/sci/ - Science & Math

We know the whole thing is commie mind gymnastics, just like hot days and covid.

STAY INSIDE! UK GOING TO HIT 37DEGRESSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>14670392
>h20 did it
riiight, because seas suddenly appeared in the '70s

>>14670413
Yeah, MSM here in southern europoorland has been terrorising people with weather maps painted in black for 5 days. Black meaning the usual 40ºC, which otherwise would have been orange or red.

Now they moved on to "climate fires" (all caused by them btw, there is no fucking way 100 thunders strike out of the blue and each single one of them cause a fire)

>>14670392
Fuck of schizo

>>14670475
Did what, retard? Earth is a clockwork machine. It has great cycles and small cycles built in.

>your daily GW denial post
>brought to you by and funded by PetroChina, Chevron, BP, ExxonMobil

>>14670489
>Michel van Biezen is a professor in the Physics department at Loyola Marymount University
> Schizo
All I said is based on physics.

>>14670501
Debunk it if you can.

>>14670512
You're not even denying the fact you're a fossil fuels shill.
Pathetic! Your words mean nothing! Go back to sucking dirt off Saudi boots.

>>14670392
Is there anything special about CO2 that allows it to be documented and correlated historically in some way that can't be said for other gases?

Back in the 70s when it was cooling...

cont.

>>14670392
>CO2 is NOT the cause of Climate Change
No shit, especially since "climate change" is a money-making scam to begin with.

>>14670392
>Of these, H2O is responsible for the bulk of the greenhouse effect.
H2O is self-regulating to a degree. An increase of humidity causes increased precipitation. This self regulating mechanism is relatively weak as the temperature also increases the capacity of the air to hold water which creates a positive feedback loop.
CO2 is similar as in the increase in CO2 content increases ocean acidification absorbing some of the CO2 as carbonic acid.
>CO2-based temperature models predicted much higher temperatures than currently observed.
Which models?
>CO2, CH4, N2O and O3 combined only account for less than 10%.
That's more than enough to have an effect. Even capturing 1 W per square meter more of solar radiation can lead to noticeable long-term climate effects.
>The hottest period in the 20th century was centered around the decade of the 1930s, where most US states recorded their max temps. Since then, temps have NOT been higher.
So you are comparing a peak temperature in a specific area to overall average temperature trends? Why?
Average temperatures are clearly increasing and as far as we are aware, they are increasing at an incredibly fast rate that cannot be explained by natural means alone.

But stratospheric H2O is extremely constant and not responsible for any recent change in radiative forcing.

CIA concerned about the coolening of the 70s.

How do you emissions shills explain that human carbon emissions had been high for the entire century?

>>14670594
>growing consensus
So it went from 0% to 0.2% of experts?

>>14670564
>CO2 is similar as in the increase in CO2 content increases ocean acidification absorbing some of the CO2 as carbonic acid.
Exaclty. This is how the planet regulates CO2 levels. I'm impressed that you know this.

> Which models?
There is a model war due to the interests involved. Pic related is Hansen's 1988 vs reality.

> So you are comparing a peak temperature in a specific area
The oldest records are those of the US, and also UK/Europe. These come from the northern hemisphere, which due to landmasses is the part of the planet that shows more extreme weather processes.
However I don't deny Climate Change nor average temp increase. I just deny they are caused by CO2.

Forgot pic

>>14670647
>I just deny they are caused by CO2.
In climatology, as in any other science, establishing causation is more complicated than merely establishing an effect. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that have helped to convince climate scientists that the current global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2). Here are just some of them:
The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:
>Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
>Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.
Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)
>Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.
Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:
>Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.
>Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.
The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:
>An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.
>If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
>This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
>It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.

Max tem and min temps are becoming less extreme.
There is less extremely hot days now than in the 1930s.

Sea levels are not raising that much globallly. The north pole decrease in ice might be a local phenomenon. Antarctica actually has more ice.

Michael Mann is a fraud and always has a fraud.

>>14670677
>Sea levels are not raising that much globallly.
>Posts a picture of the end of the last ice age
Are you honestly astounded that the sea levels rose when ice that covered a lot of the globe melted?

>>14670534
No argument. You're a shill for the carbon tax scam. Just how big is Al Gore's residence again?

>>14670647
>This is how the planet regulates CO2 levels.
Except it doesn't. The CO2 isn't removed from the system and added CO2 still increases the overall concentration in the atmosphere. It just adds inertia so the slope of added CO2 to atmosphere content isn't as steep.
Ocean acidification is also NOT a good thing.

>>14670392
This is true. Bump.

>this shit again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

>>14670564
Nah. You people fucked with the data long ago to produce your warming. No one should believe you since like 2010 now. The fact that you're still allowed to keep spouting off shows the true power of propaganda.

>>14670675
>If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
Why should it be an exogenous cause? You know there is this giant metallic core that produces a magnetic shield, and that it changes periodically?

> It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.
Exactly, this might be a major factor to climate change. The varioations in the magnetosphere.

And not CO2.
The CO2 scam is an strategic geopolitical effort to defund enemy countries such as Russia, Venezuela and Iran, that are funded mainly by petrol and gas sales.

Why are there so many shills on /sci/ lately?

>>14670675
There is no evidence that co2 is the causal factor. There is no evidence that mankind releases significant volumes of co2. There is no evidence that any change plausibly caused by this could significantly disrupt the earth cycles. This poster is a big clean energy shill operative.

>>14670703
Daily bot-generated thread.

>>14670701
>You know there is this giant metallic core that produces a magnetic shield, and that it changes periodically?
And how exactly does variation in the magnetic shield warm or cool our atmosphere?

>>14670707
>proof: It came to me in a dream

>>14670687
Why do you ignore the massive cyclic climate changes that occour naturally and obsess over the very questionable man-caused last one?

Sometimes you guys forget we are like ants compared to the forces driving planetary changes.

Dams are constantly putting more water into the air. Time to get rid of em

>>14670703
>Why are there so many shills on /sci/ lately?
.GOV is busy in damage control mode.

>>14670696
kek this soiboi retard is copin so hard
>unfalsifiable 'all climate change' is climate change
>21st century has hottest RECORDED years
>cope about countless failed predictions, names one
>downplays volcanos
>doesn't understand graphs
>'balance'
>muh cycles have to be evenly spaced even though they don't
>single first order cycle
Literally nobody believes climate change is real

>>14670723
At least the additional water evaporated due to human activity can just condense back (assuming the temperature doesn't significantly change).
Exhausted CO2 will not be going away any time soon. Biomass and oceans only act as temporary storage and can't actually remove it from the environment.

Would be nice if /pol/ migrated back to their shitty board instead of trashing /sci/.

>>14670716
A global environmental crisis 42,000 years ago

>https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb8677

>>14670707
>There is no evidence that mankind releases significant volumes of co2.

>>14670719
So what, the ice age is ending a second time, just 10,000 years later?

>>14670748
All that CO2 used to be in the atmosphere.

For Billions of years Earth was much warmer than now, and life flourished.

Then that CO2 got sequestered in oil and coal, and we had ICE AGES!

Cold is BAD for life.

Release the CO2 so the planet warms back up to normal temperatures again, so life can flourish once more.

>>14670748
Correlation is not causation. Also the way anthropomorphic co2 emissions are calculated is a joke.

>>14670697
Well OFC they tampered with the data to better suit their agenda

>>14670747
Has our geomagnetic field changed in the past 200 years?

>>14670760
These city dwelling normies that relish the opportunity to whine about how climate change is scary are the exact people that owe their existence to our time of unprecedented stable lukewarm temperatures. They would not survive an ice age. They should be glad it is staying balmy warm.

>>14670763
> what is the south america magnetic anomaly
> what are polar shifts

>>14670770
>They would not survive an ice age. They should be glad it is staying balmy warm.
Kinda makes me want to reduce CO2 levels so we have another ice age and kill off a few billion of them!

>>14670761
Confirmation that rising carbon dioxide levels are due to human activity comes from analysing the types of carbon found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh & Brand 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.
Picrel: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr–1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red)

Causation is causation.

Not an argument.

Still cooler than the 30s.

>>14670776
Can you back this up that it correlates with the warming and the amount of warming can be explained with the strength of the anomaly?

>>14670797
>peak temperature, not mean temperature
>super odd intervals
Let me guess, you or someone else crawled through the data until they found a quantity and the corresponding time periods where it actually sinks?

>>14670797
Thanks for agreeing that ice melts.

>>14670791
That isn't causation.

1970: Experts agree: it is colder

>>14670810
Further confirmation comes by measuring oxygen levels in the atmosphere. When fossil fuels are burned, the carbon in the fossil fuels are joined to oxygen, creating carbon dioxide. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, oxygen decreases. Observations show oxygen levels are falling at a rate consistent with the burning of fossil fuels.
That's a lot of spurious correlations, eh? What does cause the CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise by the exact amount we emit, with the exact isotope ratio that corresponds to burning fossil fuels while at the same time oxygen decreases by the exact amount necessary to convert fossil carbon to CO2?

>>14670824
Literally all you have is
>co2 go up
>temperature sometimes go up
It's not causal.

>>14670808
I have other sources that show the same.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures#7

More coldening.
How could it be colder in the 70s after so many years of carbon emissions, shills?

>>14670830
N-no it's not possible! I thought our retarded idea that the earth had one cycle in perfect symmetry was flawless? Are you telling me that there are multiple high and low level cycles overlapping that create the illusion of human co2 emissions correlating with larger natural events? Noooooooo I can't believe it!!! Trust the heckin science!

>>14670830
Do you believe it's cooling? You should get newer sources.

>>14670837
>Are you telling me that there are multiple high and low level cycles overlapping that create the illusion of human co2 emissions correlating with larger natural events?
No such overlap of cycles exists.

>>14670852
Yes it does. That is why the cycle isn't a repeating frame by frame clone of the latest repetition.

>>14670859
>trust me bro

Plankton provide more than up to 90% of our oxygen and remove most of our carbon dioxide. They represent 90% of all biological productivity on the whole planet. In effect 1% of all life on the planet is dying every year.
By 2045 years we will have lost 75-80% of all plankton, the oceans will become more acidic with a pH of 7.95. We will then lose all of the remaining whales, seals, birds and the fish, and along with them a food supply for 2 billion people. Life on Earth is going to change, in fact life on earth may become impossible.

>>14670870
>dude it's just rng lol
No.

>>14670898
>still hasn't shown his model or comparison to data

>>14670904
>still hasn't made a coherent argument

>>14670908
>still is a badly programmed bot

>>14670827
>https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures#7
eh, the massive increase in how hot the lows are should be cause for concern.

>>14670915
Not an argument.

>>14670827
>the USA are the entire planet
God, how self-centred can amerimutts be?

>>14670392
This information is actually hidden because most people are too stupid to understand it. If you can only think in analogy, you can imagine human industry CO2 like nudging an egg off a cliff. If you can't think even in analogy, then rest your head knowing that the relative potency of greenhouse gases, water included, are explicitly factored in to all the climate models that show anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions. The climate scientists already know sweetie don't panic, their results have always taken it into account already.

>>14670940
No they haven't.

>>14670940
so why are they wrong so often?

LMAO. Globohomo shills are back in full force. It is almost as if climate lockdowns were their next mass psyop.

>>14670972
This is /sci/, polturd

>>14670940
>anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions
This has been proven an absolute lie, and is totally unscientific.

CO2 is not causing shit. It is all a glowniggr strategy to prevent Russia and co from selling carbon-based energy.

>>14670979
>CO2 is not causing shit
>denying the greenhouse effect

>>14670977
Yes it is. Watch the 60-something vids in OP's playlist, then come back to discuss with adults.

>>14670972
>LMAO. Globohomo shills are back in full force. It is almost as if climate lockdowns were their next mass psyop.
Guaranteed. Cause raysissm or something.

>>14670985
>blue is not causing shit
>denying the sky is blue

>>14670985
>>denying the greenhouse effect
There is no plastic/glass ceiling over the planet. Glass ceiling is a metaphor.

>>14670997
>>14671000
>greenhouse effect
>the literal effect that makes certain gases cause warming
>one of which is carbon dioxide

>>14670985
No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change

>https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.00165

>>14670798
Ueno, Y., Hyodo, M., Yang, T. et al. Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition. Sci Rep 9, 9389 (2019).


>The strength of Earth’s magnetic dipole field controls galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux, and GCR-induced cloud formation can affect climate. Here, we provide the first evidence of the GCR-induced cloud effect on the East-Asian monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition. Bicentennial-resolution monsoon records from the Chinese Loess Plateau revealed that the summer monsoon (SM) was affected by millennial-scale climate events that occurred before and after the reversal, and that the winter monsoon (WM) intensified independently of SM variations; dust accumulation rates increased, coinciding with a cooling event in Osaka Bay. The WM intensification event lasted about 5000 years across an SM peak, during which the Earth’s magnetic dipole field weakened to <25% of its present strength and the GCR flux increased by more than 50%. Thus, the WM intensification likely resulted from the increased land–ocean temperature gradient originating with the strong Siberian High that resulted from the umbrella effect of increased low-cloud cover through an increase in GCR flux.

>>14671038
>unironically citing chinks
????

>>14671018
cont.

> …the [IPCC] models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

>>14671007
>blue is not causing shit
>denying the sky is blue

>>14671043
Are you shills so desperate to resort to authority fallacies on /sci/? Well, the authors are 2 japs and 1 chinese:

Authors and Affiliations

>Department of Planetology, Kobe University, Kobe, 657-8501, Japan. Yusuke Ueno & Masayuki Hyodo

> Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University, Kobe, 657-8501, Japan. Masayuki Hyodo

>China University of Geosciences, Beijing, China. Tianshui Yang

>Museum of Nature and Human Activities, Hyogo, Sanda, 669-1546, Japan. Shigehiro Katoh

>>14671018
>arxiv
Every idiot can upload stuff there
>>14671038
Where does it say that a 10% explains the current warming?
>>14671045
Still arxiv
>>14671059
Kys

>>14671062
who is the shill and who is the antishill?
and why do all the names end in vowels or nasalized vowels?

>>14671067
>Kys
Not an argument.

>>14671067
>>arxiv
>Every idiot can upload stuff there
that is unequivocally wrong. you're welcome to try to publish something there, and get rebuffed a la nathan and tooker.

>>14671165
It's a preprint server. I suppose if you upload a pdf that only contains the word nigger over and over again, it gets deleted. Still no peer review.

>>14671185
not him, but it does. you can't post there but i could literally upload any retarded pdf including the one you described and it would stay there until enough people got mad.

>>14670392
>The main driver of climate change is not CO2.
Nothing you stated supports this claim.

>> Of these, H2O is responsible for the bulk of the greenhouse effect.
>> CO2, CH4, N2O and O3 combined only account for less than 10%.
Non sequiturs. Most of the greenhouse effect is just keeping the Earth at a normal temperature instead of a big ball of ice. It's the change in greenhouse effect that causes warming, and this change is due primarily to CO2.

>> CO2-based temperature models predicted much higher temperatures than currently observed.
Wrong.

>>14670494
>Earth is a clockwork machine.
Clockwork is a physical mechanism. What mechanism is causing current warming? "Cycles" is not a mechanism, they are caused by specific things. And what is the point of your picture?

>>14670505
>All I said is based on physics.
Except for
>The main driver of climate change is not CO2. This whole emissions hysteria and the emissions market is a SCAM based on faux science.

>>14671692

>>14670554
It was always a fringe position.

>>14671711

>>14671711

>>14671382
>i could literally upload any retarded pdf including the one you described and it would stay there until enough people got mad.
wrong.

>>14670501

You realize it is in China's best interest to push the global warming narrative so the west guts its own industry while China continues to build coal plants?

>>14670760
> its not happening
> but its also a good thing
Make up your mind

>>14671711

>>14671764
>You realize it is in China's best interest to push the global warming narrative so the west guts its own industry while China continues to build coal plants?
This is true.

>>14670677
>Max tem and min temps are becoming less extreme.
Proof? How is the average rising if this is true?

>There is less extremely hot days now than in the 1930s.
Wow, the 1930s. Is that a decade you just choose randomly or did you cherrypick it since it's famous for its catastrophic heat waves?

>Sea levels are not raising that much globallly.
>that much
Meaningless vague qualifier.

>The north pole decrease in ice might be a local phenomenon.
Right, it has nothing to do with the temperature increasing. Everything you wrote is propaganda. You sound like a shill.

>>14670682
>Michael Mann is a fraud
Proof?

>>14670760
>For Billions of years Earth was much warmer than now, and life flourished.
Yes, life that had millions of years to evolve for that climate. You only have a few hundred. Woops.

>Then that CO2 got sequestered in oil and coal, and we had ICE AGES!
>Cold is BAD for life.
You seem to be forgetting that that's the only reason humans exist in the first place. Are you a dinosaur?

Fucking retards.

>>14671809
>You only have a few hundred. Woops.
Ok mr. flat earth leftist nutjob.
Humans have been around for 80,000+ years, and our hominid ancestors for over 250,000 years.

>>14670762
>more data added to record
>REEEEE TAMPERED

>>14671809
>fuck all other lifeforms on Earth, I only care about humans.
Typical Democrat.

>>14670747
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi8330
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh1878

>61 videos
Jesus Christ if I wanted to waste that much of my time in a more productive way I'd game for the next 48 hours.

>>14671038
So the answer is no, you cannot.

>>14670810
It is. Carbon emissions causes the C13/C12 ratio to increase.

>>14670826
Wrong. It's directly observed that CO2 causes warming:

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>>14671839
is this a bot? if not, you should be ashamed that you're indistinguishable from a bot.

>>14670908
>it's cycles
>>what cycles?
>not an argument

>>14671813
I'm sorry you're illiterate, but the point went completely over your head and you just proved my point. Humans evolved over hundreds of thousands of years and our precursors evolved for millions of years for THE COLD CLIMATE you think is so bad. Same for our ecosystem. How are they going to evolve for a greenhouse climate in a few hundred years? Fucking retard. You are not a dinosaur.

>>14671692
>It's the change in greenhouse effect that causes warming, and this change is due primarily to CO2
The observed data does not support this claim.

>>14671700
>What mechanism is causing current warming?
Not CO2.

>>14671764
>You realize it is in China's best interest to push the global warming narrative
China is in bed with the globalists.

>>14671798
>How is the average rising if this is true
Average mins increase

>famous for its catastrophic heat waves
Not only heat waves. Also tornadoes, floods, and extreme weather events in general.

>Everything you wrote is propaganda
Everythig is supported by the empirical data, and the historical evidence of the US being a corrupt state that uses faux data to its advantage.

>>14671819
Last I checked, all other lifeforms currently on Earth evolved in the same climate as we did, and are even worse off than us. Retarded /pol/shill.

>>14671843
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting CO2 causes warming.

>>14670675
>greenhouse warming
Is just a theory, a guess.

>>14671869
>The observed data does not support this claim.
It does. See >>14671839

What data says otherwise? (You will never actually post any)

>Not CO2.
Wrong and doesn't answer my question. Why are you claiming it's "cycles" if you can't even tell me which cycles? That's called making shit up.

>Average mins increase
That's only half of the equation. How are maximally decreasing of the average is increasing? Hint: they aren't decreasing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/01/11/climate-change-earth-hottest-years/9170403002/

>Not only heat waves. Also tornadoes, floods, and extreme weather events in general.
Yes, which you cherrypicked.

>Everythig is supported by the empirical data
Then why did you not post it?

Explain this, shills.
It shows a deliberate global MSM effort in pushing climate psychosis.

Every single TV channel in Europe has swapped red for black in the maps.

Let alone the arsonists creating terror fires.

>>14670494
tell me anon, did 8 billion people exist in 1880?
oh they didnt?
then its not comparable.

>>14671898
Stop posting globohomo lies.

Your corrupt leftist globohomo government has been caught forging data more than once.

CO2 as climate change driver is a trillion dollar hoax.

You have some evidence itt. Please read and watch it.

>>14671901
>It shows a deliberate global MSM effort in pushing climate psychosis.
>>14671901
>Let alone the arsonists creating terror fires.

Underrated

>>14670392
A hotter atmosphere holds more water. This is easily understood fact. If water vapor is the cause of climate change than more water vapor in the atmosphere heats up the atmosphere, which holds more water, which heats up the atmosphere, which holds more water and so on and so forth. This is a positive feedback loop.

If water is the cause of climate change why isn't the Earth a million degrees?

>>14671874
Wrong.

There is a correlation between CO2 and climate changes.

But the study of antarctica cores show that temperature increases lead CO2 increases. Therefore CO2 emissions cannot possibly be the cause of temperature rises happening hundreds of years before.

Link:
>https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/

>>14670413
You'd think humans are smarter than cats where zog in TV box tella them to sit in the shadows.
We are strip of basic senses just so sociopathic media can replace them

>>14670392
Global warming is already solved, since almost 100 years. Fixed by Chemtrails, you can close your larp thread now newfriend

>>14671947
This is inaccurate. temperature rising first in your example is because as the ocean heats up it releases CO2. Your claim however that CO2 cannot be a driver of climate change itself is wrong. CO2 can follow or drive climate change. If not how do you explain the Eocene thermal maximum?

>>14671928
Good question. There is no data showing an increase in tropospheric H2O.

>>14671928
>If water is the cause of climate change why isn't the Earth a million degrees?
Geeeeeeeeeee, because "climate change" is a fucking hoax.

>>14671969
In the EPICA study CO2 lags temperatures.
How is this inaccurate?

>>14671872
>Last I checked,
You fail at logic, reason, and even basic research. KEK! KYS since you suck at science. Reduce your carbon footprint to nothing.

>>14671986
It's inaccurate to say that it cannot also cause climate change.

>>14671867
>I'm too stupid to survive a 2 degree average increase in temperature.
KEK! Because you are dumb, you think everyone else is as dumb as you, so you cannot even comprehend truth and intelligence.

>>14671839
>eprints.whiterose.ac.uk
.UK website! LMAO!

>>14671985
So you have no answer.

Vostok data.
Up to 1000 years of CO2 lag.
Explain.

>>14672010
Already done
>>14671969
Now please explain the Eocene thermal maximum without CO2

>>14671914
>Stop posting globohomo lies.
What lies? You will never actually show I lied, never show any data that proves your claims, never show any evidence of fraud or whatever schizo conspiracy theories you make up. You're pathetic and you know it.

>You have some evidence itt.
I know. See >>14671839

Are you ever going to respond?

>>14672017
>Already done
No, you didn't.

>>14671928
If water vapor causes warming, and water vapor concentration is a function of temperature, what caused the temperature to increase in order to increase water vapor in the first place? Water vapor is not a radiative forcing, it's just part of a feedback loop. It can't be the primary cause.

>>14671999
>tell us the answer for something that doesn't exist!
kek
I'll burn another tire just to make you reeeeeee

>>14672022
Again, read the fucking thread before shilling nonsense.
Just a few posts above are the EPICA study and the Vostok data.

>>14672026
>what caused the temperature to increase in order to increase water vapor in the first place?
Good question.
Planetary cycles.

Pic related: correlation between temperature and sunspots.

>>14671947
>There is a correlation between CO2 and climate changes.
There is also causation, called the greenhouse effect. Ever heard of it?

>But the study of antarctica cores show that temperature increases lead CO2 increases.
Yes, now this will really blow your mind: both can be true. Warming increases CO2 and CO2 increase warming. I know, very advanced stuff. In fact, you can't explain ice core data without both being true:

https://climate.fas.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf

>Therefore CO2 emissions cannot possibly be the cause of temperature rises happening hundreds of years before.
No one claimed this.

>>14671969
>how do you explain the Eocene thermal maximum?
Who knows. There has been ice ages with high CO2.

>>14671988
Not an argument, retarded /pol/shill. Thanks for sorting the bed. You can go back to your containment board now.

>>14672046
>Warming increases CO2 and CO2 increase warming
So Anctartic data shows that warming FIRST is followed hundreds of years later by CO2 increases, and somehow 100 years of ridiculously low human-made increases are already causing a change?

The sole existance of periodic changes in the past makes this claim extremely suspicious.

>>14671994
>>I'm too stupid to survive
You're too stupid to keep track of your own argument. You said life would flourish. Simple survival is not flourishing.

>>14671996
Not an argument. Try again.

>>14672027
>>tell us the answer for something that doesn't exist!
It clearly exists. Why are you lying?

>>14672028
>Again, read the fucking thread
I did, that's how i know you're full of shit. As I predicted, you will never actually show I lied, never show any data that proves your claims, never show any evidence of fraud or whatever schizo conspiracy theories you make up. You're pathetic and you know it.

>Just a few posts above are the EPICA study and the Vostok data.
And?

>>14672084
>It clearly exists
You believe in the tooth fairy also, admit it. HAHAHAHA

>>14672036
>Planetary cycles.
Aha, so now that the Sun is near a grand minimum, when will cooling begin? According to the correlation in your image it should only take a few years, but solar activity has been decreasing for decades while temperatures rapidly increase. Oops. I guess correlation isn't causation.

>>14672079
>Not an argument.
Who argues in favor of mythology? Only cult followers like you do that. kek

>>14672057
>I want to argue and get attention because I like my cult religion!

Nuff said^

>>14672102
>Sun is near a grand minimum
Sun grows larger every second. Will engulf the Earth in about 2 billion years.
All surface life will be dead on Earth in about 1 billion years due to solar enlargement.

We better use up that oil while we are still able.

>>14672068
>So Anctartic data shows that warming FIRST is followed hundreds of years later by CO2 increases, and somehow 100 years of ridiculously low human-made increases are already causing a change?
You seem confused. Just because warming preceded CO2 by 100 years at one time doesn't mean that warming always precedes CO2 at all other times, or that CO2 has to then precede warming by 100 years. And in fact warming did not precede the current increase in CO2. Is that fallacy really what you want to base your argument on?

The changes in the past you're talking about were caused by very slow processes over thousands of years involving the orbital parameters of the Earth around the Sun. They really have nothing to do with current warming, which is much faster and for a completely different reason.

>>14672100
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting climate change exists.

>>14672103
And again we see the /pol/tard's complete inability to defend himself from basic critical thinking and scientific evidence. Instead, he devolves into incoherent shitposting. Pathetic.

>>14672111
>Sun grows larger every second.
Then why were you talking about sunspots? Where's the correlation with Sun size and temperature? It's like you can't even keep track of your own argument from post to post.

>>14670650
>surface air model vs tropospheric dataset
How retardes are you that you think you can lie and think you’ll not get called out?

>>14672128
>admitting climate change exists.
But it doesn't. You cannot prove it does either. Things that exist can be proven.

>>14672138
Was my first post moron. YOU cannot even keep up with your own discussions with other anons.

>>14672150
LMAO! Copyright "Nature".
That's some real solid data there! Straight from the lady herself. LMAO!

>>14670707
The radiative properties of CO2 and it’s interactions with IR have been known long before people were thinking about climate change

>>14670797
>US and not global temperature

>>14672159
oh surre they were, suuuuuuuuure they were.
your little religion is all correct. now go pay more in taxes as an offering to your climate change gods.

>>14672166
You can test it for yourself with a couple balloons, some CO2, and a lamp, and a camera with an infrared mode

>>14672170
>I use balloons and crayons for my science experiments, but only a LED lamp since incandescent lamps cause global warming to be much worse.

awwwwwwwwwww!

>>14672191
Not an argument.

>>14672191
Are you afraid of experimentation? You can also look up youtube videos about the radiative properties of CO2 if performing an experiment intimidates you.

>>14672194
awwwwww the widdle AI .Gov bot is stuck in repeat mode.

>>14672198
>Are you afraid of experimentation?
groomer alert

>>14672201
So you know you're wrong and you aren't willing to disprove your opinions. You will never be a scientist.

>>14672208
>scientist.

>>14670392
If increasing h2o vapour due to increasing agricultural activities/irrigation turned out to play a significantly larger role than previously thought, that would be fairly humiliating for trudeau, the wef, and other psychotic growth mongers posing as intellectuals.

>>14670501
>>14670534
>Fossil fuel bad!
She says while typing on a keyboard made from petroleum plastics, looking at a screen housed in plastic and powered with fossil fuels, living in the modern industrial world made possible by fossil fuels. You're free to leave that bad fossil fuel society and live in the jungle anytime sweetie.

>>14672249
>keep doing stupid things because we did it yesterday too
Nothing wrong in wanting a change of direction.
Your argument is infantile.

>>14672220
Into the trash it goes

>>14672249
Not an argument

>>14672200
Not an argument. Kys

>>14672249
>It's cheap and artificially abundant, therefore you're retarded if you think it's bad for the environment or society.

By this logic, it should be fine to continue to dump fertilizer runoff into the groundwater, rivers, and oceans, because we as a society could not function at the capacity we do without that much food. What's the worst that could happen?

>>14672155
>>14672166
>>14672200
>>14672201
>>14672220
>>14672247
>>14672249
And again we see the /pol/tard's complete inability to defend himself from basic critical thinking and scientific evidence. Instead, he devolves into incoherent shitposting. Pathetic.

>>14672295
Ya cuz only a "poltard" would be against carbon taxes, trudeau, the wef, and growth mongers... right fascist?

But anyway, nice i know you what are but what am i post. you're really contributing!!

>>14672300
You have to go back
>>>/pol/

>>14670392
It would be bad for people pushing carbon taxes and renewables/nuclear if it turned out that the additional water vapour caused by increasing agricultural activities/irrigation was playing a significantly larger role in causing a warming climate than previously thought.

>>14672300
Yes. Literally the only people who go WEF WEF WEF like a retarded dog are /pol/ alt-rightoids
>nice i know you what are but what am i post
Shit, that's not GPT-4, that's some kind of crappy AI that hasn't been trained properly.

>>14670494
Yes, we had the cold cycle from 40s to 80s, which masked the gradually increasing effect of co2

>>14671764
China is building more renewables than all of Americas put together

>>14672314
Economics is a cult of consumerism. It's dogma not based in any sort of reality beyond everyone being the most bloated, greedy, psychopath possible. If you're gonna go online claiming that some fucking billionaires who believe in economics have all the solutions for humanity... then you're either a moron or a shill.

I think this thread has made it pretty clear that climate change alarmists don't have a leg to stand on. Correlation remains distinct from causation.

>>14672328
That doesn't really matter when they're also also building more coal fire power plants than all of the Americas put together

>>14672335
And yet Americans still pollute more per capita and cumulatively

>>14672348
That's incorrect. This poster is a CCP shill. He is trying to weaken American exceptionalism by pushing frail and corrupt 'clean energy' on the people of the United States.

>>14672332
This thread has made clear that this board is filled by Exxon bots.

>>14672358
>He is trying to weaken American exceptionalism

>>14671928
Because vapor condenses and clouds have very high albedo, which means more heat->more reflection ->less heat
Furthermore, spectral absorption for water vapor is saturated, it already absorbs 100% of energy it can absorb
CO2 however is not saturated like that.

>>14672358
Cope harder

>>14672358

>>14672362
Exxon is too busy fueling the American economy in a safe, sustainable, proven, and most importantly affordable way, to be doing any nonsense on the internet.
>>14672365
It means the United States stands a shining example of what a constitutional republic ought to be. It is not flawless, no diamond is. It is simply the manifestation of the words 'by the people, for the people'. There is no more capable entrepreneur than the American. No harder worker than the American. No soldiers soul more selfless than the American soldier, willing to help those too weak to protect themselves, all around the world. There are no women kinder or more feminine than the American women. No men more honorable or stouter. No children more wise beyond their years, yet filled with patriotic joy at their good fortune to be born in an exceptional time and place. The famous Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has more than a few great speeches that touch on the topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irfVufZZimU

>>14672388
So much cope and bootlicking

>>14672388
50 petrocents deduced from your balance.
You're not supposed to copy and paste from the manual. Remember to always formulate your own sentences.

>>14672372
>>14672376
Correlation is not causation.

>>14672255
>>14672275
>>14672291
>>14672295
Keep biting the hand that feeds you. No one is forcing you to depend on fossil fuels. Use wood or stone if you don't like plastic, stop eating meat, and walk or ride a horse if you don't want to use CO2-based transportation. Actually horses breathe and fart so just stick to walking. You can start making a difference today!

>>14672389
>>14672393
Not an argument.

>>14672396
Are you brain damaged?

>>14672402
Keep licking that boot, champ.

>>14672399
>the hand that feeds you.
I'm biting the habe that destroys my home planet. I think that's fair.

>>14672411
Nobody is destroying any planets. No entity has done more to drive forward innovation and economic prosperity than the conventional and safe traditional energy sector. They protect our planet and enable environmentally friendly products and practices to flourish.

>>14672415
Nonsense

>>14672416
Not an argument.

>>14672422
Neither was the post I responded to.

>>14672415
Let's thank ExxonMobil for assraping us.

>>14672399
>says same dumb thing again
lol retard

>>14672415
That's awesome. I assume you're doing everything possible to conserve the remaining supplies of this wonderful non-renewable resource then? And not just trying to sell as much as possible to continue living your decadent lifestyle?

>>14672425
That's incorrect.
>>14672429
The fossil fuel industry does not support any form of sexual misconduct. The fossil fuel industry are global leaders in reducing all forms of exploitation in the workplace.

>>14672436
What resource are you claiming is non-renewable?

>>14672438
Nonsense

>>14672438
Not an argument

>>14672449
>oil is abiotic. JESUS provides it so that man can go fourth and multiply and become fat and bloated feasting on the world's vast resources bounty
>bla bla bla NOM NOM NOM

oh look.. another idiot has found its way to /sci/. LOL so fascinating

>>14672450
>>14672455
Grow up.
>>14672463
If you are denying that the carbon cycle is a natural one, you are unscientific.

>>14672472
The carbon cycle has nothing to do with oil being a non-renewable resource. Take your meds or go somewhere else to sprout your nonsense.

>>14672472
>carbon cycle
digging up and burning is not a cycle

CO2 is fine for the planet, GOD told me so and if you dont listen to GOD when what can you listen to? MAN is but nothing in the face of his almighty power and one day he will enact RHITEOUS VENGEANCE on the liberals and scientists who oppose him. As it was written so it shAall be.

>>14672475
>>14672478
>he thinks the carbon cycle is not natural
>he thinks the carbonization of vegetation is not natural
>he thinks big oil put oil in the ground from nowhere like the big bang
figures kek

>>14672493
>Imagine being this retarded
The carbon cycle has nothing to do with oil being a non-renewable resource.

>>14672492
ohnooos muh noooodles not muh yummy noodles

>>14672495
Nobody was saying it was. There are two points of contention here. Read the thread.

>>14672499
You're not my supervisor!

>>14672499
Nonsense. Stop lying.

Schizo levels through the roof here

>>14670478
>there is no fucking way 100 thunders strike
Thunders don't strike

>>14672396
Not an argument

disheartening sci is, like the rest of the website, and overflow tank for pol.

>>14672566
>disheartening sci is
talk like yoda we must
faggot you are

>>14671901
satellite resolution did not allow a useful representation of heatwaves in detail until recently.

>>14672249
>typing on a keyboard made from petroleum plastics, looking at a screen housed in plastic and powered with fossil fuels, living in the modern industrial world made possible by fossil fuels
Can literally do all of that while using nuclear, renewables, and trying to have a clean planet
Oil shills are servants of the jew and the chink

>>14672249
>>14672399
>NOOOOOOOO WHY CAN'T YOU JUST CONSOOM AND LOVE OIL LIKE THE BOOMERS

>>14672123
>Just because warming preceded CO2 by 100 years at one time doesn't mean that warming always precedes CO2 at all other times, or that CO2 has to then precede warming by 100 years. And in fact warming did not precede the current increase in CO2. Is that fallacy really what you want to base your argument on?
This is the elephant in the room.
Your own data shows that CO2 lags temperature by hundreds of years.
Multiple independent studies show this.
And yet you are trying to push CO2 causation based on this last change. Well that would be a first.

>involving the orbital parameters of the Earth around the Sun
The Earth and the Sun are behind most changes. Always have.

>current warming, which is much faster and for a completely different reason.
This is completely false and unscientific.

>>14672150
That slope

>>14672247
>to play a significantly larger role
is fake
Exactly. It is known that 90% of the greenhouse effect is due to H2O. And nobody wants to reduce that, because Russia doesn't sell water.

>>14672332
>climate change alarmists don't have a leg to stand on
Both the physics involved and the data supports this.

>>14672396
If anything, their data show reverse causation: temperature -> CO2

>>14672609
All you need is temperature records. They show more heatwaves in early 20th century, not less. Extreme events are LESS frequent now.

>>14672713
>If anything, their data show reverse causation: temperature -> CO2
Wrong.

>>14672722
>EPICA study
>Vostok data
Go read them. CO2 lags temperature.
Antarctic cores don't lie.
If we were to draw conclussions, it would be that temperature increases CO2 and not otherwise.

What has been done in the West is to pretend that this very same data supports that human emissions and cow farts are behind this particular last "change". That is completely false.

Sorry shills, you have been completely exposed and BTFO itt. Go back to faggit to keep spreading your govt sponsored lies.

>>14672767
I don't comb through the entire internet based on two names to try to come to the same conclusions as you. Post details or gtfo

>>14672767
Fallacies conclusion

>>14671069
>and why do all the names end in vowels or nasalized vowels?
three of them are Japanese isn't that how their language works?

>>14670763
first search result for weakening magnetic field
https://www.livescience.com/46694-magnetic-field-weakens.html

>>14670392
>The hottest period in the 20th century was centered around the decade of the 1930s, where most US states recorded their max temps. Since then, temps have NOT been higher.

???

>>14672153
Don't respond to conversations you have no understanding of, retard.

>>14672829
Can a 10% decrease explain a temperature increase of 1K? What's the scaling here?

>>14672151
>But it doesn't.
Wrong. See >>14672084

>You cannot prove it does either.
Already did. See above. Another /pol/tard immediately shits the bed when confronted with data.

>>14672835
You're talking to someone making shit up from a neural net. Probably he will soon post a plot from that one town in Rwanda where it was hotter in the 1930s than in the 1990s while the global temperatures went up.

>>14672247
>increasing h2o vapour due to increasing agricultural activities/irrigation
Doesn't exist in the first place. Water vapor is a function of temperature. If you put water vapor in the atmosphere the same amount will precipitate out.

>>14672151
>Things that exist can be proven
Therefore, climate change can be proven, which it has been.

>>14672493
Please show where anyone implied that. You seem to think non-renewable = non-natural. You're illiterate.

>>14672840
I could not tell you, I only carried out a very simple search because I saw you had asked for evidence of change in the magnetic field. I'm not familiar with this topic other than that. Though I'm curious how much the magnetic field has weakened and whether it correlates with temperature shifts.

>>14672876
>I could not tell you
Oh, I thought you were the guy who claimed that the magnetic field is responsible for the heating we witness
>Though I'm curious how much the magnetic field has weakened and whether it correlates with temperature shifts.
Not much. At least not in the past 2.8 million years, or on a global scale:
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3104/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/

>>14672703
>Your own data shows that CO2 lags temperature by hundreds of years.
It shows that occurred in the past when CO2 increase was not the primary cause of warming. How does this respond to my post? You can look at CO2 and temperature today. Where's the 100 year lag you seem to think always occurs?

>And yet you are trying to push CO2 causation based on this last change.
Yeah, why is this a problem? The climate is not some kind of black box. It changes for specific reasons and these reasons are not always the same at all times. These reasons were explained to you, but instead of responding you doubled down on ignoring our physical understanding of the climate.

>Well that would be a first.
Not really, since those past changes require CO2 to be a causative factor as well.

https://climate.fas.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf

It seems like we've reached the limit of your intellectual ability, since you're just repeating the same talking points without responding to the argument.

>The Earth and the Sun are behind most changes.
Yes, and? There are times when they are not responsible, like the evolution of phytoplankton greatly reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and the evolution of man greatly increasing it.

>This is completely false and unscientific.
It's completely true and scientific. See >>14672150 and >>14671839. Although I doubt you'll ever respond.

>>14672713
>It is known that 90% of the greenhouse effect is due to H2O.
90% of the greenhouse effect is irrelevant to this discussion since it keeps the Earth from being a giant ice ball. It's the change in the greenhouse effect that causes warming. H20 is part of a feedback loop with warming, not a radiative forcing.

>>14672713
>All you need is temperature records. They show more heatwaves in early 20th century, not less.
Source?

>>14672767
>CO2 lags temperature.
In the past. How about today?

>If we were to draw conclussions, it would be that temperature increases CO2 and not otherwise.
Drawing conclusions from only two datasets, ignoring all other data and explanations of that data, and extrapolating to all other times is a good way to reach an incorrect conclusion. And your conclusion doesn't even follow from the data you cherrypicked, since that data shows CO2 causes warming as well. See link in >>14672046. What's your justification for all of these mistakes?

>>14672713
great post. climate change is NOT man made.

>>14672871
Read the thread.

>>14672922
Not an argument.

>>14672931
I did, that's how I know you're illiterate. No one said fossil fuels are unnatural.

>>14672123
Let's start by some projecting:
>You seem confused.
That is fine. Next we need some b0rken logic.
>Just because warming preceded CO2 by 100 years at one time doesn't mean that warming always precedes CO2 at all other times, or that CO2 has to then precede warming by 100 years.
Good, good. Next, how about some unfounded claims while avoiding any kind of sources?
>And in fact warming did not precede the current increase in CO2.
Exactly. Now we need just some more prjection to win this argument.
>Is that fallacy really what you want to base your argument on?
That will do.

Of course, real scientists will udnerstand that warming preceded CO2 by 100 years is a datapoint that shows the opposite correlation.

>>14673141
Proof has been posted several times in this thread alone. Kys and stop asking for the same proof over and over again

>>14672952
Yes you did.

>>14671749
wrong and your mother fucks horses

>>14673238
No you.

>>14673294
correct, she fucks me, too

>>14673332
She's been volunteering for the mentally challenged for many years.

>>14673374
proof that iq is hereditary

>>14670494
>>14670392
Doesn't look that bad...

>>14673150
>Proof
This doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>14673141
>Next we need some b0rken logic.
What is broken about what I said? Explain why you think warming preceding CO2 at points in the past means it must always precede CO2.

>Next, how about some unfounded claims while avoiding any kind of sources?
Pic related.

>Of course, real scientists will udnerstand that warming preceded CO2 by 100 years is a datapoint that shows the opposite correlation.
The correlations aren't mutually exclusive. You didn't even argue against anything I said, nor did you explain why you think CO2 cannot cause warming. You only have deflections.

>>14673178
Where?

>>14673767
You attempt to connect warming before CO2 with CO2 before warming, but fail to explain the former.
A proper hypothesis must explain the past and from that one should make a further prediciton. And you haven't cleared the first hurdle.

>>14673767
>Explain why you think warming preceding CO2 at points in the past means it must always precede CO2.
Warming in the past wasn't driven by some hairless monkeys burning liquefied organic matter. In the past, CO2 was a secondary effect of the heating, which then amplified the heating. But it wasn't the primary cause.

>>14672851
>If you put water vapor in the atmosphere the same amount will precipitate out
only where there is upward motion of air, so you're right over the long term, but in the short term increased evaporation means increased water vapour.
as long as there is a source of increased evaporation, there will be increased water vapour
this is not like co2. as soon as the source goes away, the net increase goes away

>>14674452
If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

If CO2 were a greenhouse gas then Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect because Mars has 2000% more CO2 per unit volume in it's atmosphere than Earth does. The European Space Agency has found that Mars has little to no greenhouse effect, so CO2 can not be a greenhouse gas, that is ruled out.

>>14674570
What a pathetic attempt. 0/10, kys

>>14671700
Just a characteristic of the physical laws. Differential equations we use to model these systems also display these cycles. Look at Lorentz attractors

>>14670392
Of course it's not, it's only 0.04% of the atmosphere and it's also transparent in the majority of the spectrum, i.e. not reflecting anything.

>>14672026
Perfect answer.

>>14674475
Sure there would be an increase in precipitation if there was an increase in evaporation... But that does not mean there wouldn't also be some increase in net water vapour, if nowhere else other than along the path from evaporation to preciptation.
Just because you can't name any negative feedbacks preventing runaway warming caused by a small increase in water vapour doesn't mean they don't exist. Cloud feedbacks are poorly understood.

Sorry that certain facts raise questions about plans to increase cultivation and tax carbon. You can't really argue that draining rivers and turning a desert into a water vapour factory has no net warming affect.

>>14671818
Are you retarded?

>>14675014
No, but you are.

>>14674881
>Just a characteristic of the physical laws.
Yeah, the physical laws underlying the greenhouse effect. Not a cycle.

>Differential equations we use to model these systems also display these cycles.
There are many parts of the system that are modeled by differential equations. You're being incredibly vague, so how can anyone tell that you've actually determined any connection between current warming and anything you're talking about? Meanwhile, the connection between CO2 emissions and warming is directly observed: >>14671839. Where's your data? Where's your model? You have zero, just wishful thinking.

>>14670392
Both CO2 and H2O are the most essential elements for life on this planet.
Curse of the desert abrahamic religions bring with them seems to be true (it mostly refers to pisslamb, but even christian bible teaches to cut down sacred groves, but doesn't teach how to plant anything. Even Jesus couldn't think of anything better than to curse a tree which didn't give the motherfucker fruit)

>>14674912
>Of course it's not, it's only 0.04% of the atmosphere
What does the rest of the atmosphere have to do with the effect of CO2? Arbitrary description.

>it's also transparent in the majority of the spectrum, i.e. not reflecting anything.
Is this a joke? That's exactly why greenhouse gases are so powerful. They are transparent to sunlight but absorb and emit IR back towards Earth. If they reflected everything they would block as much energy from entering Earth's atmosphere as they would leaving it. Just stop posting.

>>14674570
>If CO2 were a greenhouse gas then Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect because Mars has 2000% more CO2 per unit volume in it's atmosphere than Earth does.
Doesn't follow. Mars is farther away from the Sun so there's less energy for CO2 to keep in the atmosphere, there's no water vapor which is what makes up the vast majority of the greenhouse effect on Earth, and it has a much thinner atmosphere so there's no pressure broadening effect which makes CO2 more powerful on Earth.

>The European Space Agency has found that Mars has little to no greenhouse effect, so CO2 can not be a greenhouse gas, that is ruled out.
Doesn't follow. It has exactly the greenhouse effect expected from what I mentioned above.

>>14674978
>But that does not mean there wouldn't also be some increase in net water vapour
It does if the temperature increases from CO2 or water vapor.

>Just because you can't name any negative feedbacks preventing runaway warming caused by a small increase in water vapour
No one claimed its a runaway warming. It's curtailed by saturation of the absorption band and by increased blackbody radiation. But your logic is faulty regardless. Just because you don't have evidence of leprechauns that doesn't mean they don't exist? That's not the basis for a scientific argument.

>Sorry that certain facts raise questions about plans to increase cultivation and tax carbon.
They don't, no matter how much you want them to.

>You can't really argue that draining rivers and turning a desert into a water vapour factory has no net warming affect.
What natural radiative forcing caused those to occur?

>>14670392
>CO2 is NOT the cause of Climate Change
>is NOT, is NOT, is NOT
Yes, it is.
>The hottest period in the 20th century was centered around the decade of the 1930s
source?

>>14670392
there's no any climate change

>>14674149
>Warming in the past wasn't driven by some hairless monkeys burning liquefied organic matter.
That doesn't answer my question.

>In the past, CO2 was a secondary effect of the heating
Except when it increased for other reasons besides warming. And again that doesn't answer my question. You're saying that if CO2 was not a primary reason for Warming at some point in the past it never can be at other points in time. There is no logic there, it's a fallacy. And here's the proof you're wrong: >>14671839

>implying there is any climate change

>>14674134
>You attempt to connect warming before CO2 with CO2 before warming
No I didn't. Where do you see that?

>but fail to explain the former.
You're lying. It was explained right here: >>14671969

I think we're done here.

>>14670734
>Biomass and oceans only act as temporary storage and can't actually remove it from the environment
what changed? why can't it do it anymore?

>>14675355
>Earth has climate cycles since always, none of which were caused by humans
>Oh, but this particular one is, trust me! (sauce: my ass)
>Anctartic cores show that CO2 is correlated to temperature, but mostly lags for hundreds of years, while a minority of times preceeds it.
> Oh but since the 80s it totally is the rare case that our CO2 preceeds a climate catastrophe (in the 70s they were pushing an ice age)
>Completely ignore the correlation between sun spots and temperature changes
>Ignore that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, since its quantized vibrational modes are greater than those of CO2, accounting for 90% of the gh effect.
>Refuse to talk about how every single model predicted higher temps than observed
>Refuse to acknowledge the more extreme weather events of the 30s.
>Completely ignore the geopolitical interests of the govt and how they have forged data before, and the trillion dollars emissions market.
>Doesn't want to mention Al Gore.

>>14675681
>>Earth has climate cycles since always, none of which were caused by humans
>>Oh, but this particular one is, trust me!
You fail right from the beginning. Current warming is not a "cycle," and I already gave you the proof that it's caused by humans: >>14671839. You ignore it every time because you know you're full of shit. All you can do is lie.

>Oh but since the 80s it totally is the rare case that our CO2 preceeds a climate catastrophe
What are you talking about? Where did I say anything like this? You're delusional.

>in the 70s they were pushing an ice age
Wrong again, retard. See >>14671711

>>Completely ignore the correlation between sun spots and temperature changes
I did not. See >>14672102. When are you going to stop lying?

>>Ignore that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas
I did not. See >>14672904. How many times do you need to get BTFO before you stop lying?

>>Refuse to talk about how every single model predicted higher temps than observed
I did not. See >>14671692. You have zero credibility left. You're pathetic.

>>Refuse to acknowledge the more extreme weather events of the 30s.
>>Completely ignore the geopolitical interests of the govt and how they have forged data before
Of course I refuse to acknowledge your lies. You refuse to prove them.

>>Doesn't want to mention Al Gore.
Please mention him so I can laugh at your pathetic rhetoric.

>>14675288
The logic is solid, you've refuted nothing, and I'm not wasting any more time here. You'd be good at governing someone's kangaroo court.

>>14675774
>The logic is solid
It's not, you're arguing leprechauns exist.

>you've refuted nothing
In just the last post, I refuted your claim that there wouldn't be an increase in net water vapor and refuted your strawman about runaway warming.

>I'm not wasting any more time here.
Good, you've wasted enough time spouting nonsense.

>>14676011
>your claim that there wouldn't be an increase in net water vapor
i claimed exactly the opposite
what is wrong with you? are you confusing me for someone else? are all of the evil "climate deniers" blending into one awful person whom you must "refute" at any cost, for the children? can you read?

>>14675234
>Mars is farther away from the Sun so there's less energy for CO2 to keep in the atmosphere
Totally irrelevant. The greenhouse effect relates to energy retention, not how much incoming energy there is.

>>14675355
>No I didn't. Where do you see that?
In >>14673767 you stated
>Explain why you think warming preceding CO2 at points in the past means it must always precede CO2.

If you cannot keep traclk of what you have written you should just leave. This is already looking like sealioning.

>>14676841
>Totally irrelevant.
LOL

>The greenhouse effect relates to energy retention, not how much incoming energy there is.
If there is less energy incoming then there is less energy to retain and the greenhouse effect is weaker. Where do you think the energy comes from?

>>14676843
Are you illiterate? That does not connect them. I'm asking you why you think one precludes the other. Why do you think lying about what anyone can look up is helpful?

>>14676399
>i claimed exactly the opposite
You claimed there is some unknown negative feedback preventing the water vapor from being part of a feedback, in response to being told water vapor amplifies warming from CO2. Remember?