse Gases | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Greenhouse Gases

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

We also know that warming (1C over the past 50 years) means there's more energy held in the troposphere which means the air holds more of the elephant in the room (water vapor):

NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

Translation: it's been getting hotter and while keep getting hotter until we reverse course in regards to greenhouse gases.

If the temperature is rising the sun is to blame. Not the friggin gas in the atmosphere.

The sun is not getting hotter but the atmosphere is. Think of it like a cold winter night, the difference between a light sheet and a heavy blanket. The amount of heat emanating from your body is more or less the same but the heavy blanket is a more effective insulator causing heat retention. Now picture the Earth instead of you and adding more greenhouse gases is like throwing more layers of blankets on the planet. What's going to happen? Less heat escapes; surface temperature gets warmer.

There, I tried again.

Not very hard. Basically just threw whataboutisms out there. This isn't rocket science and the body of evidence in support of anthropomorphic ("caused by humans") warming grows with every passing year. The amount of evidence contradicting the theory is dwindling to almost nonexistent. There's not much the theory doesn't explain from methane releases in the arctic to changes in ocean conveyors to jet stream instability. Observation -> Hypothesis -> Experimentation = Scientific Method; the very same process that enable us to communicate the way we are right now. Alarm is growing in the scientific community because most of the bad things that were theorized to happen are happening faster than expected (like permafrost thawing). It's like seeing water leak through the wall of a dam: a precursor to dam failure.

 

[dorsetknob]

YOUR GOVERNMENT USES THE MEDIA TO MISINFORM YOU,

Errrmm you Goverment Sponsered ??? Because when no one accepts your propaganda you resort to Shouting ( that's a political and morons response ).

, but trying to explain this to a monkey with it's head buried in the dirt

Cage Politics...................pass the Bananas please

 

[Papahyooie]

To Oobymach, I don't subscribe to anthropomorphic global warming theories either (or at least not in the catastrophic sense), but your entire argument is garbage lol. You suppose that if there was too much CO2, we would all die of asphyxiation. Yet you're tying together two things that are entirely unrelated. The amount of CO2 it would take to cause global warming (if any) is not related to the amount of CO2 it would take to asphyxiate a human in any way. They are not necessarily the same value, and you're equating them. There is nothing scientific, anywhere, that necessitates these two values to be even close to each other. You're making a ridiculously huge fallacious assumption that CO2 cannot cause climate effects in concentrations lower than would kill a human. As I said... I don't even believe in anthropomorphic global warming, but that's a ridiculous claim.

Just an olive branch to the warmers, from the non-warmers... we don't claim him.

As for the rest of the recent thread, I've said it multiple times before, so there isn't much point in going into it again. But since someone will inevitably ask me why I don't believe the anthropomorphic global warming theories, for those unwilling to scroll back, Ford's graphs lack the context of time. There have been higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, higher temperatures, and more drastic temperature swings, before humans even existed. Zoom those graphs out to include a longer time period and the recent uptick is no longer anomalous. In fact, rises in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere tend to lag behind temperature swings. This suggests that if there IS a causal relationship, that temperature rises cause an increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, not the other way around. Also, the global warming proponents have a nasty history of using "creative" data modeling techniques to make things look worse than they are. The infamous "hockey stick" graphs are only one example. The "97% of scientists agree" is also a bit misleading.

Don't @ me, read the thread.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

...Ford's graphs lack the context of time.

#1-4 are observations at that specific location (Mauna Loa). CO2 has the most data because it was built by NOAA to monitor emissions of volcanic gases. In that same data, they noticed the trend of CO2 rising even when the volcano had no change. Realizing this wasn't just a fluke, they expanded the site to also measure CH4 in the early 80s. The two combined lead to the first...well...scare...that we may be heading for something bad. It lead to the creation of the IPCC and several climate studies. These studies eventually exposed CFCs as being bad for ozone, among other things, which resulted in SF6 being added to instrumentation in the mid 1990s. Then the bat-shit crazy phase was entered with Al Gore and the IPCC in the late 1990s which resulted in N2O monitoring being added in the early 2000s.

#5 are also observations taken by satellites and telescopes which the facility in Boulder, Colorado, collates and reports on.

#6 is the only graph that includes observations and modeled data. If you want the best data... here you go:

UAH = University of Alabama in Huntsville which uses a variety of satellite measurements to infer surface temperature.
RSS = Remote Sensing System satellites which use microwaves to measure atmospheric temperature.

As you can see...all are in agreement of warming. Which makes sense considering CO2, CH4, N20, and SF6 are rising too (all observations since the 1960s).

There have been higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, higher temperatures, and more drastic temperature swings, before humans even existed.

Millions of years ago:

That last is kind of the point: when CO2 was this high before, humans didn't exist. We're already in untested waters.

Note the bottom of that picture versus the CO2 level above--associates CO2 with glaciation. You can always reference this website to see what we're at now:

Trends in CO2 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory

GML conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

www.esrl.noaa.gov

408.54 ppm is the September average.

Glaciers generally don't exist above ~500 ppm. It was about 310 ppm in 1920. In another century, we may cross 500 ppm which could translate to no more glaciers. A century. The children born today may see the day that glaciers don't exist. If that isn't a wake up call, what is?

The infamous "hockey stick" graphs are only one example.

Because it's true, CH4 is 300% higher than it was for millennia before and CO2 is ~150% higher than it was. You graph these trends and it turns into a hockey stick. Guess what's also a hockey stick. Human population:

Coincidence? Probably. Humans rely heavily on mechanization which is principally powered by compounding oxygen into carbon dioxide for energy. Hell, we couldn't sustain that population without mechanization.


I was a skeptic too (which @magibeg can attest to) but, the evidence has become overwhelming in support of anthropomorphic warming in the last decade. I can find no other reasonable explanation despite years of trying. Sure, there's still question marks on some things like clouds but what needs to be done about it all comes back to one in the same: curb emissions.

I am not fatalist by any means. I think a large number of humans will survive whatever results from it. It's not like an asteroid or super volcano eruption. What concerns me is how many other species will we lose on the way; they can't adapt as fast as we can.

 

[Papahyooie]

#1-4 are observations at that specific location (Mauna Loa). CO2 has the most data because it was built by NOAA to monitor emissions of volcanic gases. In that same data, they noticed the trend of CO2 rising even when the volcano had no change. Realizing this wasn't just a fluke, they expanded the site to also measure CH4 in the early 80s. The two combined lead to the first...well...scare...that we may be heading for something bad. It lead to the creation of the IPCC and several climate studies. These studies eventually exposed CFCs as being bad for ozone, among other things, which resulted in SF6 being added to instrumentation in the mid 1990s. Then the bat-shit crazy phase was entered with Al Gore and the IPCC in the late 1990s which resulted in N2O monitoring being added in the early 2000s.

#5 are also observations taken by satellites and telescopes which the facility in Boulder, Colorado, collates and reports on.

#6 is the only graph that includes observations and modeled data. If you want the best data... here you go:

UAH = University of Alabama in Huntsville which uses a variety of satellite measurements to infer surface temperature.
RSS = Remote Sensing System satellites which use microwaves to measure atmospheric temperature.

As you can see...all are in agreement of warming. Which makes sense considering CO2, CH4, N20, and SF6 are rising too (all observations since the 1960s).


Millions of years ago:

That last is kind of the point: when CO2 was this high before, humans didn't exist. We're already in untested waters.

Note the bottom of that picture versus the CO2 level above--associates CO2 with glaciation. You can always reference this website to see what we're at now:

Trends in CO2 - NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory

GML conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

www.esrl.noaa.gov

408.54 ppm is the September average.

Glaciers generally don't exist above ~500 ppm. It was about 310 ppm in 1920. In another century, we may cross 500 ppm which could translate to no more glaciers. A century. The children born today may see the day that glaciers don't exist. If that isn't a wake up call, what is?


Because it's true, CH4 is 300% higher than it was for millennia before and CO2 is ~150% higher than it was. You graph these trends and it turns into a hockey stick. Guess what's also a hockey stick. Human population:

Coincidence? Probably. Humans rely heavily on mechanization which is principally powered by compounding oxygen into carbon dioxide for energy. Hell, we couldn't sustain that population without mechanization.


I was a skeptic too (which @magibeg can attest to) but, the evidence has become overwhelming in support of anthropomorphic warming in the last decade. I can find no other reasonable explanation despite years of trying. Sure, there's still question marks on some things like clouds but what needs to be done about it all comes back to one in the same: curb emissions.

I am not fatalist by any means. I think a large number of humans will survive whatever results from it. It's not like an asteroid or super volcano eruption. What concerns me is how many other species will we lose on the way; they can't adapt as fast as we can.

Once again, you're lacking time. From your own source:

We're currently at a similar level as it was 2.5 million years ago. There was no human industrial revolution 2.5 million years ago. 25 to 45 million years ago, concentrations were 2-10 times higher than they are today.

If the earth can do this without ANY human intervention whatsoever, humanity's TINY contribution that won't even register as a visible change on the larger timescales, will not cause, nor stop, global warming. The globe is absolutely warming. And it will do so regardless of what humans do or do not do. The current changes in CO2 concentrations and temperature are not anomalous. I've no doubt that humans will kill themselves off in myriad other ways... but anthropomorphic global warming is not one of them.