Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:01:20 UTC No. 16302024

>>16302020
>the need for continued and improved experimental work is suggested to ascertain whether additionally emitted carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas.
I only need to understand English to understand that you're making an unfounded assertion.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:04:47 UTC No. 16302027

>>16302024
>I don't understand math or physics
>I am too dumb to figure it all out
>here is my opinion about science

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:56:10 UTC No. 16302092

>>16302020
That same math and physics has been widely understood for over 100 years.
Heres a 1971 NASA document which explains it all
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19710021465/downloads/19710021465.pdf
Volumes 1 & 2 are also available from the same source

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:57:50 UTC No. 16302094

>>16302020
>>16302027
That paper doesn't back your assertions at all.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:34:40 UTC No. 16302156

Debunked over a hundred years ago. Pathetic attempt by big oil, thinking we would forget that this is nothing new.

https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-advanced.htm

You say the atmosphere is saturated, but at what point? At some altitude the concentration will *not* be saturated. Also the co2 at different pressures will be absorbing completely different frequencies of light.


Holy shit this pseudoscience isn't even worth our time.

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:00:20 UTC No. 16302208

>>16302020
Only trannies and niggers are unfathomably dumb enough to believe in global warming lmao even

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:04:15 UTC No. 16302217

>>16302020
>the need for continued and improved experimental work is suggested
well, that's what we've been doing, thanks, smarty-pants.

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 02:27:20 UTC No. 16302725

>>16302156
>I come to 4chan to spam it with ZOG propaganda
organic asf

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 05:34:14 UTC No. 16302848

its funny how the "trust the science!!!" crowd all suddenly stops trusting the science when the science contradicts their one of low iq made for idiots goyslop tv popsci narratives

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:56:26 UTC No. 16303346

>>16302156
>Debunked
>big oil
Why don't you move to China and protest their pollution, faggot. Get de-personed and your organs harvested.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:58:33 UTC No. 16303536

>>16302725
https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search2&search_filename=glowniggerjak.jpg&offset=0

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:09:26 UTC No. 16303548

>>16303536
>this pic triggers me
ok, thanks for letting us know how upset you are, we all care deeply about your emotional state

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:52:39 UTC No. 16303753

>>16302020
climate change is dead
the reason is that China has taken over the lead on the technologies most needed to have a proper energy transition - that is, solar panels and batteries.
climate change was propped up as an idea and dogma because the US and especially the EU thought they could be at the forefront of that transition and that they would be able to profit off of it. that's looking increasingly more difficult right now (see: tariffs on china)
the consequences of this are that climate change grift and discourse will quietly die down. you already saw how they retired poor Greta. money to climate grift NGOs is dwindling and the flow will cease completely in the next years.
United Nations grandstanding will stop as soon as 2025, when a new Secretary General is to be chosen. As for the IPCC, they will receive ever less attention as the American and European media start shifting their focus. You can expect to see a diminishing number of hysterical media articles blaming every heavy rain and drought on climate change and an increasing number of nuanced views being broadcasted, emphasizing how much we don't really know about the climate.
paradoxically, as China is propping up their energy transition industry, you'll hear them harping about climate change and touting their numbers in the next years, but public opinion in the western world will already have changed in about 3-5 years, due to mass media pressure, so no one will care.
>but what about oil and gas?
The US is already the largest producer of oil and Canada is too, so they're fine with that. Euros already absorbed the Russian natural gas crash. If anything, it's better to prop up the Saudis, Algerians, Angolans and Qataris (who will never amount to a threat) than it is to prop up the chinks.

tldr: chinkoids crashed the energy transition party and now westoids won't want to play climate change anymore.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 02:05:32 UTC No. 16304049

>>16303753
Incorrect. Climate change was only a pseud-justification for bringing refugees into the West. With the full corruption of western leaders, all of their borders are fully open for no reason at all. Climate change is redundant.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 04:45:11 UTC No. 16304207

>>16303753
>>16304049
Retard takes

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 05:07:03 UTC No. 16304225

>>16304049
>pseud-justification for bringing refugees into the West
that makes no sense at all you absolute retard
>>16304207
I'll be proven right anyway. screenshot this if you want.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 00:54:57 UTC No. 16305237

>>16303753
Very interesting view.
>(see: tariffs on china)
Agreed especially on this: the same politicians that championed the "green transition" are the ones that put tariffs on cheap Chinese EVs.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 01:23:53 UTC No. 16305257

>>16302020
>>16302027
>paper doesn't actually say what OP says it does

>>16302725
>complains about ZOG
>writes like a nigger
Maybe twitter is more your speed

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 03:04:34 UTC No. 16305396

>>16302094
>need for continued and improved experimental work is suggested to ascertain whether additionally emitted carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is indeed a greenhouse gas.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:35:23 UTC No. 16305964

>>16305396
See
>>16302024
>>16302092
>>16302094
>>16302156
>>16302217
>>16305257

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 03:54:51 UTC No. 16306530

>>16302020
I doubt proving CO2 doesn't cause global warming is any more possible than proving it does

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:57:00 UTC No. 16307553

>>16305964
The document linked to in >>16302092 confirms everything in OP and in the post you're replying to. You didn't read those documents because you're incapable of comprehending them because you have zero education in science and can't do basic calculus or physics. Your strong opinions on this topic can only arise from the Dunning Kruger effect

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 21:26:00 UTC No. 16307668

>>16302020
Yeah no shit

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 13:01:47 UTC No. 16308411

>>16302020
>received Dec. 4th 2023
>published Dec. 11th 2023
wow, this study from Eastern Europe just changed my worldview bro

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 13:04:56 UTC No. 16308415

>The paper Kubicki et al (2024) 'Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases' is utter garbage from start to finish. When something is so bad, it is a big job setting straight the error-on-error presented.

As an exemplar of the level of nonsense, consider the opening paragraph, sentence by sentence.

Due to the overlap of the absorption spectra of certain atmospheric gases and vapours with a portion of the thermal radiation spectrum from the Earth's surface, these gases absorb the mentioned radiation.

I'd assume this is saying that the atmosphere contains gases (or "vapours" if you are pre-Victorian) which absorb certain IR wavelengths emitted by the Earth's surface. Calling this "overlap" is very odd.

This leads to an increase in their temperature and the re-emission of radiation in all directions, including towards the Earth.

The absorption if IR does lead to "an increase in their temperature" but the emission from atmospheric gases is determined by its temperature. Absorbed IR only very rarely results in a re-emission of IR (and if it does, the IR energy is not cause "increase in their temperature").

As a result, with an increase in the concentration of the radiation-absorbing gas, the temperature of the Earth's surface rises.

This is not how the greenhouse effect works. For wavelengths longer than the limit for its temperature defined by 'black body' physicis (for the Earth, about 4 microns), the planet emits IR across the entire spectrum. The level of emission depends on the temperature of the point of emission which for wavelengths where greenhouse gases operate is not the surface but up in the atmosphere. For IR in the 15 micron band, CO2 will result in emissions to space from up in the atmosphere where it is colder and thus where emissions are less. If adding CO2 moves the height of emission up into a colder altitude, emissions will fall and the Earth then has to heat up to regain thermal equilibrium.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 13:05:27 UTC No. 16308416

>>16308415

Due to the observed continuous increase in the average temperature of the Earth and the simultaneous increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it has been recognized that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration associated with human activity may be the cause of climate warming.

This was perhaps true before the 1950s but the absorption/emission of IR by various gasses was identified and measured when the USAF began to develop IR air-to-air missiles. The warming-effect of a doubling of CO2 (a radiative forcing of +3.7Wm^-2) has been established for decades.

So just like debating science with nextdoor's cat, taking the heed the whitterings of Messers Kubicki, Kopczyński & Młyńczak is a big big waste of time.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 13:15:06 UTC No. 16308429

>>16307553
Lol no. You must be illiterate.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 13:48:45 UTC No. 16308453

>>16302020
You really take them seriously? Military University of Technology (Wojskowa Akademia Techniczna po polsku) is a scientific laughing stock in my country, just as the Catholic University of Lublin. I do research in neuroanatomy so the latter is a laughing stock in all things medical: papers, articles. Even their anatomy professor is a confirmed pervert.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 14:50:33 UTC No. 16308504

>>16302020
what if it can neither be proved nor disproved? should we dismantle industrialized society just in case?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8AHkAJrpAxd4

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 04:45:16 UTC No. 16309410

>>16308453
>TRUST THE SCIENCE!!!
>except when it contradicts my preconceived notions that I got from watching too much television
If you're smarter than those scientists as you say you are then you should be able to publish a better article than theirs and get their article retracted

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 04:58:23 UTC No. 16309424

>>16309410
Retard take.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 06:20:08 UTC No. 16309494

Obviously OP has an agenda here and i'm explicitly not directing this at him, as that would be pointless. I'm addressing this post at reasonable laymen who accept anthropogenic climate change, but are confused as to why there is seemingly 'real science' contradicting the mainstream view (and when I say mainstream, read: almost all climate scientists).

Some facts:
- The author of the paper in the OP has published about 100 articles dating back to ~2003, of those papers about 5 are relating climate science
- These vast majority of his papers are mostly focused on physical chemistry/lasers
- The earliest climate science paper is about 6 years old and his climate related papers have been cited, in total, less than 10 times (for reference, within a year of finishing my PhD I had 3 papers, and had been cited ~10 times, and that is typical - so for mid career scientist it is fairly dire)
- The article is posted in a new journal (it started in 2020), and has poor metrics, the entire journal has only been cited 500 times over a span of 4 years (again for reference, whilst I was doing my PhD my supervisor was being cited hundreds of times a year and a single good paper every few years would pull ~100)

Citations are not a neccesary nor sufficient criteria for truth or utility, but it gives some important context. A charitble interpretation of the above is that this guy is a novice in the field, and his work hasn't been noticed yet. A more realistic interpretation is that his work is substandard, and he is forced to publish anywhere that will have him.

The first point I'd make here is that 'science' isn't a monolith, and at any given point in time, in any given field, there is a multitude of different perspectives and approaches to problems/problem classes. There are trends, hype, 'old wives tales', fashions, standard practices and pretty much everything you can imagine. - after all, science is a social activity carried out by humans, except useful.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 06:36:24 UTC No. 16309501

>>16309494
Instead of bumping a bot thread with all of that, you may just state that the OP paper contradicts OP, which it does.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 06:37:37 UTC No. 16309502

>>16309494
This is true in my field (I wont comment on the paper in general, I am a computational chemist, not a climate scientist), and people will be unwaiveringly arguing about the superiority of this simulation method, or the applicability of this metric, or the failures of popular generative machine learning techniques. This is how it should be, and an open large-scale dialogue enables a field to move forward. A rising tide raises all boats. We expect some form of epistemic discord, and this is a feature not a bug.

It may very well be the (somewhat unlikely) case that this paper highlights some issues, and as previously mentioned in the thread the only real claim of the paper is that 'more study is needed'. However, thinking that this paper is some sort of fatal blow to anthropogenic climate change, or absolute truth because it is published in a journal (which are a racket anyway), is misguided. It is a written piece of work, to be read by other scientists, nothing more. This paper is a dissenting opinion about the minutiae of a theory, in an obscure journal (and that's fine). Any interpretation of the paper in the OP has to consider the facts and context I've outlined here.

More generally, unless you have direct experience of something, refrain from jumping into technical documents - or you end up looking like a cunt. Think about all the times you've seen random internet autists comment on something you do day in and out, and how misguided they were. For example, I don't tell OP how to organise his twink folder.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 06:39:17 UTC No. 16309504

>>16309501
there is a more general point i wanted to make, my posts aren't actually about this thread. i thought that would be obvious.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 06:45:43 UTC No. 16309506

>>16309494
The attitude in this post is why "science" is in such a poor shape. Too many midwits who cannot grasp at the truth ou there.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 10:42:03 UTC No. 16309624

>>16309506
What attitude? This thread is pointless conspiracybait and my response has an order of magnitude more effort and clarity than the OP, and is an attempt to explain the proper context of what was posted. How about you spend more than a decade practicing a craft, and then have clueless spastics spouting nonsense. There's always some cunt in the corner pretending a realistic explanation is somehow supercilious. I think you're a whiny gimp who wants to be spoonfed, and It's ironic that you should bring up midwits. If you don't want to be ignored by serious people you'll have to grow up, and for good reasons.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 04:11:45 UTC No. 16310560

>>16309624
its clear from your attempt at using insulting language that you're experiencing emotional distress and that this is not an issue that you're capable of addressing objectively in a calm and rational, scientific matter

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 05:17:04 UTC No. 16310590

>>16302020
How the fuck did actual science make it past Robert Maxwell's mossad "scientism" system-

>it's poland

Ah.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 05:41:19 UTC No. 16310608

>>16304049
>>Incorrect. Climate change was only a pseud-justification for bringing refugees into the West.
Migrations started 50 years ago

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 06:02:32 UTC No. 16310618

The climate is dynamic, so of course it changes.
Too many in this thread that treat science like it's some sort of new-age religion. They blindly follow whatever slop is shoved in front of them or helps maintain funding with complete disregard for truth or science itself.
Authoritarianism runs rampant while institutions and economic interests fully control what's deemed acceptable and true and what's not. Meanwhile, "scientists" knowingly play along while either lying to themselves or living in delusions they create to avoid reality. These spineless cowards afraid of rocking the boat because it would show they had actual principles and cared about seeking answers reflect truth.
Even here some resort to the age-old trick of attacking the person instead of the merit of their information and data.
>"hes not duh expert!"
Yeah, and I'm not a chef, but I know when food is burnt. Focus on the content.
This dogmatic view held by gatekeeping nerds is the exact bullshit that's crippled intellectual endeavors and sciences into its current state which is saturated in stupidity. You would think they would have learned the lesson just from the last 5 years alone, but these intellectual juggernauts obviously aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Even on the topic of Climate alone it's so deeply entrenched in literal gutter shit that random people off the street can see and smell it. That's purely the fault of the "science" and "scientists" who have become willing participants in deception for self-serving reasons. They're morally bankrupt, intellectually lazy, obsequious clowns serving at the whims of geopolitical elites who are in a perpetual war for energy. Cut them a check and they'll reach whatever results are desired.

Here's a good book called, "How to lie with Statistics" written in 1954.
Not along book but useful in this day and age.
Here's a free copy if you're interested:
>https://archive.org/details/HowToLieWithStatistics_201608

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 06:28:13 UTC No. 16310630

>>16310618
All anyone needs to know is that Ghislaine Maxwell's mossad agent father created the current "scientific" publishing standard.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:31:35 UTC No. 16310673

>>16310560
>ignores all 3 of my (fairly long) posts and any points i made because youre upset
>responds with two whining, vapid sentences
>accuses me of being unable to discuss it rationally
excuses, excuses. the fact is, you have no scientific expertise and you have no idea what you're talking about - and i suspect you couldnt learn even if you wanted to (not that its hard). but thats okay though, at least youre making schitzo threads on here. thats the real victory.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 12:35:01 UTC No. 16310849

>>16309624
Unfathomably based

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 12:36:49 UTC No. 16310850

>>16310673
>>16310630
>>16310618
>>16310590
>>16310560
>>16309506
Retard takes.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 04:00:40 UTC No. 16311760

>>16309494
>Obviously OP has an agenda here
projection, just because you're dishonest and only care about science as tool to deceitfully push your political agenda doesn't mean that everyone else is dishonest as you are.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 04:07:12 UTC No. 16311766

>>16310850
Not an argument.
Just sit and wait to be told what you're supposed to think next in order to feel like you fit in with your favorite celebrities and tv people.
Seems to be working out well for you.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 22:21:02 UTC No. 16312698

>>16302020
>the phenomenon of thermal radiation absorption saturation in carbon dioxide
Nobody on /sci/ has enough education in physics to understand that phenomenon
lol

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 22:44:58 UTC No. 16312710

As if the climate psychos promoting "rules for the peasantry" are doing anything useful and give a shit about climate.
You'd have to be retarded to buy into such a plainly obvious medium for exploitation.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 23:07:03 UTC No. 16312733

>>16302020
>In the study (Humlumetal., 2013), the authors demonstrated that peaks of cyclic changes in air and water temperature globally precede peaks of cyclic changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration (Fig.12). This finding supports the hypothesis that, as a result of saturation processes, emitted CO2 does not directly cause an increase in global temperature. Instead, it suggests that an increase in temperature likely leads to the release of carbon dioxide from the oceans.
See picrel
Basically their shit is all backwards.

>it is not surprising that the results in various significant works such as Schildknecht(2020) and Harde(2013), differ greatly from those presented by the IPCC, which is widely regarded as the sole reliable authority. This unequivocally suggests that the officially presented impact of anthropogenic CO2 increase on Earth's climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated fact.
This is nerd speak for: you're full of shit and lying.

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 22:43:10 UTC No. 16314225

>>16310630
Did he? I remember him having some position publishing for a newspaper. But I forget the specifics now.

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 18:55:18 UTC No. 16315487

>>16312710
>As if the climate psychos promoting "rules for the peasantry"

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 20:30:33 UTC No. 16315587

>>16315487
people who need to speak through memes are too insecure to share views of their own

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 06:11:02 UTC No. 16316350

>>16315587
that pic clearly upsets you, you must have a cringey narcissistic fantasy life just like the comic describes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_(psychology)#Narcissistic_personality_disorder
>Two characteristics of someone with narcissistic personality disorder are:[28]
>A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior)
>A preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, wealth, beauty, or ideal love.

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 06:23:22 UTC No. 16316364

>>16309410
>DON'T TRUST THE SCIENCE, IT'S FAKE!!!
>except this one article that just happens to adhere to me worldview, that one is real
Holy shit, you're dumber than cattle.

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 06:51:56 UTC No. 16316395

>>16316350
it's funny how you concoct a hate fantasy version of people and even what they think/feel and then just pretend its reality. self awareness isnt your thing it seems.

and of course, as expected, you provide nothing of value. probably a familiar feeling no doubt.
your desperation for attention is embarrassing. go make a friend or something, you creepy little weirdo. and project your mental illness elsewhere, please.

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 00:38:44 UTC No. 16317941

>>16315487

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 16:50:26 UTC No. 16318819

>>16316364
>the science
Lol. You're projecting.