/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10701183
The atmosphere is made up of 0.04% carbon dioxide. Humans contribute as much as 2-4% of that 0.04%. If you blame that on whatever you study, you then no longer need to work out the actual reason and can simply go cash your check. This post was due to climate change.

Smart and self adjusting nature! Nothing new, cyclical.

>>10701214
>Humans contribute as much as 2-4% of that 0.04%
That is a straight up lie

>>10701214
>The atmosphere is made up of 0.04% carbon dioxide. Humans contribute as much as 2-4% of that 0.04%

This is nonsense. Human contributions to CO2 are a rate over time, so your bullshit should at least come with units of ppm/decade.

>>10701260
>>10701261
what is it about co2 and methane etc that makes them "heat trapping" gases?

>>10701183
We don't want to live in a shitty world (or in the west) with constant pollution, shitty douchebag oil companies who lobby us into foreign wars, and asshole utilities who overcharge us because they have local monopolies. So we larp as climate change scientists and get to have solar powered homes (so fuck PG&E!), clean air (anyone who's lived in 80s Los Angeles can tell you it was like Beijing), and use our taxes for human capital development rather than buy missiles to kill durkas.

>>10701266
The spectrum of infrared that they reflect back to Earth

>>10701183
>If I made two greenhouses and filled one with a huge amount of carbon dioxide would it have a higher temperature?
It would, yes.

>>10701266
They're gasses that radiate energy from the sun. Some of this goes out into space, some of it goes to the surface of Earth. Earth radiates some of that back upwards, and the more greenhouse gases you have, the more likelihood that heat just stays trapped between the atmosphere and the surface and never radiates out into space.

>>10701214
Here sir would you like this glass of water? it only contains .04% cyanide it's common sense that .04% of anything can't hurt you. The second part of your post is literally just a lie so there's that.

>>10701280
>Here sir would you like this glass of water? it only contains .04% cyanide i
>literally drinking water in the third world shithole called usa

>>10701183
>climate change
not science or math

>>10701260
You can look it up yourself.

>>10701312
>>10701280

>>10701312

>>10701183
Certain molecules vibrate in a particular way which changes their dipole moment. This vibration corresponds to particular wavelengths of energy in the form of infrared heat. This vibration allows the molecules to absorb and re-emit that energy. Such molecules are called greenhouse gases since they do not absorb visible light but do absorb heat (note that this is simply a superficial connection; actual greenhouses work primarily by preventing the escape of warm air instead of through radiative transfer). So energy entering the Earth's atmosphere in the form of visible light will pass through these gases, then will be absorbed by the Earth, and then will be re-emmitted by the Earth in the form of heat traveling away from the Earth. That heart will then be absorbed by greenhouse gases and re-emmitted in all directions. So some of the heat will be sent back to Earth instead of leaving the atmosphere. The net result of all this is that the greenhouse gases have increased the amount of energy in Earth's atmosphere by keeping it from leaving at the same rate that it entered. This is the thermodynamic equivalent of increasing temperature.

>>10701280
>>10701260
>>10701261
Why do alarmists get so butthurt when the numbers are presented as percentages rather than their prefered rhetoric of "tons" or even "parts per MILLION... MILLION!!!".

>>10701329
Why won't you drink this glass of water? it contains only .04% cyanide .04% of anything can't hurt you.

>>10701338
So you're saying CO2 is a lobster?

>>10701183
Climate change is bullshit. Jay Forrester is a retard.

>>10701344
So you're saying your argument is fucking stupid? I agree.

>>10701329
Probably because the rest of the atmosphere has no relevance to CO2's effect, and using the percentage only serves as a red herring: "look how small this number is, it can't possibly have an effect" which is itself a fallacious argument.

>>10701349
It's not an argument. It is a simple fact. CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Now if you want to compare it to cyanide, go ahead. But you are breathing it now.

>>10701358
The rest of the atmosphere has no relevance to CO2's effect? It's not even the biggest greenhouse gas. It's true that 2-4% of 0.04% doesn't scare people and you want to scare people because you find it politically expedient. The ends justify the means.

>>10701360
Ok sounds good if you aren't making an argument than we can agree the atmosphere is made up of .04% CO2 and even increasing or decreasing it a small amount can result in large changes in global average temperature. Due to it's strong greenhouse effect and feedback mechanisms. We can also agree that pre industrial CO2 was stable at 280PPM and has increased to 415PPM entirely as a result of human activity. If you want to convert that to a % go ahead it won't change anything.

I'd probably be suspect of your definition of large since 480/1000000 impresses you.

>>10701367
Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas and greatly amplifies warming from CO2 which has the second largest greenhouse effect.

>>10701329
Why do climate change deniers always feel the need to lie to support their position

>>10701384
because their entire position is a lie.

>>10701383
I'm glad you already clarified that you aren't making an argument. Because if you were it would be a pretty dumb one.

>>10701386
I know, but I want to hear it from him

>>10701384
Where is the lie? What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? What percentage of CO2 is attributed to humans? If the answer is 0.04% and 2-4% then calling people "liars" makes you look like a hack.

>>10701367
>The rest of the atmosphere has no relevance to CO2's effect? It's not even the biggest greenhouse gas.
And? It still has no relevance to the effect of CO2. If the same amount of CO2 was 100% of the atmosphere you would have essentially the same amount of warming from CO2 as before.

> It's true that 2-4% of 0.04% doesn't scare people and you want to scare people because you find it politically expedient.
Do you understand the difference between not scaring people and presenting an argument for why they should not be scared? If you stand and say nothing you will not be scaring people, but this is not an argument for why people should not be scared. Saying "CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere" is the intellectual equivalent of saying nothing.

>>10701394
>What percentage of CO2 is attributed to humans?
This question is too vague to be answered. The 0.04% of the atmosphere that's CO2 is made up of CO2 that was just emitted and CO2 that's hundreds of years old. The relevant question is, what is the human contribution to the change in CO2 that's causing global warming? The answer is 100% of the change since the Industrial Revolution began. That's because natural sinks of CO2 have been absorbing more than natural sources emit, and since the Industrial Revolution we've been emitting more CO2 than that extra amount of absorption.

>>10701394
I keep forgetting you people don't know how to read graphs >>10701280
As you can see human emissions averaged about 9 Petagramms while fires averaged about 2 Petagrammes The land and ocean absorbed about 6 petagrammes. So what Percent of CO2 emissions are from humans?

>>10701394
Humans are responsible for very nearly 100% of the more than doubling of atmospheric CO2. You should Google "carbon cycle" and do some learning

>>10701386
>>10701392
I would love to help stop climate change, but why is it that the party that is talking about it the most doing nothing to stop it? Whats the point of crashing civilization when you should be encouraging growth and development of green companies, not taxing the fucking entirety of society

>>10701422
Every country that has implemented a carbon tax has drastically reduced emissions and had minimal negative economic effects.

>>10701400
>Do you understand the difference between not scaring people and presenting an argument for why they should not be scared?
Aren't we supposed to be living under water by now? The reason people should not be scared is the failure of pop culture "science" on the issue for thirty years. And their failures predicting calamity on various issues for decades before that. You can blame anyone else you want, but if you weren't calling out those frauds as vehemently as you call out those posting actual percentages, then you are part of the reason nobody believes the alarmist rhetoric.

>>10701426
scientists are always critical of the media mis reporting studies, but the general public doesn't listen to scientists which is why the media has a job in the first place.

>>10701422
Not taxing greenhouse gas emissions and letting global warming occur unmitigated is far more economically harmful than the taxes themselves. Why do you want to crash civilization?

>>10701425
>literal riots in france for the past months
people are fucking STARVING in France of all places you absolute retard, all because eltist rich people want to virtue signal on twitter or reddit. why are you surprised when people are against this??

>>10701440
of course you need to tax, but taking money away from people dosent solve anything.

>>10701440
>nuh-uh!! youre the one that hates civilization!!!
everytime

>>10701417
No, CO2 is naturally created and destroyed all the time.
>>10701419
>So what Percent of CO2 emissions are from humans?
As already stated, 2-4%.
>>10701420
You are wanting to claim it was 0.02% before humans and is 0.04% now? That's wrong.

>>10701463
Oh really, I showed my figures where are yours?

>>10701426
>Aren't we supposed to be living under water by now?
No...?

>The reason people should not be scared is the failure of pop culture "science" on the issue for thirty years.
How is popular culture relevant? People should be scared because of the science and instead of debunking that you attack a strawman.

>You can blame anyone else you want, but if you weren't calling out those frauds as vehemently as you call out those posting actual percentages, then you are part of the reason nobody believes the alarmist rhetoric.
So you admit that you are the equivalent of trash popsci. I guess we're done here.

>>10701463
Looks like it's more than doubled to me. It also seems to become exponential around the time of the industrial revolution.

Hmmm....

>>10701445
>The protesters have called for lower fuel taxes, a reintroduction of the solidarity tax on wealth, a minimum-wage increase
Fuel taxes are only one small part of the issue. Funny how the solidarity tax is a direct wealth tax on those in France having assets in excess of €1,300,000

>>10701214
Humans cut down trees idiot.

>>10701440
>the conservatives are the ones that want to crash civilization
kek

>>10701477
Fuck industry honestly. It's killed us literally too. Our bloodstream is polluted with heavy metals and stimulants that mess with receptor tyrosine kinases

>>10701485
Doing nothing about global warming is the easiest way to do that.

>>10701485
Go breathe the beautiful clean air in Beijing if you don't believe pollution exists.

>>10701448
How does decreasing demand for carbon emissions not solve anything?

>>10701468
It's in the graphs shown already. 400 PPM is 400 parts per million. Which is 0.0004. Or 0.04%. You brainlets have been arguing against your own data. Dumbasses.

>>10701454
>my argument gets refuted every time waaaaah!

>>10701454
>>10701485
>what could possibly go wrong
Reminder: India, one of the countries most affected by climate change has more than 100 nuclear weapons and a large population.

>>10701463
>No, CO2 is naturally created and destroyed all the time.
Please explain how this disagrees with anything I said. Braindead moron.

>>10701482
>Fuel taxes are only one small part
Never have I heard a more retarded thing. The protests started directly after the tax reform. The saddest part about it is that macroon is the most left leaning guy imaginable, If they did any other carbon tax reform, it would be even worse. Im guessing you just read the wikipedia article and have never actually heard of this?

>Funny how the solidarity tax is a direct wealth tax on those in France having assets in excess of €1,300,000
Well I agree with this on some stipulations, If someone needs to be taxed, It should be the wealthy liberals that claim this is of existential importance.

>>10701503
once again I vastly overestimate the ability of a climate denier to read plain English.

I was clearly talking about human contributions. Of which humans are responsible for virtually 100% annually. You claim this is 2-4% where are your figures?

>>10701495
good thing we arent doing nothing then
>>10701497
it exists everywhere there is infrastructure, dont know what you are trying to say
>>10701499
taxing doesn't decrease demand for carbon emissions, nor does it increase demand for cleaner energy. It only stagnates economic development, it has nothing to do with economic demand. This is a myth based on a 5th grade understanding of economics. The answer is to encourage green growth, and conversion to nuclear. Big oil companies are spending trillions researching green energy right now, and this is a good thing. We WANT them to convert. Taxing everything is a stupid duct tape bandaid solution.
>>10701504
>no argument
>>10701508
thats my point you mongoloid, theres no stopping them from coming out of poverty, nor china

>>10701546
>taxing doesn't decrease demand for carbon emissions
It does, you're empirically wrong.

https://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2016/data/papers/9_49.pdf

>It only stagnates economic development, it has nothing to do with economic demand.
Letting global warming go unmitigated only stagnates economic development. You're only looking at one side of the equation and purposefully getting the wrong answer.

>The answer is to encourage green growth, and conversion to nuclear.
Which a carbon tax does, you fucking moron. You have no point.

>no argument
You're projecting.

>>10701556
Barf

>>10701561
>no argument

>>10701556
>Letting global warming go unmitigated only stagnates economic development. You're only looking at one side of the equation and purposefully getting the wrong answer.
Thats a Lie and you know it, plenty of places are projected to increase wealth and porsperity.
>The answer is to encourage green growth, and conversion to nuclear.
Thats the most retarded thing Ive ever heard. It is literally impossible for you to think outside the scope of the state, It is possible to do things with thought taxing.

>>10701463
>>10701503
>>10701546
Yo, I'm feeling a little ignored. Did you want to address this graph >>10701477
or why you feel the need to lie?

>>10701546
>thats my point you mongoloid, theres no stopping them from coming out of poverty, nor china
If we don't work with them to stop global warming once they run out of arable land and water they will take what they need by force and we will deserve our destruction.

>>10701522
I agree with the yellow jacket policies too, introducing a livable minimum wage as well as increasing the tax burden on the very wealthy needs to happen in America as well. I agree as well that a direct carbon tax like France has had for several years now is a better solution than simply a fuel tax like was protested.

>>10701570
>https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/agriculture

>>10701360
>It's not an argument
So, you don't have one at all?

>>10701183
https://youtu.be/x26a-ztpQs8?t=39m

>>10701214
>>10701260
Human activity is largely responsible for the entire 50% increase of atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution (from 280ppm to ~410ppm now and rising). The "2-4%" figure comes from dividing the human sources of CO2 emissions by the total natural and anthropogenic sources, while ignoring the natural sinks of carbon. This is a dishonest tactic of denialists. The natural carbon cycle is much closer to balanced when you calculate sources minus sinks. The anthropogenic contribution is mostly not sinked, hence it is the principal cause of the observed change.

>>10701292
climatology is science anon, although no argument here that these threads always end up more politics than science

>>10701660
I blame /pol/

>>10701660
Climatology threads are so much fun, every single thread is just some dude with a 4th grade science education who thinks he knows something every legitimate scientists doesn't while a bunch of normal anons debunk every post he makes. Then he gives up on pretending he knows what he's talking about because he ran out of infographics from /pol/ and he starts the name calling and political BS.

>>10701591
This is your brain on Bill Nye. "If something costs more, people buy less of it".
I already pay too much for gas because I have to commute every where, the US is huge and population density is low. Do you know how much of a price hike on everything is gonna be once they tax fuel even more? if shipping gets more expensive for the business guess what, you're paying for it
I can't imagine how much a full tank costs in Europe it must be a nightmare

I'm guessing you're an underage NEET bike loser who doesn't own a car, therefore your solution is to tax everyone else

Frankly I don't want to give the government more money they are THE CORRUPT FUCKS that got us into this mess in the first place

>>10701672
>Do you know how much of a price hike on everything is gonna be once they tax fuel even more?
Sounds like you should be saving up for an electric vehicle

>>10701672
Reading comprehension, I said a direct carbon tax like France has had since 2014 is a better solution than a fuel tax until EV prices and infrastructure are more available.

>>10701664
>>10701670
The denialists intentionally blur the line between the two. Their rhetoric and tactics are a miasma of confusion, badly applied science arguments, and attachment of the science to particular political positions, parties, and individuals to then try and discredit all of it at once. It's a bizarre and totally flawed this method of argumentation, but it might be convincing to people who aren't educated about science.

>>10701681
random "this" in there, woops

>>10701183

see all the temperature that look exactly like the one we are in now that have happened since the dawn of time.. we are suppose to be worried about the one happening now.

>>10701681
That's why I come to these things. They get BTFO'd quickly and routinely enough that hopefully they don't trick any idiots

>>10701688
greenland =/= global

>>10701570
>Thats a Lie and you know it, plenty of places are projected to increase wealth and porsperity.
Only if you look at one factor like local agriculture and ignore all others. But thanks for admitting that overall it will be harmful.

>Thats the most retarded thing Ive ever heard. It is literally impossible for you to think outside the scope of the state, It is possible to do things with thought taxing.
I didn't say it wasn't possible, I said that a carbon tax does what you are saying should be done instead of a carbon tax, you insipid mongoloid. And it is the easiest and most efficient way to get it done.

>>10701688
now look at the following graph and see how it is entirely inconsistent with the exaggerated peak and valley of the MWP and LIA respectively in >>10701688 's graph, probably because that graph comes from denialists

data is from the papers listed on:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

>>10701701
It's also important to note the rate of change. each shift in his graph is about 1 degree every thousand years while we're at about 1 degree in under 80.

>>10701688
Consider also this graph of the "Holocene climate optimum" found from proxy reconstructions, and compare it with the exaggerated graph in >>10701688 . It's clear from this graph and >>10701701 that the modern warming is unprecedented since at least the Younger Dryas event 12000-10000 BP.

Data from the papers listed on:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

>>10701715
excuse me, Younger Dryas is considered to be from 13000-11500 BP

>>10701688
Oh look another shitty denier graphic that proves yet again they have no idea what they're talking about. Your graph is made up, doesn't show global temperatures, and doesn't show present day temperatures. If it did you would immediately see modern warming is far outside natural variation.

https://books.google.com/books?id=DcLWBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=daansgard+1984+avery&source=bl&ots=-mzDPQxdRG&sig=ACfU3U3Mfj2f5g80yW0CN7K2SJUfOwwOQw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjo9PTJ09PiAhVydt8KHQIIBnAQ6AEwAnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=daansgard%201984%20avery&f=false

If everything is fake what is real?
If climate science is fake, does it mean weather is real?

>>10701688

Yes man made climate change is real, NO you should NOT worry one iota about it.

Pretty much ALL the climate change is due to environmental changes due to land clearing, fishing, and farming. The other facors are due to using fossil fuels.

1. mankind is being more urban and farming is getting much more efficient. USA forest land is INCREASING.
2. fossil fuels were a temporary moment in mankind's energy development; solar, nuclear, wind, etc. are going to DOMINATE energy development in the future (an electric car is far superior to an gas car, (Once you have good batteries)).

Climate change worriers remind me of "The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894"

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/

>>10701868
>Pretty much ALL the climate change is due to environmental changes due to land clearing, fishing, and farming. The other facors are due to using fossil fuels.
It's all of the above, but fossil fuel usage is the largest piece of the pie, not the smallest. Agriculture (and therefore diets, particularly meat heavy diets) is something like 25% of total emissions. Industries are slowly moving in the right direction, but this transition won't be over for decades still.

>>10701868
>NO you should NOT worry one iota about it
this, climate change really isn't much of an issue

>>10701660
>climatology is science anon, although no argument here that these threads always end up more politics than science
Climatologists do not use the scientific method.

>>10702614
You do not use your brain.

>>10701183
>Climate
>On a molecular level

Totally wrong scale to describe the problem in a meaningful way. Explain your job on an atomic level.

So here's what we need -the emission and absorption spectrum of CO2 -the emission spectrum of the Sun -stochiochemistry in atmosphere
We need a computer engineer 2 show us Bunches of data equivalence of the above data on a computer and how big such a computer could be if no such computer exists then global warming is probably a lie

>>10703594
If such computer exists run that simulation and subsequent simulations and we monitor global warming if it occurs it is due two smaller particles than atoms coming in from the cosmos

>>10701183
why don't you try it and find out? sounds like a fairly easy experiment to do

>>10703616
Unless global warming is actually caused by a endothermic reaction in the atmosphere it's false

>>10703638
unless trapped heat in freezing ice balances

I suggest violent Revolt in all countries that have CO2 emissions laws

>>10703594
You forgot the re-emission spectrum of the Earth's surface, which is where the infrared radiation that greenhouse gases absorb comes from. Your ignorance of the basics does not add up to "the science is a lie."
>>10703638
Unless you don't understand how it works and you're just making shit up and calling things lies that aren't.

Just make sure your greenhouses have forests, fields, deserts, oceans, ice caps, clouds etc.