Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 02:27:02 UTC No. 16071272
>>16071230
I don't know. I'm not a climate scientist or atmospheric physicist.
I can tell you that it's possible for that to be true and for human caused CO2 to still be problem. Even if human emissions account for 0.3% of the "total greenhouse effect" by whatever metric this is referencing, if the system is very sensitive to small variations in CO2 it could still be a problem.
I don't know enough about climate change or atmospheric physics to give you a solid yes/no, but it's definitely possible for this to be true and for emissions to still be a problem.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 02:31:47 UTC No. 16071284
>>16071230
>6,000,000 tons
Not even close, there's been about 38 billion tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 emitted.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 02:34:34 UTC No. 16071286
>>16071284
>no source
because you're lying
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 02:35:09 UTC No. 16071288
>>16071286
Ah shit, you got me.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:30:15 UTC No. 16072298
>>16071286
>It has been estimated that 2,400 gigatons of CO2 have been emitted by human activity since 1850, with some absorbed by oceans and land, and about 950 gigatons remaining in the atmosphere. Around 2020 the emission rate was over 40 gigatons per year.[17]
quick google search
https://www.theworldcounts.com/chal
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:52:35 UTC No. 16072345
>>16072298
>url/climate-change/global-warming
at least try to find a site that isn't obvious propaganda
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:30:54 UTC No. 16072414
>>16071284
>oy vey! its more than 6 millions!
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:31:03 UTC No. 16072415
>>16071230
>no source
>incorrect numbers (obvious if you do a 5 second internet search)
Oil shill propaganda thread. All oil shills deserve to be burned alive in a furnace.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 19:25:41 UTC No. 16072635
>>16072622
No she's just a controlled opposition.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 19:36:34 UTC No. 16072657
>>16071230
I don't understand the problem, but I've been told that a global communist dictatorship is the only solution
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jyPw
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 23:36:31 UTC No. 16073111
>>16071230
yes
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 01:20:42 UTC No. 16073222
>>16072657
That is enough. The revolution will spare you.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 03:24:06 UTC No. 16073402
>>16071230
Not really. Water vapor condenses too quickly to drive global warming, but can form feedback loops with actual greenhouse gasses. Water vapor is driven by temperature, not the other way around.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:31:56 UTC No. 16073790
>>16071230
Water vapor is not a greenhouse gas.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 14:46:29 UTC No. 16076626
>>16072622
Nice one, Punchy!
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:02:36 UTC No. 16076767
>>16071230
>The Greenhouse Effect is over 99% Natural
>Nature produces 99.72% of the
Greenhouse Effect
Why is it so repetitive? Why are Random Words Capitalised? Why is the "conclusion" the very same thing as the first point? Was this created by a monkey? Even ChatGPT would create better retard bait.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:58:56 UTC No. 16077482
>>16071284
>Not even close, there's been about 38 billion tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 emitted.
That would be 5% of the 720'000'000'000 tons mentioned in OP.
Just saying, math nerd.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:52:59 UTC No. 16077602
>>16071230
either way i wouldn't worry too much
even if co2 were some big problem nobody would ever be willing to solve it, lots of people take it seriously now but the only "solutions" proposed are naked power grabs that will not solve any issues. the necessary measures are too unpalatable for anyone with an ounce of power
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:19:39 UTC No. 16077935
>>16073790
Yes it is, regions with high humidity cool off more slowly at night than regions with low humidity
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:23:26 UTC No. 16077946
>>16077602
co2 isn't even supposed to be the primary concern, temperature is, and temperature is much more tractable than co2. we know how to do solar geoengineering. it's not hard. it's not even expensive.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:24:03 UTC No. 16077947
>>16072622
pedos get the rope first
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:56:05 UTC No. 16078216
>>16077482
That number mentioned in OP might be wrong, too. Not surprising if the other one was also wrong. Human CO2 makes up about one third of the atmospheric CO2.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:31:43 UTC No. 16078280
>>16078216
no it doesn't
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 05:42:25 UTC No. 16078691
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:34:51 UTC No. 16078810
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:13:34 UTC No. 16078832
>>16078810
Chud will just call it fake and uncritically believe OP's graphic, since it does not imply that chud should change his way of life.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:25:36 UTC No. 16078843
>>16071230
I haven't been here since before the pandemic
Why has this board turned into a climate change one
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:10:23 UTC No. 16078878
>>16078843
The pandemic attracted all the antivaxxers. Now that no one cares about the vaccine anymore, they've moved on to global warming.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:46:20 UTC No. 16078911
>>16071272
>if the system is very sensitive to small variations in CO2 it could still be a problem.
Is the global climate very sensitive to small variations in CO2? We've increased CO2 in the atmosphere by over 100ppm since the industrial revolution, and things seem to be basically the same.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:47:22 UTC No. 16078912
>>16077947
She's 18 you sick fuck
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:52:52 UTC No. 16079045
>>16071284
CO2 is fake and climate change cannot logically exist
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:04:11 UTC No. 16079058
>>16078911
We have an energy imbalance of 460 TW. We have the equivalent of 460,000 nuclear power plants doing nothing than heat our planet.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:47:02 UTC No. 16079326
The moment the panama closes for good and delivers an economic punch straight to America's nutsack every rich conservitard will do a 180 and pretend they've supported climate activism all along. You will smile and nod and obey what they say. You wouldn't want to be seen as 'unbased' by your discord friends, after all.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:36:39 UTC No. 16079630
>>16071284
(you)
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:41:07 UTC No. 16079731
>>16071230
>>16071284
>>16079630
See pic related and >>16072298
Further the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 3,570,000,000,000 tons. The 1,530,000,000,000 tonnes in pic related is 43% of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide and the 950,000,000,000 tonnes estimated in >>16072298 is 27%.
Your infographic is garbage and you didn't bother to check the facts. You just ate the shit and smiled.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:19:25 UTC No. 16079824
>>16071230
A better question is, why are you posting bait threads? Are you paid to do this, or are you just a loser with nothing else to do?
By your stupid definition, the atmosphere itself is composed of nothing but greenhouse gases. Any molecule traps heat, including the nitrogen and oxygen that make up the bulk of our atmosphere. Is your snarkiness and petulance broken? Why didn’t you include these in your troll bait?
Water is not a “greenhouse gas,” because it is not a causal object adding to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Water actually takes heat out of the environment. It is a heat sink, taking 240 cal/g out of the atmosphere when it turns to water vapor, and releases that 240 cal/g when it condenses as rain. While in their condensing state in the upper atmosphere, they reflect heat away from the planet. Since water cannot exist in the upper atmosphere, it creates a global heat pump.
The problem is that other “greenhouse gases” can exist in the upper atmosphere, and so break that heat pump. This is also why abatement is the only solution. You can’t take greenhouse gases out of the upper atmosphere, and those saying we can just “capture” what is here in the lower atmosphere are shills for their industries.
Like the ones paying you.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:19:42 UTC No. 16079827
>>16073402
this is often repeated but not exactly correct
the reality is atmospheric water vapor has increased, and it CAN provide something of a feedback loop for heating (higher humidity -> higher water vapor greenhouse effect -> higher temperature -> more evaporation -> higher humidity)
however, this particular feedback loop requires that the temperature forcing from the water vapor be enough to raise both the maximum absolute humidity (i.e. how much water vapor the air can hold) AND the total evaporation sufficiently to in turn raise both of those again while exceeding the cooling from evaporation/condensation. we aren't at that temperature (if we were, the system would runaway and there wouldn't be any non-gaseous water left).
all that said, increases in other temperature forcing - like from CO2 - increases both of those things without the condensation/evaporation mechanism to cool things.
in short, water vapor makes other greenhouse effects "stickier" and more able to increase absolute temperature - it's not a fuel, but a catalyst/amplifier.
and that's not even considering how water affects planetary albedo. surface albedo from water decreases as temperature increases (another heating feedback loop; relates to loss of ice/snow reflection and high absorption of liquid water. aerosol-driven albedo is extraordinarily difficult to model, in part because it has BOTH warming and cooling effects (the same thing that makes it reflect insolation also reflects thermal radiation back down, while also simply transmitting a portion of both through itself - you quickly start having to literally model the shape and composition of every single cloud).
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:33:16 UTC No. 16079858
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:35:31 UTC No. 16079861
>>16079058
no we don't, you have no idea what you're talking about, you've never even passed freshman level thermodynamics and can't do basic calculations
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:39:38 UTC No. 16079869
>>16071230
Extremely misleading.
Imagine you have a bathtub with water and you add a gallon of water then take out a gallon of water. Every minute you add a gallon of water and take out a gallon of water.
Then you add a tablespoon of water every minute without taking any out. Every minute you add a tablespoon of water.
Will the water level go up, down, or stay the same?
The problem with the CO2 that we add to the atmosphere is we are taking it from CO2 buried for millions of years underground and adding it to a system that has no way of taking it out. Saying "We're only adding .3%" is worthless when we keep adding that every year, year after year, for 150 years with no natural way to remove it.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:52:03 UTC No. 16079899
>>16079858
>
>>16072414
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:21:54 UTC No. 16079980
>>16079731
Yes, but why should I care about this see oh too? At the end of the day it was in the ground, so burning all the fossil fuels in the world can only bring us back to where we were when they were created.
Then if we assume this climate change craps gonna happen, we've got the reality that humans' innovation is perfectly capable of solving any problems it might bring.
The only real danger is socialists/statists demanding the govt be put in charge/ban everything.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:22:57 UTC No. 16079982
>>16079869
don't care commie; >>16079980
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:48:07 UTC No. 16080025
>>16071230
If you eliminated the greenhouse effect from water vapor the average temperature would be 100 degrees colder. The effects of CO2 is still large enough to be the tie breaker between “ice age” and “alligators in the arctic”
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:06:48 UTC No. 16080059
>>16080025
>If you eliminated the greenhouse effect from water vapor the average temperature would be 100 degrees colder.
No it wouldn't, you only presume that because you're too uneducated to calculate planetary equilibrium temperature
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:21:05 UTC No. 16080078
>>16080059
> you're too uneducated to calculate planetary equilibrium temperature
I dont need to know how to calculate the equilibrium temperature, because the moon is an actual, existing example of a planetary body that is the same distance from the sun but does not have an atmosphere.
Calculating the difference is as simple as subtracting the average temperatures, pic related
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:24:37 UTC No. 16080089
>>16079861
Wrong
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:27:03 UTC No. 16080090
>>16080078
>WokeramAlpha
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:37:01 UTC No. 16080103
>>16080090
Are you sayin Wolfram Alpha made the 4d chess move of planting fake lunar surface temperature data in anticipation of the idea that someone would want to use it to calculate how much colder the earth would be without an atmosphere, in order to win an argument with climate change deniers? Take your meds, schizo
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:39:43 UTC No. 16080110
>>16080078
so you're now admitting that too uneducated to calculate planetary equilibrium temperature
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:40:07 UTC No. 16080112
>>16079980
>>16079982
Because that chart ignores the increased solar output over time you fucking moron.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:42:12 UTC No. 16080114
>>16080103
>muh hockeystick
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:44:01 UTC No. 16080118
>>16080112
>less than 10% in 1 billion years
>less than 0.01% in 1 million years
>less than 0.00001% in 1000 years
>somehow this is responsible for what we observe over the last 200 years
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:49:33 UTC No. 16080127
>>16080110
> so you're now admitting that too uneducated to calculate planetary equilibrium temperature
Maybe I am, or maybe there’s no reason to bother breaking out the differential equations when there’s a much simpler argument based on basic arithmetic that proves the point just as well
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:12:10 UTC No. 16080161
>>16080127
1st semester freshmen astro students can learn it, but you are too low IQ to. You know absolutely nothing about the science that you're trying to pose as an authority in.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:28:02 UTC No. 16080187
>>16080161
I made a simple, easily understandable argument that proves you wrong. You have resorted to calling me uneducated because you have no counter argument
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:43:03 UTC No. 16080211
>>16071230
>1/3 of 1%
That’s why it’s more hurricanes and wild fires and not the oceans boiling off to turn Earth into Venus-lite.
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:45:33 UTC No. 16080214
>>16080187
You can't even do high school level math LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:17:03 UTC No. 16080269
>>16071230
these pie charts represent the abundance of the gasses, not the impact on warming. they all absorb/scatter radiation differently
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:29:27 UTC No. 16080434
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 10:12:39 UTC No. 16080919
>>16080434
there isn't more hurricanes and wild fires
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:45:43 UTC No. 16081998
>>16080919
more evidence that environmentalists hate nature
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:11:19 UTC No. 16082116
>>16080919
Hurricanes occur mostly during periods of low sunspot count
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:22:01 UTC No. 16082758
>>16080269
Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect if CO2 was as potent a greenhouse gas as you're trying to suggest it is.
Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:59:05 UTC No. 16083566
>>16080103
you can't do math and have no relevant scientific education
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:00:58 UTC No. 16083570
>>16071272
>definitely possible
And this is why you need to import 1 million niggers per year
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:05:57 UTC No. 16083580
>>16079824
>Like the ones paying you
There are orders of magnitude more funding coming in to push "man made climate change" because it gets the goyim to depopulate
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:08:05 UTC No. 16083583
>>16080118
>what we observe over the last 200 years
The temperate has been stable over the past 200 years, so that's what you would expect, agreed
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:09:20 UTC No. 16083738
>>16082758
You are a moron
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:41:56 UTC No. 16083776
>>16080025
CO2 doesn't cause any greenhouse effect, you only believe it does because you saw someone on TV say it, if you understood the relevant physics involved you would understand that CO2 cannot produce any greenhouse effect
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:47:59 UTC No. 16083786
>>16083776
why are you pretending to understand physics?
you don't. you never did. you're a poser and a charlatan. go away and sell dementia patients some snake oil, like the sleazebag that you are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmos
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:55:41 UTC No. 16083800
>>16083786
>wikipedia
pretty much admitting you have no idea what you're talking about
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:01:37 UTC No. 16083808
>>16083800
welcome to the internet
wikipedia exists.
you can find the exact same thing in countless textbooks
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:13:01 UTC No. 16083822
>>16083583
It's gotten 1°C warmer. If you left your mom's basement from time to time, you might notice something.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:22:56 UTC No. 16083836
>>16083808
Chud will be like
>textbooks agree with scientists
>textbooks are written by scientists
>it's a conspiracy
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:39:21 UTC No. 16083937
>>16083800
you faggots sure are fucking retarded
wikipedia may be biased on political issues, but when it comes scientific facts it's generally reliable, and can be verified by textbooks if you want
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:44:54 UTC No. 16083948
>>16083822
>its gotten warmer since the end of the little ice age
and its gotten colder since the end of the mwp. not meaningful, if co2 were as potent a greenhouse gas as you and your ilk are claiming then it would currently be massively hotter than it was at the start of this century or at any other point in time since the end of the last ice age and it isn't because co2 isn't a greenhouse gas.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:46:22 UTC No. 16083952
>>16083836
Just a conflict of interest.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 03:12:10 UTC No. 16084081
>>16083937
global warming is a political issue, so is most of the rest of science, since its nearly all government funded. the guy who founded wikipedia says its trash and nobody should believe anything on it or even bother looking at it
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 03:37:41 UTC No. 16084125
>>16084081
irrelevant
we were talking about the atmospheric window, which is very much a scientific fact, and is most easily learned about by going to wikipedia
"global warming" is more complicated than that and I agree it's a political issue
however many facts relevant to global warming are well-established and could/should be learned about on wikipedia, and verified elsewhere if you're enough of a schizo
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:03:03 UTC No. 16085049
>>16078911
How long did it take cyanobacteria to fill the atmosphere with oxygen?
What if the effects are slow, anon? A yearly retention of heat in the ocean that bites your descendents in the ass 100,000 years from now. The future of our species, nipped short by careless behavior in the long past because people won't consider any time period longer than 100 years.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 22:36:28 UTC No. 16085577
>>16085049
now you're resorting to insane disaster scenarios that defy physics and which you would only be able to image are true because you've never managed to pass freshman level thermodynamic and have no idea how heat transfer works
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 22:42:18 UTC No. 16085595
>>16072622
her body does not look anything like that
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 23:44:13 UTC No. 16085698
>>16083948
>its gotten colder since the end of the mwp
Repeat after me: The medieval warm period was a local phenomenon
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:15:27 UTC No. 16086147
>>16085577
Yeah but I'm retarded. Really shows how serious you are, talking to a retard. If you really understood thermodynamics u would be here talking to me, moron.
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:17:24 UTC No. 16086152
Yeah but I'm retarded. Really shows how serious you are, talking to a retard. If you really understood thermodynamics u wouldn'xt be here talking to me, moron.
Get a job
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:19:14 UTC No. 16086156
>>16085577
Yeah but I'm retarded. Really shows how serious you are, talking to a retard. If you really understood thermodynamics u wouldn'xt be here talking to me, moron.
Get a job
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:32:58 UTC No. 16086167
>>16071230
Yes. Additionally, the amount of local water vapour in an area is strongly determined by the tree cover. That is to say local climate is very strongly affected by tree coverage, surface water etc.. This in turn also determines rainfall to a greater extent than effects from vapour carried by Hadley cells etc. This is quite trivially true even though a lot of "global climate" types refuse to believe it; you can see how we are able to create artificial tropical climates in literal greenhouses (yes, these people often forget the literal thing the greenhouse effect is named after, it's pathetic). A lot of the third world countries that are suffering "climate damage" is suffering due to deforestation, desertification etc. due to over irresponsible agricultural damage and destruction of local wildlife ecosystems. Meanwhile a lot of Western countries have increased their green coverage since the 70s with the result being that there is less much environmental damage or "climate change" effects.
Of course, climate activists really fucking hate trees and would rather tear forests down if they could give money for solar panel farms. So you will not see grifters and activists ever discuss the water balance or trees in general. It's all about CO2 for them, that's where the money is.
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:37:04 UTC No. 16086170
>>16079731
>stopped at 2017
Very suspicious graphic considering that's a new graphic on the internet and the same data source has data up to 2022 where Asia would be the biggest by far.
How much Han cock can you grifters suck in a single life time?
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:38:34 UTC No. 16086171
>>16079824
>Water is not a “greenhouse gas,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green
>The most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere, listed in decreasing order of average global mole fraction, are:[5][6] Water vapor (H2O), ...
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:43:24 UTC No. 16086361
>>16086170
Ok, retard. Post cumulative emissions data including the last 7 years and prepare so suck my dick when it looks almost exactly the same.
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 21:45:09 UTC No. 16087089
>>16086171
water is not a gas, its a fluid
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:20:28 UTC No. 16087865
>>16087089
>wikipedia posters being retarded
they wouldn't be referencing wikipedia to begin with if they weren't ignorant plebs
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 21:55:39 UTC No. 16088695
>>16088655
My boss makes a billion.
I make a dime.
My boss makes ten billion.
I still make a dime.
The govs tax a million.
I now make a penny.
My boss still makes 10 billion.
This is a crime.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:24:52 UTC No. 16089208
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 12:13:13 UTC No. 16089358
>>16078911
It depends on what you consider a meaningful change. We've had CO2 levels much high and lower than what we currently have had, and life survived just fine... but how well humans survive is another story.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 12:45:57 UTC No. 16089390
>>16087089
Gases are fluids.
Fluid is not synonymous with liquid.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:12:40 UTC No. 16090112
>>16089358
people who work in greenhouses with enhanced high CO2 atmospheres don't drop dead from it. all cities have far higher CO2 atmospheres than the surrounding rural areas
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 05:49:42 UTC No. 16090637
>>16088655
The numbers down here are wrong.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:41:29 UTC No. 16090668
>>16090637
no they aren't
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:50:10 UTC No. 16090875
>>16089358
>CO2 levels much high and lower than what we currently have
more than 5000ppm higher
but only 200ppm lower
were currently at very near the minimum co2 level required to sustain life
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:53:35 UTC No. 16090877
>>16087089
>>16087865
Holy fuck. Do you two dumbasses not even know that a gas is a type of fluid?
These are the kind of dumbfucks that say "trust the science" in political arguments while having zero background in said science even on a highschool level.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:03:50 UTC No. 16090981
>>16090875
And what's the CO2 range required for humankind?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:05:57 UTC No. 16090985
>>16090877
> These are the kind of dumbfucks that say "trust the science" in
It's better to trust auhority than be a Dunning who thinks a half baked understanding makes him know more about a subject than the people who wrote all the books he's ever learned from. It's actually worse than knowing nothing!
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:10:17 UTC No. 16090989
>>16090985
The people who wrote those textbooks all agree with me though, I should know, I helped write some of them.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:11:56 UTC No. 16090992
if you're willing to scrutinize everything a government does but trust oil companies at face value your a brainlet.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:58:40 UTC No. 16091839
>>16090992
if you're willing to scrutinize everything oil companies do but trust a government at face value your a brainlet.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:26:12 UTC No. 16093206
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:02:20 UTC No. 16093267
>>16093206
Nuclear would litteraly render the climate discussion moote and improves the average persons quality of life. It's kind of unreal how fringe it is
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 08:32:55 UTC No. 16093887
>>16093267
Yes. It doesn't fit the narrative.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 08:36:25 UTC No. 16093890
>>16093267
Probably all of the cancer causing radiation
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 09:08:31 UTC No. 16093936
>>16093890
That and the finiteness of U-235
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 09:48:17 UTC No. 16093961
>>16093890
LMAO, what an stupid imbecile you are.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 09:49:20 UTC No. 16093964
>>16090637
Fuck off, you don't know shit.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 09:51:37 UTC No. 16093966
>>16083786
I am going to be so happy destroying the skull of imbeciles like you.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 09:53:04 UTC No. 16093968
>>16093206
Is funny because is true.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 09:55:48 UTC No. 16093972
>>16093968
and its true because the global warming meme was started by the rockefeller standard oil empire, see >>16091839 for the details
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:07:25 UTC No. 16093984
>>16083776
>someone on TV
Stanford puts all their lectures online. Every single academic makes some quip about climate change over the course of their lectures. Basically you're smarter than every single person at the top of their field.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:50:27 UTC No. 16094022
>>16093964
>t. The Heartland Foundation
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:15:04 UTC No. 16095105
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:24:53 UTC No. 16095128
>>16071230
No. Man's contribution to water vapor is not accounted for, and that is a lot more important than "le carbon emissions". As long as we have a surplus of useless idiots consooming without contributing to the common benefit of mankind (bullshit jobs in marketing, sales, finance, lawyers, callcebters) we're going to keep generating water vapor, and thus climate change will never end.
Not only it will not be avoided, worse shit will be done in the name of muh carbon emissions.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:33:03 UTC No. 16095135
>>16077946
We know how to do it, but glowniggers prefer nukes and produce even more water vapor.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:12:57 UTC No. 16095604
>>16093267
Nuclear power is reserved for use on government owned warboats, its good there, but using it to improve life for mere civilians is bad.
Thats how you know we're in a representative democracy thats run for the benefit of it's citizens
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:52:26 UTC No. 16097269
>>16095604
The government will let Americans benefit from the advantages of nuclear power only if Israel demands that they need America to send them all of America's coal, oil, natural gas, solar panels and windmills for free.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 06:21:21 UTC No. 16097291
>>16071230
>>16090875
Everyone wants to talk about the irresponsibility of mankind for burning the "limited supply" of carbon, but nobody wants to talk about the irresponsibility of the photosynthete for senselessly grabbing it all, dying, and thoughtlessly burying it forever.
Careless plants. They're going to end all life one day.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:10:59 UTC No. 16097322
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 23:34:04 UTC No. 16098452
>>16097322
yes it is
>>16097291
good point, plants are too dumb to be put in charge of managing the mix of atmospheric gasses
Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 19:47:50 UTC No. 16099780
>>16098452
Plants would eat all of the CO2 in the atmosphere until they starved to death if left to their own devices, thats already been demonstrated. They need humans to enrich the atmosphere with plant food for their own good
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:39:22 UTC No. 16100301
>>16071230
It is demonstrably true. Regions with high humidity cool off less quickly at night than arid regions do. Regions with high atmospheric CO2 concentrations cool off at the same rate that Regions with lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations do given that they have identical humidity. Water vapor is the only factor that predicts night time cooling rates, CO2 is not a factor. This proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 01:43:52 UTC No. 16100361
>>16099780
>Plants would eat all of the CO2 in the atmosphere until they starved to death if left to their own devices, thats already been demonstrated.
Undeniably true. They've even evolved a cope pathway to deal with it.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 20:44:27 UTC No. 16101875
>>16100361
Having too must of the planets CO2 stored as useless dead solids is retarded, we shold terraform the planet by releasing that CO2 in gas form so that it can be stored as living material instead of as coal
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:59:37 UTC No. 16102307
>>16101875
This, storing the building blocks of life as inert minerals is retarded. Live evolved to do the exact opposite of that
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:07:55 UTC No. 16102330
At this point in time I don't care if climate change is real to the degree the scientific community says. You are NOT going to stop people/corporations for polluting, the best case scenario for the environment was Covid where the entire world shut down and apparently even then it was not enough.
Look to other methods of fixing the environment because you may as well be asking people not to breath at this point.
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:51:56 UTC No. 16102415
>>16102307
the humble cow is the perfect creature.
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:59:28 UTC No. 16102967
>>16102415
They embody sustainable grazing practices, excellent animals
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:25:38 UTC No. 16103705
>>16072415
Whether Climate Change is real or not, the elites behind the PR don't act like it.
EV manufacture has a MUCH higher carbon footprint. And making a car electric just shifts the fossil fuel consumption to the power plant.
Carbon Credits are only a tax on Western nations. Africa, Russia, and Asia don't give a shit. They don't even reduce carbon exhaust. It's just a new financial market for jews to speculate in.
If you want sensible carbon mitigation policy, tough shit. You're never getting it.
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:36:55 UTC No. 16103717
>>16071230
Yes
>>16071272
It's not the CO2 that's the problem, it's that all the nature which is supposed to consume the excess CO2 has been destroyed in the name of glorious capitalism, trees take a long time to grow and no manmade replacements have been made because mutti jewberg needs a new jet instead
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 00:09:09 UTC No. 16104028
>>16103717
Theres more mass of plants on the planet currently than there ever has been in recent history. This is mainly thanks to irrigation.
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 08:08:08 UTC No. 16104534
>>16104028
and a slightly CO2 enriched atmosphere
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:06:57 UTC No. 16104853
>>16104534
Nope.
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Mar 2024 20:40:02 UTC No. 16105347
>>16104853
CO2 make plants grow better, sorry if that upsets you
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 06:21:03 UTC No. 16105947
>>16071230
Yeah it's true, it just doesn't have anything to do with "disproving climate change" or whatever it is you think is happening.
These are all molecularly different substances. They behave differently and heat passes through them differently. Water is 95% of the total greenhouse gas, but it's responsible for less than half of the greenhouse gas effect because infrared heat passes through it much more efficiently than CO2 and especially more than methane, which is really efficient at blocking heat.
Not only that, but the more CO2 and methane that it's the air, the more water vapor it makes. Because the extra heat makes more water vapor. From NASA:
>Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.
>It works like this: As greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane increase, Earth’s temperature rises in response. This increases evaporation from both water and land areas. Because warmer air holds more moisture, its concentration of water vapor increases. Specifically, this happens because water vapor does not condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere as easily at higher temperatures. The water vapor then absorbs heat radiated from Earth and prevents it from escaping out to space. This further warms the atmosphere, resulting in even more water vapor in the atmosphere. This is what scientists call a "positive feedback loop."
>https://science.nasa.gov/earth/cli
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 06:49:23 UTC No. 16105964
>>16105947
>NASA
NASA is not a scientific organization, its a political propaganda outlet posing as a scientific organization for clout because nobody would bother listening to them if they were open about being a political propaganda outlet. As it is only total brainlets are dumb enough to blindly trust anything NASA says
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 06:51:36 UTC No. 16105965
>>16105964
Dude just admit when you're wrong.
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 07:02:36 UTC No. 16105969
>>16078810
Surely this is a coincidence. SURELY
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 07:22:41 UTC No. 16105982
>>16071230
So we should spray (((shreds of tinfoil))) into the atmosphere to make it rain down.
För Klimatet of course
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 14:58:00 UTC No. 16106369
>>16105347
Try harder
Anonymous at Sun, 31 Mar 2024 20:32:40 UTC No. 16106729
>>16105347
tsmt
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 05:14:26 UTC No. 16107384
>>16085698
you can repeat that lie all you want, nobody will ever believe you
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 06:00:55 UTC No. 16107422
>>16101875
>Release massive amounts of CO2 to make a bio based economy viable.
I like.
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 06:09:55 UTC No. 16107434
>>16071230
While it's true that water vapor plays a significant role in Earth's climate system, attributing climate change solely to water vapor overlooks a fundamental aspect of climate science. CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to the greenhouse effect, which is essential for maintaining the Earth's habitable temperature range. While water vapor is indeed a potent greenhouse gas, its levels in the atmosphere are largely influenced by temperature changes driven by CO2 emissions and other human activities.
Scientists widely agree that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, is the primary driver of recent global warming. This consensus is supported by decades of rigorous research, including observations, climate models, and paleoclimate data.
Moreover, water vapor behaves as a feedback mechanism in the climate system. As the atmosphere warms due to increased greenhouse gases like CO2, it can hold more water vapor, amplifying the greenhouse effect and further warming the planet. This positive feedback loop exacerbates climate change caused by CO2 emissions.
While it's essential to consider the role of water vapor in the climate system, focusing solely on it overlooks the overwhelming evidence supporting the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in driving contemporary climate change. Addressing the root cause of climate change requires concerted efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to renewable energy sources.
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 09:09:33 UTC No. 16107524
>>16107434
>CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere
CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. Mars has no greenhouse effect. Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect if CO2 were a greenhouse gas because Mars has over 3000% more CO2 in it's atmosphere than Earth does. Temperatures on Mars are the same as they would be if Mars has no atmosphere at all, the massive amount of CO2 in Mars' atmosphere has no measurable effect on the planet's surface temperature and this proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 14:42:03 UTC No. 16107803
>>16107524
Take your meds, retard.
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Apr 2024 23:55:25 UTC No. 16108524
>>16107803
you're only upset because everyone knows your stupid lie about CO2 being a greenhouse gas is false, your angst is self inflicted. if you were a more honest person you wouldn't be suffering
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 06:44:35 UTC No. 16108918
>>16107524
If CO2 were a greenhouse gas then people would have long since noticed that it doesn't cool off much at night near volcanoes. In reality no such effect exists, which proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:05:24 UTC No. 16109084
>>16107524
Venus is much warmer than Mercury despite being twice as distant from the sun. Also, what's atmospheric density.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:08:52 UTC No. 16109089
>>16109084
>Also, what's atmospheric density.
This is why Venus is much warmer than Mercury. Nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with having an insanely dense/thick atmosphere.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:10:28 UTC No. 16109090
>>16107434
ChatGPT response
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:22:17 UTC No. 16109100
>>16109089
Density by itself doesn't increase temperature.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:33:58 UTC No. 16109106
>>16109100
>Density by itself doesn't increase temperature.
Explain the temperature difference between the dark side of the moon and the dark side of the Earth?
Distance from the sun is essentially identical - the major difference is atmospheric density.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:44:12 UTC No. 16109163
>>16109106
Large bodies ow water with an atmosphere with a potent greenhouse effect.
Prove that density by itself increases temperature.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 13:56:09 UTC No. 16109281
>>16108524
Textbook projection
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 14:56:15 UTC No. 16109332
>>16109163
>Prove that density by itself increases temperature.
You just admitted it yourself.
Why is the Earth warmer than the moon?
Because the Earth has a thicker, denser atmosphere than the moon, which has none.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 21:41:30 UTC No. 16109719
>>16109332
You lack basic reading comprehension. If you could prove the assertion that density by itself alone and without the greenhouse effect, you would.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 21:57:36 UTC No. 16109730
>>16109090
I sure as hell ain't gonna write a well thought out response anymore. You idiots aren't worth it.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:36:23 UTC No. 16109784
Yes, water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, but it is the sudden increase of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) which is causing global warming.
In the very far future, when the runaway greenhouse effect turns Earth into something akin to Venus, water vapor will be the primary greenhouse involved. The increasingly bright sun will cause more of the ocean to evaporate, increasing the heat due to the increased greenhouse effect from the water vapor, causing more of the ocean to evaporate, giving positive feedback that ends up boiling the oceans.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:37:24 UTC No. 16109787
>primary greenhouse involved
I meant greenhouse gas.
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Apr 2024 23:42:42 UTC No. 16109883
>>16109784
How far in the future?
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Apr 2024 21:01:25 UTC No. 16111104
>>16109784
carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 00:20:10 UTC No. 16111377
>>16071230
gases cant cause a greenhouse effect without a solid container
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 00:40:41 UTC No. 16111395
>>16111104
>>16111377
>Imagine being this retarded
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Apr 2024 21:59:12 UTC No. 16112632
>>16109730
>anymore
you never did to begin with tho
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 08:00:38 UTC No. 16113335
>>16109784
How come there wasn't a runaway greenhouse effect last time the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was above 450ppm? Or any of the other times? How come there wasn't a runaway greenhouse effect when CO2 was 5000ppm and the Earth was thousands of kilometers closer to the sun?
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Apr 2024 23:02:40 UTC No. 16114435
>>16112632
This, faggots who post the long winded, self indulgent rants that nobody reads aren't doing anyone here any favors, they're only satisfying their own oversized egos
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Apr 2024 22:59:37 UTC No. 16115989
>>16113335
oy vey stop noticing you nazi!!!
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:13:57 UTC No. 16117627
https://youtu.be/LF7pUUd7IXk
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:05:59 UTC No. 16118075
>>16117627
good video, a lot of important science history in there
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 13:05:19 UTC No. 16118532
>>16071230
There is no evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 18:47:48 UTC No. 16119313
>>16118532
>Imagine being this retarded
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 23:26:09 UTC No. 16120045
>>16118532
There is tons of evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 9 Apr 2024 07:26:30 UTC No. 16120497
>>16117627
how come the ice age the cloimate soientists were predicting in the 1970s failed to appear?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Apr 2024 13:53:45 UTC No. 16120855
>>16118532
>>16120045
Source?
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 9 Apr 2024 19:16:10 UTC No. 16121242
>>16120497
Because they're incompetent morons
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 04:19:35 UTC No. 16121902
>>16120497
Back then they were claiming that CO2 caused global cooling
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 06:42:55 UTC No. 16122020
>>16071230
Its wrong, if CO2 really accounted for 3.6% of Earth's greenhouse effect then Mars would have a greenhouse effect on par with Earth's since Mars has over 3000% more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth does.
Since Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect, the greenhouse effect due to CO2 on Earth must be far, far smaller than 3.6% of the overall greenhouse effect.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:32:39 UTC No. 16122326
>>16121242
>>16121902
>>16122020
Retard takes.
Anonymous at Wed, 10 Apr 2024 21:26:27 UTC No. 16123124
>>16071230
Its wrong, if CO2 really accounted for 3.6% of Earth's greenhouse effect then Mars would have a greenhouse effect on par with Earth's since Mars has over 3000% more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth does.
Since Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect, the greenhouse effect due to CO2 on Earth must be far, far smaller than 3.6% of the overall greenhouse effect.
Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 02:37:16 UTC No. 16123515
>>16123124
Wrong.
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 11 Apr 2024 23:23:34 UTC No. 16124845
>>16091839
Why was that thread moved off of /sci/? Its a science thread
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:20:33 UTC No. 16124900
>>16079980
>we've got the reality that humans' innovation is perfectly capable of solving any problems it might bring.
If only that were true. As a species yes we would survive, but civilization as we know it would collapse.
It comes down to food supply. If the climate changes dramatically, then suddenly our entire global farming infrastructure changes with it. What happens if the climate gets tweaked enough to cause consistent drought in places that produce a large portion of our food, or flooding, or frequent damaging storms? Farming on the scale we do it on is very much an industrial process, and like any other major industrial process it relies on established infrastructure to function. You cant just pack up your gear and go farm somewhere else that suddenly is better for farming overnight. There's a colossal amount of infrastructure that has to go with the actual fields to make them useful at our scale.
Food isnt the only issue. If hailstorms happen twice as often, you're gonna have to replace your roof twice as often too. Will that kill civilization? No, but its gonna suck having a $20,000 roof replacement done every 15 years instead of every 30. It's not just the major aspects of climate change that are a problem. A lot of little things will change too, and they will add up.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:25:47 UTC No. 16124909
>>16083948
Here is a great and also entertaining graphic built on real data collected from real, physical samples by real trained scientists and then analyzed by other real trained scientists. Scroll down to the very bottom and tell me with a straight face that it doesn't look any different than the rest of it.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:41:39 UTC No. 16124926
>>16087089
the k-12 education system has failed us. You have convinced me that without dramatic action, our civilization will soon be coming to an end, regardless of climate change being real or not.
1st grade. 6, maybe 7 year old kids. That's when you learn about the water cycle. Thats when you lean that water evaporates into the air, and eventually falls back down as rain or snow, and then eventually evaporates again.
Water can be a solid, liquid, or a gas.
I'm sorry, I was gonna stop after reminding you that literal 1st graders know better, but I realized before clicking post that it's not enough.
Have you ever seen it rain? Have you not once noticed that every now and then water droplets literally fall from the sky? What could have been going through your mind when confronted with such a sight, I wonder? Did you consider where that water came from? Did you think that over beyond the horizon there is someone with a spray bottle the size of a mountain spritzing water out of the oceans and onto your home? I just cannot get over how stupid this statement is.
>>"Water is not a gas, its a fluid"
How thick do you have to be? How many neurons are left inside your skull? How are you even able to control your own muscles well enough to type, let alone form any kind of coherent thought?
Jesus christ...
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 12 Apr 2024 19:39:35 UTC No. 16126120
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 04:43:58 UTC No. 16126794
>>16109100
yes it does
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:23:25 UTC No. 16126848
>>16126794
Congratulations discovering perpetual energy. When are you going to publish your findings?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:09:54 UTC No. 16127278
>>16079980
>bring us back to where we were when they were created.
most mammals, especially humans, didn't even exist yet back then. do you want the average temperature of earth to be over 30C?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:43:40 UTC No. 16127384
>>16079980
Increasing carbon output does not simply "bring us back". You realize that carboniferous minerals are bountiful and by extracting them (alongside organics) we're changing the balance of sequestered and free carbon. In doing so, we're trapping more energy in the system, causing instability of the entire system. Mass extinction events in the past were caused by a significant output of mineral silicon and carbon; we're simply repeating what has happened in the past (killing virtually everything on the planet).
>TL;DR
Read up on the Great Dying. You might understand.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:45:42 UTC No. 16127391
>>16080118
>ignoring the time difference between the Carboniferous and the present
shiggy diggy, bad-faith arguer.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 17:07:28 UTC No. 16127419
>>16127384
Hotters are retarded.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 17:11:10 UTC No. 16127425
>>16093936
>not using thorium
ngmi
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 17:18:26 UTC No. 16127438
>>16086361
>>16086170
The goal is to guilt-trip the west into crippling themselves.
Cumulative figures make no sense when the problem would be real. In that case you would look at current / recent yearly output, and china would be the biggest by far.
It's like telling a fat diabetic he can keep drinking pepsi because his problems were caused by all the coca cola he drank.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 19:39:28 UTC No. 16127621
>>16126848
you've never passed even the most basic freshman level thermodynamics class, you have no idea what you're talking about
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 19:58:22 UTC No. 16127652
>>16127621
If density alone increased temperature then you could pressurized a container and it would release heat indefinitely. You should be able to understand this if you've ever even taken a physics class.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Apr 2024 19:59:43 UTC No. 16127654
>>16127438
Emissions stick around for more than a year, moron
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 14 Apr 2024 08:47:51 UTC No. 16128422
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:42:20 UTC No. 16129763
>>16090981
Primates thrived when the atmosphere had 1500-2000ppm 30 million years ago. NASA has set the maximum permissible 24hour average CO2 level for ISS at 5500ppm. Urbanites spend their lives in atmospheres around 1000ppm and don't seem to mind.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 15 Apr 2024 21:34:12 UTC No. 16130707
>>16129763
so 5500ppm of co2 isn't enough to reduce a person's health or cognition to the point that they can't do the job of an astronaut
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 16 Apr 2024 07:34:17 UTC No. 16131165
>>16130707
>5500ppm of co2 isn't enough to reduce a person's health or cognition to the point that they can't do the job of an astronaut
Supposedly being an astronaut is difficult and intellectually challenging work, if NASA says astronauts can perform in 5500ppm CO2 then CO2 must not be as bad as Greta and Al Gore keep on claiming it is
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 16 Apr 2024 23:35:17 UTC No. 16132330
>>16131165
Either that or NASA is too low IQ to figure out how to maintain a healthy atmosphere in their spacecraft
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 17 Apr 2024 21:28:26 UTC No. 16133500
>>16132330
NASA is too low IQ to low to figure out if their own employees are male or female, they are way, way too dumb to do any of the technical work necessary for spaceflight. All of that technical work is done for NASA by military contractors, NASA itself is just a propaganda distributor.
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Apr 2024 21:42:26 UTC No. 16133535
>>16130707
Bro you breath out CO2
Anonymous at Wed, 17 Apr 2024 23:40:51 UTC No. 16133695
>>16073402
>condenses
to clouds. Ever heard of them and their effects?
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Apr 2024 00:59:12 UTC No. 16133826
>>16133695
Yep. Clouds reflect light away, cooling the Earth. You should really learn how things work before trying to sound smart.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:17:52 UTC No. 16135135
>>16071230
yes
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:13:15 UTC No. 16135730
>>16133826
that chart is fake af, it has long since been proved that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 11:25:46 UTC No. 16135772
>>16077947
>using "pedo" for post-pubescent people
>muh magic number 18
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 13:04:15 UTC No. 16135849
>>16135730
Take your meds.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 00:16:21 UTC No. 16136677
>>16130707
According to NASA it is not
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 02:45:14 UTC No. 16136843
>>16131165
>>16136677
Source?
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 00:18:49 UTC No. 16138094
>>16136843
NASA
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 02:04:16 UTC No. 16138248
>>16138094
Saying "NASA" isn't providing a source.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:34:26 UTC No. 16138856
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:36:16 UTC No. 16138858
>>16138856
So you don't have a source? You were just making it up?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:30:21 UTC No. 16139664
>>16071230
wrong man, just fucking wrong. STOP GETTING YOUR INFO FROM SHITTY SOURCES, FFS
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:31:28 UTC No. 16139667
>>16072622
her head is a bit disproportionate, but I would.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 01:20:54 UTC No. 16139729
>>16138858
you're too dumb to look up your own information or too lazy?
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Apr 2024 05:14:17 UTC No. 16139935
>>16139729
Why do you say things that can't even bear as much scrutiny as linking a page. If NASA has made a statement saying that 5500 ppm of carbon dioxide didn't affect human cognition then it should be trivial for you to find that statement. The only reason to refuse to provide a source is if you made it up and can't substantiate those claims.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 03:59:16 UTC No. 16141568
>>16139935
you're too dumb to look up your own information or too lazy?
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:38:22 UTC No. 16141608
>>16141568
It's your information, which you still haven't provided a source for. The only reason to refuse to provide a source is if you made it up and can't substantiate those claims.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:10:56 UTC No. 16141980
>>16083776
soooo CO2 does not have an energy transition right in the middle of the IR spectrum?
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:25:21 UTC No. 16143458
>>16141980
If CO2 were a greenhouse gas then Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect. Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect and that proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:27:34 UTC No. 16143803
>>16143458
Source?
Anonymous at Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:29:46 UTC No. 16144179
>>16071230
Yes it's true, but little changes in concentration can have large effects when compounded over time.
But also climate advocacy is gay since we can cool the earth with aerosols and make clean basically free energy with nuclear. But we wont ever do that because you can't make money with that.
>t.atmospheric physicist
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 06:58:36 UTC No. 16144873
>>16143803
Mars
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:15:18 UTC No. 16145174
>>16071230
Ad hominem. Obviously on a planet covered by 70% water there is going to be water in the fucking atmosphere.
You are monumentally retarded, christfag. Its not about how much nature contributes to the greenhouse effect. If we never existed (which would be good in your case) the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would still be relatively the same. Otherwise there wouldn't be any fucking weather would there?
Climate Change is caused by the fact that we are pulling carbon from the ground that was deposited over millions of years and releasing it within a few decades. Therefore having adverse effects on the climate system. Such as increased temperatures. Carbon dioxide is a monumentally more powerful greenhouse gas then fucking water vapor.
Conclusion being that you are a fucking retard. I hope you'll enjoy praying to your false god for mercy while you fight over the last scraps of. resources because your retard ass couldn't comprehend that gas in atmosphere make planet hotter. See you in 2060 fuckhead. Hahaha
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:04:59 UTC No. 16145377
>>16144873
Do you understand what a source is? Who told you that Mars has no greenhouse effect? What is the source of this information?
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:13:56 UTC No. 16145397
>>16145174
2 more decades?
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 07:49:26 UTC No. 16146514
>>16145377
Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect. You can run the numbers yourself if you've ever passed astronomy 101. Astronomy students learn the planetary equilibrium temperature calculation in their first month of study, its fairly simple, just some geometry and some plug and chug with the Stefan–Boltzmann relationship. If you're not even familiar with the absolute basics of this topic then you shouldn't be trying to pose as an expert on planetary atmospheres.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:19:17 UTC No. 16146712
>>16146514
>just some geometry and some plug and chug with the Stefan–Boltzmann relationship
So if you ignore the effect of greenhouse gasses then you calculate no greenhouse effect on Mars. I'm noticing the same thing happens when I ignore the greenhouse effect on Earth.
If you're going to pretend to know what you're talking about then you might want to learn anything about the subject first.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:27:58 UTC No. 16146725
>>16145174
LMAO
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:30:46 UTC No. 16146734
>>16071230
Climate change is a scam only morons believe and billionaires monetize.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:31:51 UTC No. 16146736
>>16072298
>google search
LMAO, what a stupid idiot.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:32:21 UTC No. 16146737
>>16146736
Cup my fart faggot
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:33:39 UTC No. 16146739
>>16146736
>He doesn't research topics before speaking on them
NGMI
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:37:34 UTC No. 16146746
>>16079731
> See pic related
Fuck off you coprophage zog bot. Your sources have no credibility at all, you imbecile moron.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:41:19 UTC No. 16146750
>>16146737
Kill yourself to save the planet, nobody needs demonic parasites like you.
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:43:44 UTC No. 16146751
>>16146739
> Visit globohomo.org to know why is not a scam.
LMAO
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:55:59 UTC No. 16146766
>>16146746
>>16146750
>>16146751
Take your meds.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 06:12:07 UTC No. 16148053
>>16146712
you really are completely ignorant of even the most absolutely basic aspects of climate science. greenhouse effect is defined as the measured average temperate minus the calculated equilibrium temperature. this is stuff that you'd have learned in the first week of class as a freshman if you had actually studied the topic you're trying to pose as an expert in
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 06:21:04 UTC No. 16148056
>>16148053
Write the equation describing thermal flux on Earth.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 23:09:16 UTC No. 16149135
>>16148056
the planetary equilibrium temperature calculation is basic stuff, you can look it up anywhere
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Apr 2024 23:42:25 UTC No. 16149193
>>16071230
We burn 8 billion tonnes of coal every year, what do you think?
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 19:40:18 UTC No. 16150367
>>16149135
So you can't do it?
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 22:40:59 UTC No. 16150666
>>16150367
you can't
Anonymous at Sun, 28 Apr 2024 23:01:36 UTC No. 16150708
>>16150666
I thought you said it was trivial? Why claim that you can do it if you can't do it?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Apr 2024 21:28:45 UTC No. 16152217
>>16148053
Belief in global warming relies on ignorance of science
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Apr 2024 22:54:04 UTC No. 16152355
>>16152217
Write the equation describing thermal flux on Earth.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:42:42 UTC No. 16152827
>>16146514
I had that in astro 101 too