Global CO2 Emissions

When they stop increasing?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not within our lifetimes

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the permafrost in the tundra has already started to melt. we hit the point of no return. we can try to limit how bad it gets, but we fricked up bad.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hopefully never. More carbon is better for the planet.
    The modern climate is one of the coldest in Earth's history. There is absolutely no reason to suppose the modern, pre-industrial climate is optimal in any sense for humanity or for the rest of the biosphere.

    In the Devonian Period (400 million years back) beginning plants evolved to produce lignin, which in combination with cellulose, created wood which in turn for the first time allowed plants to grow tall for sunlight. Forests pulled down carbon as CO2 from the atmosphere to make wood. Lignin is very difficult to break down and no decomposer species possessed the enzymes to digest it. Trees died atop one another until they were 100 metres or more in depth. This was the making of the great coal beds around the world as this huge store of sequestered carbon continued to build for 90 million years. Then, fortunately for the future of life, white rot fungi evolved to produce the enzymes that can digest lignin and so the coal-making era came to an end. If it had not, CO2, which had already been drawn down for the first time in Earth's history to levels similar to today's, would have continued to decline until CO2 approached the threshold of 150 ppm below which plants begin first to starve, then stop growing altogether, and then die. Not just woody plants but all plants. This would bring about the extinction of most, if not all, terrestrial species, as animals, insects, and other invertebrates starved for lack of food. And that would be that. The human species would never have existed.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Humans die off and plants and fungus inherit the earth
      Très basé

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >More carbon is better for the planet

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the only difference between earth & venus is the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere
        KYS disingenuous homosexual

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah plenty of stuff is different like their name. One is called Venus. One is called earth. One is close to the sun. The other is farther.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Venus and mercury both have surface temperatures of roughly 800+°F. Venus is 31.1 million miles
          Gee I wonder why that is

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Further from the sun than mercury***

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Probably because it's atmosphere is hundreds of times denser than Earth's.
            With an atmosphere that thick, with permanent sulphuric acid clouds that extend for 30 miles above the surface, Venus would be a boiling hell scape even with zero CO2.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Imagine being so moronic that you thought density was an infinite energy hack

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why is the dark side of the moon extremely cold, but not the dark side of the Earth?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Greenhouse gasses, moron. It doesn't have to do with the density of the atmosphere. If the moon had an atmosphere with the same pressure as Earth but had no greenhouse gasses, like an oxygen or pure nitrogen atmosphere, then it would cool off just as quickly.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >More carbon is better for the planet.
      >is better
      What the frick does that even mean? Inanimate and non-living things have no concerns. The planet and the laws of physics don't give a shit if there is more or less of CO2. The biome would, but it can't grasp such a basic concept either.
      This really is about mankind, and only mankind. What kind of changes are we brunging about this planet, how will it change, and how will it affect everyone else in the future.
      Life will carry on, one more mass extinction, big deal. Sorry humans, you fricked up

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Life will carry on, one more mass extinction, big deal. Sorry humans, you fricked up
        Life won't carry on if CO2 drops below 150ppm. Carbon sequestration has been lowering atmospheric CO2 gradually for tens of millions of years - it has fluctuated up and down for various reasons, but until humans came along and began extracting and burning hydrocarbons, the global carbon cycle was gradually depleting itself.
        Humanity is the saviour of life on Earth - if we hadn't evolved the intelligence and technology to extract and burn hydrocarbons and thus free the trapped carbon back into the biosphere, sequestration would have eventually caused atmospheric levels to fall beneath 150ppm and kill all plant life. Once all plant life dies, all animal life follows. The only lifeforms left would be chemosynthetic organisms around hydrothermal vents.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >1700s has ≈ 280 ppm CO2
    >Today has about 400 ppm
    Zomg rapid increase!!!!!
    >Today CO2 percentage in air is about 0.04%
    >1700s CO2 percentage in air is about.... 0.04%
    OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IN 200 YEARS
    ^yes, climate scientists really are this delusionally moronic

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    CO2 emissions are already shrinking in many countries so we might achieve net zero by the end of the century if technological progress continues

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Net zero is impossible. CO2 is emitted by almost everything.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Actually it's only emitted by digging up fossil fuels and burning them.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Digging up and burning fossil fuels is a good thing. Biological and geological processes sequester carbon into the ground.
          Carbon is necessary for life. If left unchecked, carbon sequestration would eventually kill most forms of life.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >for goods that are exported the emissions are subtracted
      lol frick off. You emit CO2 when you ship that shit across the world.

      No amount of "technological progress" is going to change the fact that our economic model of endless growth is untenable. The only way out of this is to attack the system itself. Obsessing over CO2 emissions creates a perverse incentive where multinationals that manufacture useless consumerist junk and goyslop can pretend they're "climate neutral" because they bought carbon credits (a moronic scam)

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Now do China for the same time period

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who counted co2 emissions? Graph seems fake

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they just startin

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can't wait to be 80 years old (currently 25) on my deathbed because of microplastics in my blood, watching my grandkids play in outside during the 40°C winter days (the cold days of the year).

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Our World in Hebrew

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *