Not trying to be alarmist, but I think there is a little more fudge room regarding the end of life as we know it.........

“The world is going to end in 12 years” citation needed

A canard repeated by global warming skeptics who can’t read headlines

Go here for some real information and tool around for as long as you care to https://climate.nasa.gov/

The situation is not quite as dire, yet, but in a general sense we should be alarmed.

The issue isn’t that we’re going to literally suffocate from overdose from CO2 (as this meme seems to imply), but rather that CO2 and other greenhouse gases lead to warming.

Uh Kylie, let me introduce you to Greta "How Dare You" Thundberg, Alexadria Ocassional Cortez (the killer) and the IPCC branch of the UN, all publically on the record saying unless government and the handful of wizards in it take over the world a million species will go extinct in....... 12.........years.......
What is the perfect temperature of the earth, based on 4 billion years or so of history? Why isn't the whole world one perfect temperature? Why is there variation in temperature from year to year and from region to region? Why is mankind to blame when research shows that earthworms in the equatorial region produce about 100 times the CO2 as all human activity. If we are carbon based lifeforms, why is all life sustained by natrual recycling of CO2 to O2 to CO2 to O2 ad infinitum?
Quick quiz, open book from the meme above. Why does CO2 decline at some times of the year and increase in others in a cycle that is closely tied to seasons.
What is the parts per million exposure level of CO2 that is immediately harmful? If you divide that amount by 400 (the ppm that is destroying the planet) how many times greater is the immediately harmful amount? 50 ppm is precisely and exactly the level at which the earth is sustainable. 50 ppm destroys the balance of nature. That 50 ppm =50 parts per 1,000,000 must have superpower greenhouse strength. Why those 50 molecules must be as big as the Empire State Building!!!!
Why is the internationally accepted benchmark measurement of worldwide CO2 taken at the Mauna Loa observatory high up near the summit of an active volcano...................which emits CO2?
We should be alarmed? Yeah right. If you can objectively read the information I posted, you should question the power of 50 ppm. For the record, I earned my living for a while doing precise gas measurements. This alarmism is unfounded. Here's an example to try to help put the conceptual into clearer terms. Texas Stadium will seat 100,000 spectators, convenient as it is 1/10th of a million. In general terms 79,000 spectators represent Nitrogen in the atmosphere, 20,000 represent oxygen, 900 represent argon. of the remaining 100 spectator gases most are inert gases with 400 representing CO2. Of those only 50 are responsible for creating a catastrophic imbalance. In much of science 50 ppm is statistically insignificant, except when it comes to anti-fossil fuels climate science. CO2 is randomly distributed through the atmosphere, even if the 400 ppm were concentrated

Cont. there is no way it has a dramatic enough impact to reflect heat back to earth. That 400 ppm also reflects an equal amount of heat back into space- creating equilibrium. Water vapor, which is also randomly distributed through the atmosphere has a greater greenhouse impact than any other phenomenon.
Climate science ignores every other science to come to the conclusions they use to match their hypothesis. How much CO2 is entrained in precipitation? Break out your drager tube and gas test equipment and measure the CO2 that is emitted when you turn on your kitchen water tap next time. CO2 is captured by rain and follows the water cycle into rivers, streams, lakes and aquifers.
Nature is far more powerful than mankind ever will be and very nicely able to protect and correct itself. If you live in a heavily populated and industrialized area you may think we are destroying the planet, however 70% of the surface of the earth is ocean and 94% of the land mass is unpopulated.
I am not alarmed. The earth exists and has evolved in the harshest climate that exists -OUTER SPACE. Mankind isn't even a pimple.

sorry- bad edit on the quiz- should have gone right to the 40,000 divided by 400 question.

Dang it- should have edited more carefully- of the remaining 100 spectators in the Texas Stadium exaple above 40 are CO2 of which 5 are tipping the atmospheric balance to catastrophe. Sorry about that. imgflip used to allow editing of comments, alas a tool I leaned on heavily but no longer available.

Keep in mind charts and graphs can be manipulated to create any desired effect. I can chart the same information you present and make it a straight line and not deviate a bit from the facts.

Yes, you could do it as a log scale for example. I think that would be pretty misleading. But as you say: either way, it wouldn’t deviate from the facts

And the facts are not great.

Kylie, I'm afraid I wasn't able to open your perspectives up a little bit with this diatribe. I would say the facts aren't great because the hypothesis denies every known science from physics, geology, biology (botany, zoology, entomology, micro-biology etc), chemistry, paleontology, statistics and probability, even astronomy (there are climate scientists who are adamant the sun has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth- I was shocked and wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't debated a number of them that hold that view and are prominently involved in climate science). I have written extensive descriptions of the specific denials for other publications. Hardly a venue to present them here.
I understand your interpretation that the facts are foreboding. If I could do one thing here, it would be to assure you that is far from the case. If they are in fact not great, then that means that everything the EPA has done, every step of compliance by industry to meet standards was utterly futile. If that is the truth, then there is absolutely nothing mankind will be able to do to change this disastrous scenario. The fact is that all of the work of the EPA has been effective, We have improved so much since 1850, 1900, 1950 and 1995. After this point the EPA became more of a tool of politicians than a warhorse against pollution. The possible improvements became so microscopic that new standards emerged, 4 parts per million became 4,000 parts per billion to create the illusion that the volume was overwhelmingly dangerous. The ability to measure so precisely is an incredible advancement, but has been abused. If I said CO2 is 4/10,000ths of the atmosphere would it create the same concern? If I said it is .4/1,000ths of the atmosphere, would that change how people could see the problem?

TO put this "scientific" manipulation into perspective, research the ozone hole and ban on freon. A ban was legislated and within a year there were reports that the ozone holes were shrinking. The facts- ozone is created by ultraviolet light reapportioning O2 molecules. O2 breaks down and unstable O1 (atoms) quickly join a more stable 02 to create O3 (ozone) or another O atom to stabilize as an O2 molecule. Ozone holes over the poles grew in winter and shrunk in summer months. Freon is a heavy, ground hugging molecule, in fact freon created problems by leaching into aquifers. Freon was know to break down ozone in lab settings, but the limited research available in the ozone gave leeway for manipulation. Samples found no freon in the ozone. However chlorine, also a known catalyst to break down ozone was found in samples of the ozone layer. Believers that freon was the culprit then claimed the Chlorine was a product of decomposed freon. Oceanic research showed that most of of the chlorine was released naturally by the oceans. Never mind that the biggest ozone hole was over the South Pole- isolated from the industrialized North jet stream and measured air flows.
Knowing that freon was banned and the US had transitioned to different refrigerants, the ozone hole problem was declared to be solved. However, 85% of the population was still manufacturing and using freon in 2015. I really don't like conspiracy theories, but in this case I'm tempted to consider one. DOW Chemical held expiring patents on freon and the world wide market would then open to any manufacturer who wanted a piece of the market. The ban created a market for their newly patented refrigerant. I could go on with why I am skeptical , the ban on nitrates in bacon in the 1970's started it. I grew up on a hog farm and had my own small herd, so I had a vested interest in the ban. Using all the data, I calculated a person would have to eat 475 lbs of bacon a day to have a chance of consuming the amount of carcinogen known to have a chance of causing cancer. Acid rain from coal power plants? The area impacted by power plant acid rain is precisely the area under the ash fall of Mt. Saint Helens and upwind of the guilty power plants. Timing matched the volcanic erruption and natural pattern of recovery, And, was no longer a problem after legislation banned high sulfur coal, even though the ban was phased in over years.

I'm not ignoring you, I just can't read all of this right now. I may this evening.

Understood- way too much here.

NOW....it's the 2nd ice age...again....they peddled that crap in the 70s

dishing up more 2nd ice age crap...this time they may be right ....I.C.E.

the science understander has logged on