/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10961164
>climate change
Fake

>>10961164
>How much of the current change of climate can be attributed to man?
Basically all of it. Natural cycles would have us cooling a little bit.

>Are CO2 emissions actually responsible for a large amount of CO2 concentration in earth's atmosphere?
Yep. The isotopes of carbon in atmospheric CO2 have been analyzed and the results point to fossil fuels as the source.

>>10961164 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
Saged.

>>10961164
Scam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zrejG-WI3U

>>10961164
>How much of the current change of climate can be attributed to man?
So far no studies have taken socioeconomic factors into account so we just can't say.
>Are CO2 emissions actually responsible for a large amount of CO2 concentration in earth's atmosphere?
Yeah, not much of it gets here from outer space.

>>10961164
>How much of the current change of climate can be attributed to man?

Approximately all of it.

>Are CO2 emissions actually responsible for a large amount of CO2 concentration in earth's atmosphere?

Yes.

>>10961165
>another dummy with a sharpie

>>10961164
>climate change
>>>/x/

>>10961479
>>10961165

since when was /sci/ full of retards? has it always been this way?

>>10961164
we will be dead by 2001 and new york will be underwater

>>10961617
not alabama?

When are we getting genetically modified algae and plant to suck up tons of carbon?

Oh right, never. Because people are too scared of GMO.

>>10961975
Doesn't work. Biomass only stores carbon, once it dies it decays and releases it all. You might be able to to sequester a few gigtons this way, but that's like a single year of emissions and it would have repercussions on the environment.

>>10961996
>that's like a single year of emissions
not even close

>>10962000
My point is that it wasn't enough sequestration to matter, but if you want to nitpick then your information is out of date and we've probably added another ten gigatons per year by now.

>>10962007
2017: 36.2 gigatons
https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/12/new-global-co2-emissions-numbers-are-they-re-not-good

>>10962119
Right, so now, two years later, 39 gigatons/year is not an unreasonable expectation, but my point with that was that splitting hairs is unnecessary. We emit too much carbon for biomass to be a solution. The particulars are just trivia.

>>10962126
OP of post here
It is however a long term solution---functioning as a carbon sink, assuming we actually do something about reducing carbon emissions.

>>10962126
Why can't we build with this carbon? We could build a pyramid to space with it

>>10962181
No, it's not. Plants reach an equilibrium where they die just as fast as they grow so you're only storing some carbon in the living plants. It's nothing compared to the amount that needs to be removed from the atmosphere. Plants are not any kind of solution for carbon sequestration and have no place in this discussion.

>>10962215
If you can find a way to keep in in the structure you build then it'd work just fine. Concrete uses carbon in it's formula, but it releases CO2 over time so it's not really an option for carbon sequestration.

>>10962297
Permafrost that shit and they would be.

>>10962297
Not true. Reforestation can play a huge role in sequestering carbon. Or is that solution not compatible with your precious economic/population growth? Fucking shill

>>10962320
You are a legit moron. I even explained it using small words and you still don't understand this simple concept.

Let's try this from another angle. Explain to me in what way do plants help with carbon sequestration. Be specific and use magnitudes.

Thanks for asking a good faith question OP. Have you tried googling it though, because otherwise you are just fishing for schizos, shills and other morons to flood you with stupidity and deception.

>>10961507
It's /pol/ zoommongs stumbling out of the shitbox and dragging their feet with it.

>>10961617
Oh look, weasel statements that never happened. Sure looks cute on your denialist resume though.

>>10962629
>We disagree
>Now answer a completely new question within my arbitrary framework
>Oh, and don't forget to use units and be specific
Lol Anon
You really showed him with your expert pedantry

>>10962820
It's the same question and if he (you) knows what he's talking about then units shouldn't be an issue. Way to out yourself as a pseud.

>>10961164
What does this say?

>>10961164
can you fuck off with the islamic pics in your jew propaganda? You can push your jewish shit all you want but dont disgrace Islam along with it

>>10963165
What does it say?

>>10962800
oh boy have you ever heard of a strawman?

>>10963167
May all those that have incurred the bloody wrath on Palestine fall to their knees along with them their necks; Death to Israel.

>>10962800
nice co-opt of a /pol/ cumbrain post. low effort boomer trash

>>10961164
>large amount of CO2 concentration in earth's atmosphere
CO2 concentration is not large.
CO2 concentration is very small: 0.04%

>>10963965
low iq post