/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11229231
>totally factually wrong (radiative spectroscopy)
Nice non-answer.

http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

>>11185390
>show any geometric pattern
>/x/tards and acidheads will connect it to anything else with geometric patterns
>muh sacred geometry

>>11074746

>>11037913
>They are polluting far more than us at this point
ONLY BECAUSE THERE'S FOUR TIMES AS MANY OF THEM AS THERE ARE AMERICANS, YOU FUCKING IDIOT. How fucking stupid are you?
>As renewables get cheaper, electric vehicles take over, and people generally come around to the idea of implementing more environmentally sustainable infrastructure the US will continue to decrease emissions. Meanwhile, China will do whatever it takes to ensure local hegemony and will burn as much fossil fuels (and people) as necessary to achieve that goal
Your own image shows a plateauing of Chinese emissions, and like I've said multiple times in this thread, CHINA IS GENERATING MORE OF THEIR ELECTRICITY FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES THAN THE UNITED STATES IS. THEY ARE DOING BETTER THAN YOU. YOU ARE LAGGING BEHIND. IN 2016, 25% OF CHINESE ELECTRICITY WAS FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES, BUT IT WAS ONLY 15% FOR THE USA.

Also you're droning on about "hurr durr China will OBVIOUSLY ignore emissions and just do what they want, rite guise?" - but hang on a minute, which country said it's going to pull out of the Paris Agreement? Was it China or the US? YOU FUCKING MORON.

>At this point they've already surpassed the US and EU combined
Looking at your graph their total CO2 emissions are only about 6% higher than the US+EU, yet their population is 65% higher than those two regions combined. So again, their per capita rate is MUCH LOWER than the US+EU combined. You're not too bright are you?

>even the US is only capable of making a minimal impact if China continues to develop unchecked
THIS IS WHY OBAMA MADE A JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT WITH CHINA THAT BOTH COUNTRIES WOULD SIGN UP TO THE PARIS AGREEMENT YOU FUCKING SMOOTHBRAIN MORON

And also:
>The problem is that we've already stopped any additional CO2 emissions growth
Trump has already been implementing changes contrary to the Paris Agreement, like embracing coal, you fucking idiot. So it's entirely likely that the US's CO2 emissions will rise again.

>>11037694
>Nutrition is a pseudoscience

>>11005675
>posts temperature and CO2 in timeframes irrelevant to humans
>balks at posting solar irradiance on same timeframes because it's irrelevant to humans

>>10996760
See >>10996289 and >>10996547

>Also, we use co2 to freeze shit in my lab.
Don't breed.

>>10897306
>what is multiobjective optimization
>what are societal consequences of having "inferior" and "superior" classes of people
>what are rich people buying genes and poor people not being able to afford them
>what makes it different from incest after a while?

>>10849790
>If you have more, cheaper workers on the labor market, of course it's gonna reduce the demand of labor. Factories will employ more cheap workers, and it will reduce the demand of labor.

>>10794716
>it's true the ice caps are dissapearing but that's because polar ice is a commodity and it's being harvested.

>>10784689
>the scientists just want grant money
>the scientists are incompetent
>the proof of this is something a celebrity said

>>10758531
>here have some more nonsense pulled out of my ass

>>10734126
>if they aren't as accurate they don't exist

>>10636949
>No it doesn't. It's like saying that smoke creates the heat for a fire, the smoke is a by-product, an effect. CO2 is an effect of heat and actually cools rather than warms.
You're not saying anything about the paper. You lost and you know it.

>MOM Chicken Tendies. NOW.
LOL

>It's called the "ocean conveyor belt" and takes around 500 years to complete - a time that coincides with the medieval warm period.
Yet you still fail to provide a single paper showing that this explains any warming or any CO2 increase. Meanwhile, I provided plenty of evidence the warming and CO2 increase is caused by man. Sad!

>Scientists who can deny it without fear of losing their job unlike climate scientists. But yes, just ignore it, they're all funded by big oil, right?
So now you're claiming no climate scientists reject AGW because they would lose their job, when before you claimed the majority of climate scientists reject AGW? I'm so confused. And no, the opinions of random people with bachelor degrees is not relevant.

>This is a classic case of projection.
Then why have you yet again failed to provide any evidence for your claims while demanding the same of others, you delusional fraud? Time for mommy to change your diaper, you made a big mess.

>>10625886
You can't really think it makes sense.

>>10625639
Thanks for the gymnastics; surely the reason why you can't tell what is real and what is not is because you process way too much and not too little. Because the less you process, the more you know, and the more distorted your inputs, the more correct your conclusions are. You could become omniscient and infallible if you didn't see anything at all and just make up everything yourself instead.

Fucking brainlet.