/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14668889
If eating shit is so bad, why do humans grow plants out of turds

>>14668905
>he fell for the "eating shit is bad" psyop
Holy fuck this board is stupid.

>>14668889
This makes no sense. I mean, just because greenhouse growers pump in CO2, that doesnt make it somehow a good thing. If manufacturing plastics is so bad for the planet, then why do we make billions of lbs of it every year? See, any vacuous statement can be formulated the same way.

Also the presence of CO2 might be useful in the very narrow area of greenhouses, but the planet isn't a greenhouse. In a greenhouse conditions such as temperature and water are controlled tightly, on the planet humans cant control the water cycle.

>>14668889
>why do people bake bread when they die of heatstoke?

Based Putin destroyed western greencuck discourse forever ahahahah

>>14668889
>fill massive greenhouse with plants
>plants exhaust all the CO2
>all the plants die
alternatively you could just pump in fresh air

>>14668889
If CO2 is so bad, why do we breathe it out? Just stop breathing, retard.

>>14668889
greenhouses don't have
-excessive heat
-droughts
-wildfires

>>14669050
>greenhouses don't have
>-excessive heat
the greenhouse effect is fake

>>14669105
>idiot
I rest my case.

>>14669050
So what's the problem with greenhouse gasses

>>14668889
I feel like OP is from some Sub-Saharan African tribe or Amazonian tribe. He doesn't seem to have a notion of quantity and ordinals beyond the number 2 are still unknown to him.

>>14669122
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

>>14669174
>wikipedia

>>14669196
>the second law of thermodynamics is Marxist propaganda

>>14669196
>i have no argument

>>14669050
>excessive heat
Why is this used to support "climate change" but not cold fronts?

>droughts
Great for agriculture, it's what Egyptians used

>wildfires
Almost alawyas caused by the State prohibiting controlled fires by people (see California)

>>14669210
California's laws cause wildfires in Siberia?

>>14669210
meds, now

>>14669204
>a link is an argument

>>14669198
>muh overwhelming concern for life on earth drives me to treat the planet as a cold dead rock for the sake of making politically motivate claims about global warming
1800s thermodynamics doesn't even account for cosmic thermal background radiation, it can't come close to accurately estimating thermal processes in an organic system. your desire to use blackbody radiator estimates for a planet which can store solar energy as physical matter for a billion years or longer is intellectually weak cringe, that form of materialism has always been wrong in the past.
your retarded 1800s physics has literally no idea how or why climatological patterns develop and no ability to predict future patterns whatsoever.
>b-b-but muh laws
if they were worth anything then they'd be able to accurately predict future climatological patterns, which they can't. gravitational laws do a great job of accurately estimating and predicting orbits, there is no equivalent physics thats been developed to do the same for energy transfer in organic systems. if solar energy can be captured and stored as mass then effective albedos of more than 1 are a reasonable possibility.

>>14669229
>i can't read
shocker

>>14668889
increased CO2 levels causes plant stomata to absorb CO2 more efficiently which then allows the plant to preserve more water. To absorb CO2 during photosynthesis the stomata must remain open which unfortunately causes water vapor in the leaf's airways to diffuse into the dryer environment.
Not all plants benefit from increased CO2 equally, noticeably plants that grow in semi-arid conditions seem to benefit the most from increased stomata efficiency. Like all environmental change we should expect to see plants that take advantage of these changes to drive the plants that do not into extinction. But who's to say those plants didn't deserve it?

>>14669241
the laws of thermodynamics predict that Earth will get warmer, which it is.
the laws of thermodynamics predict that climatological patters will become more irregular and chaotic, which they are.
if you want to predict the dirction of the breeze you will feel on your left cheek in 2035 while getting fucked in the ass in the park by a homeless person, then I think you will need a different methodology

>>14668953
This is so much cope I don't know where to start.

>>14669260
>>14669241
I think you guys are missing out on the bigger picture. Earth will get hot, wet, and become chock full of CO2 making it into a massive greenhouse. Plants will thrive and the ones that won't will die. This goes for animals too. But all the flora and fauna that dug their way into niche evolutionary dead ends were doomed from the start. It could have been us too, but we got lucky seeing that an overdeveloped brain and tool manipulation sends you from shitty specialist to ultimate generalist.
Anyways, long story short: specialists die, generalists thrive, biodiversity is a false god, a stagnant lesser form of Bio-adaptability.

>>14668911
Are you this nigger >>14668276

>>14668889
If humans can drown, why do we pour water on plants to makethem grow? Check mate scientists.

>>14668889
Climate change is code for depopulation. Which is really just code for mass murder. They do it with a smile on their face...

>>14669013
You'll never exhaust the CO2 in a greenhouse unless the thing was 100% hermitically sealed, which they aren't. Opening the windows and adding fresh air can potentially destabilize controls like temperature and moisture.

The other reason is that plant growth can benefit from excess CO2 see >>14669257

>>14669122
if the greenhouse was the size of the planet then we might start to see these droughts and wildfires inside

>>14669453
but everyone is talking about climate change as a negative thing that must be avoided?

>>14669276
>I don't know
k

>>14669313
Nonsense

>>14668905
we do eat plant co2 tho, its called oxygen genius

>>14668889
It's a matter of humans being too adapted to the climate that any change would disturb the system they are used to.

>>14669480
well, anything they do to "stop" it keeps padding their pockets without actually doing anything meaningful. why do you think the greens are anti nuclear?

>>14668889
>science, explain yourselves
Global Climate Change = hoax by the rich 1% elite to scam middle-class nitwits and midwits out of their money.

>>14669045
>If CO2 is so bad, why do we breathe it out? Just stop breathing, retard.
If everyone who is worried about Climate Change would just kill themselves on the same day in a mass suicide event, they would solve the CO2 problem instantly.

>>14669480
>but everyone is talking about climate change as a negative thing that must be avoided?

What?
Siberia will become the breadbasket of the planet due to global warming.

>>14668889
Argument I've heard is that even if CO2 can be good for the plants, the process of increasing warmth is also going to change the behavior of pests. It's an unknown, but you have to consider more than just the effect on plants.

>>14669716
>He thinks that plants eat CO2 and shit out oxygen
What the fuck do you think is needed to burn the sugars plants synthesise from CO2?

>>14669198
Clussy fever enjoyer detected xD

>>14668889
Couple of reasons.
1. It is in an enclosed area where the ratio of atmosphere to plants is vastly higher than the ratio of atmosphere to plants in the open air. This means that the co2 levels get depleted much faster, while o2 levels and nitrogen levels that regulate plant growth change as well.
2. The plants that they are growing can tolerate a higher co2 level and produce more. Most plants on earth cannot. Some plants will die when the co2 level gets much higher, whereas some will out compete local plants if the co2 level changes, changing the entire ecosystem.

Now go fucking die in a fire.

>>14670655
Also, you can keep the humidity inside a greenhouse at such a level that the plants no longer lose water due to the increased CO2 content and temperature.
It's not very desirable to turn the whole planet into a tropical rainforest on the other hand.

>>14668889
c02 good, it make plant grow fast and obsorb c02 faster so it self regulating. if we stop c02 sudden mass famine start, hmmmm certainly not the plan :)

>>14668953
I'm on board with climate change but this post just reads as pure cope.

>>14671066
^ This is what sub 90 IQ looks like

>>14671120
and >130 iq

>>14671066
>it make plant grow fast
Depends on the plant and also environmental conditions. As a blanket statement it's just false.
>and obsorb c02 faster so it self regulating
No. The amount of CO2 in the environment doesn't change much with biomass. It only acts as temporary storage for the carbon. Adding CO2 from sources like fossil fuels permanently (at least on short human time scales) increases the amount of CO2 in the environment.
>if we stop c02
Define "stop"
>f we stop c02 sudden mass famine start
No, but that depends on what you mean by "stop co2"

look at the toll global warming has taken on greta

>>14668953
Climate change just seems like an inconvenience rather than a real threat.

>>14671865
sure bud

>>14671865
Depends where you live. In some places, it might even be a good thing.

>>14668889
CO2 is only bad if the C is fossil. I.e. ex sequestered.

>>14672836
>some places
russia,finland,sweden,norway,canada

>>14668889
It's called the "Greenhouse effect" for a reason

>>14673343
people who eat greenhouse grown foods are economically supporting the use of propane burners in greenhouses.
the "no supplemental co2" certification will soon become just as important and valuable as "gmo free" and "organic"

>>14669276
Why don't you get going so we can see what low IQ drivel you come up with.

>>14670337
Does Siberia have soil suitable for farming? No? Right, you're a brainlet.

>>14668971
How? I'm on team Russia, but I really want to know.

Greentards btfo.
https://www.tiktok.com/@wealthymanfacts/video/7107752773092986155

>>14673747
>links tiktok
Is posting scientific publications or even pop sci articles too cringe now?

>>14673846
Just watch the short video.

>>14673718
Gas has been classified as a "green" fuel, for one
To be fair it was before the recent Ukraine business but not before the other Ukraine business

>>14668889
greenhouses contribute to dumping fertilizer in water supply,
as well as using up water like all the marjuana greenhouses out west are doing to lake meade.

>>14668889
CO2 is good for plant growth, yes. The problem on a planet-wide scale is that as temperatures rise many areas will have their local climate shift so that agticulture will be impacted. Our current food production is planned around a +0C world, if it becomes a +2C world that's gonna cause a massive strain on our society as we have to shift to a new system of agriculture. That cost will make all of us poorer, while things like heatwaves, hurricanes, and droughts will cause mass migrations of people. That'll be a lot of unrest we don't need.

imagine if climate change was real, we would be so fucked lol

>>14674177
>we
I'm not a polar bear

>>14674170
are you a bot or do you come to 4chan to regurgitate globalist political rhetoric for fun?

>>14674220
I just post about what I know. If you think I'm wrong you can try and prove it, but I doubt you can.
>Inb4 he posts an infographic / twitter screenshot

>>14674253
>Inb4 he posts an infographic / twitter screenshot
Let's try something completely different:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM&t=348s (at 5:48 he tells that it's not 2 degrees among some other things)

>>14671865
the earth is a closed system fueled by sunlight
eventually it'll run out of stuff no matter how well it cycles

>>14672836
>>14673354
until they're flooded with climate refugees

If CO2 is so bad, why does Germany's green party want to power up their coal power plants?
Checkmate, liberals.

>>14675031
coal is made from dinosaurs and therefore bio and green, chud

>>14675031
if radioactive sludge is so bad, why does it glow green?

>>14671926
lol, still waiting on those water levels to rise.

>>14668889
not doing your homework, john

>>14674310
90 seconds in and wow he has made a lot of mistakes.
-He says that a .8C increase is amazingly stable, but compared to what? The past 500,000 years haven't seen such a radical change, and I'm fairly confident we've never seen such a radical change in 150 years in the fossil record unless something extremely drastic like a bolide impact or LIP eruption happens.
-He says that only from 1975 to 1998 did both the temperature and CO2 rise.
That's untrue, I'll poast the NOAA avg temp graph and CO2 graph so you can see. Maybe he's not using levelized CO2? It does vary wildly between seasons.
-Water vapor is a atronger greenhouse gas than CO2, yes. The difference is that water vapor is always in flux and has very little thermodynamic barriers to achieving equilibrium in atmosphere unlike CO2. That means that water vapor can't be a driver of a change in climate, but it can be a feedback mechanism where other changes can force the equilibrium to favor the vapor state of water more.

>>14668889
You're barking at a wrong tree doggy, modern climatology is a pseudoscience.

>>14675199
"When you look outside you see the clouds, you don't see the CO2"
This is just embarrassing. Clouds are liquid water and reduce radiative forcing due to their albedo.
-Suggests maybe land clearance is the cause of global warming, not CO2. Well he's in luck, actually half right on this one. Land clearance reduces the available carbon sinks and is a net carbon source to the atmosphere. He's also wrong though, because the land clearance itself is mostly forest & wildland -> pasture, paved roads and cities are such a small % of land they don't matter. Grass has more albedo than forest, so the direct effect of land clearance is a negative radiative forcing.
This is severely flawed, he probably should've actually talked to a climate scientist before this to get their opinions on this talk.

>>14668889
>If breathing water is so bad why do we put it on our plants?

>>14675206
>modern denialism is a pseudopscience
FTFY

>>14671926
this why i like cloverfield movies. its normal to focus on immediate problems but it doesnt make the bigger ones go away

>>14675199
>He says that a .8C increase is amazingly stable, but compared to what? The past 500,000 years haven't seen such a radical change
Now this is something I would like you to prove.

>>14669105
Greenhouses don't have greenhouse effect.

>>14669105
>fake
What-everrr, Mister Trump.

>>14671314
which is exactly what he said u utter faggot, he said it loud and clear there's no unknowns in his statements u spastic jew, we only need to get rid of carbon in atmosphere

>>14671926
Why does Bill Gates buy a $8 million mansion in Florida if we were supposed to be underwater by 2020?
https://www.condoblackbook.com/blog/billionaire-bill-gates-purchases-palm-beach-mansion-for-87-million-in-cash/

>>14676853
>we only need to get rid of carbon in atmosphere
And how do you propose we do that?
An increase in permanent forested areas would work if you are ready to give up large parts of landmass forever, however, it's only effective if you also stop adding new CO2 from fossil fuels. Otherwise, the problem will return (and pretty quickly at the rate we burn fuels now).

>>14677338
Amending soil with biochar is an excellent way to sequester carbon.

>>14668905
Because shit has bacteria that harms us but does not harm plants. Does CO2 contain bacteria that harms the planet but not plants?

>>14677338
>it's only effective if you also stop adding new CO2 from fossil fuels
how about if greenhouse growers just stopped using propane burners to intentionally create more CO2?
until then, how much of your own property have you dedicated to permanent forest cover?

>>14677776
amending soil with crude oil is more effective. creating biochar involves chopping down trees to get the wood so that you can show off your concern for mother nature. ironic to chop down trees in order to show off what an environmentalist you are, use crude oil instead and save some trees, ok tree hugger?

>>14677876
Oil kills plants and contaminates soil. Go outside and touch crops.

>>14677876
Wood is a much more eco-friendly and renewable material than oil. You can plant forests specifically for growing wood (as is already being done today) so you aren't destroying existing ecosystems to gather it. You should limit the use of oil either way but there's nothing wrong with chopping down trees for environmental reasons.

>>14674310
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

>>14675031
russia is worse

>>14677913
crude oil in great quantities will kill your crops, so will water, so will sunlight and good luck growing anything in pure biochar. crude oil is highly decayed organic matter, plants like it as a soil amendment when applied in reasonable amounts.
ever been to the labrea tar pits? its a verdant paradise regardless the oil bubbling out of the ground, explain that in the context of crude oil being poison as a soil additive. crude oil is part of nature, plants naturally produce hydrocarbons, plants evaporate vast amounts of isoprene and other hydrocarbons directly into the atmosphere, hydrocarbons are 100% all natural, crude oil in appropriate quantities is nutritious to plants, they love the sulfur, nitrogen and other trace minerals it contains.
biochar is cutting down forests in order to sell virtue signaling opportunities to wealthy virtue signalers like greta, sequestering crude oil is taking crude out of the hands of the fuel industry without harming existing life.

>>14677982
Chopping down mature forests to plant immature ones is a terrible source of carbon emissions as it reduces the carbon absorption potential of any forested area dramatically, a natural carbon scrubber like a tree is far more effective when its 100' tall than it is when its 3' tall.

>>14678064
It is a very nice not-an-argument, but could you deliver the proof I have demanded in >>14676689 ?

>>14678125
>Imagine being this retarded
Go ahead and poor oil on your garden and let us know how it works out, moron.

10 years from now when it gets much much worse you will still have retards denying it. It's a fallacy of sunk costs. Admitting you were wrong would mean that you have spent time and effort being a retard. So you decide to continue believing in obvious bullshit to trick your mind that you didn't lose that time and effort. Same things happen with older people who realize god doesn't exist. They double down and become cartoonish bigots.

>>14678152
Lol, nobody is suggesting chopping down mature forests just to replant them.

>>14675233
It's hotter on clear days but it's also hotter on cloudy nights. They shouldn't have flights making evening contrails. Instead of nearly free actions like that one we get taxes and rebates to grow the civil service.

>>14678125
Crude oil is still toxic to plants and prevents them from being able to photosynthesize. That is on top of the damage to soil it causes. But go ahead, fertilise your garden with crude oil. Let us know how it went.

>>14668889
Plants can't eat if they're dead from drought, floods, fires, and saltwater intrusion.

>>14678125
Crude oil has 50 ppm vanadium. If your soil has >400ppm it'll reduce growth. So it could become a problem over years if it doesn't leach out or become diluted. Maybe nickel can be a problem too.

>>14668889
I can't believe none of you science nerds figured this out. As a knuckle-dragging idiot, allow me to explain.
>1970s-1990s carbon MONoxide in car exhaust is bad.
>2000> Car exhaust is so much cleaner, it stops being a political talking-point.
>As people get dumber and dumber, they keep spouting the same global-warming, climate-change bullshit, but they can't even understand or remember their own bullshit and they confuse carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide, since they have no understanding what either is, or basic science. Not that it matters, since they're just a bunch of morons, yammering to gain Woke points.

>>14678152
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_rotation_coppice gives the most wood. Once big trees start dieing CO2 that was captured is released again.

The ignorant and stupid will be the death of this planet.
But they are not entirely to blame. It was equally the fault of the educated and intelligent for not exterminating them.

>>14678746
>As a knuckle-dragging idiot
well you got that part right

>>14669600
a swamp planet after a mass extinction event does seem pretty comfy though

>>14668889
Forests and wood is the most effective solar panel technology
inb4 retard replies under 1000 psyops mindset

>>14678766
Both /sci/ and /pol/ are for eugenics or genocide. Just for different reasons.

>>14678706
thanks, now tell us about the arsenic in biochar

>>14678611
OK, so why are greenhouses allowed to use propane burners to purposefully create excess CO2 when there is already more than sufficient CO2 for plant growth already in the air?

>>14669196

>left leaning establishment
Fuck sake, the propoganda on wikipedia has nothing to do with left and right. It's just serves establishment and security intrests (or more specifically certain cliques within such circles). Wikipedia's problem is it automatically privilages "respectable" established media outlets as reliable. Even if the source is biased or dubious, it automatically gets priority because of their editing policy.

>>14679022
I don't know but it sounds like you do.

>>14679022
Do you mean the arsenic in coal? Coal and biochar are very different.

>>14668889
everything grows bigger if you shove more food in it. you okay m8?

>>14679213
well if you account for density it is very similar but water increases the concentration of arsenic.

>>14676689
I was wrong, it's more like 100K years, not a million. The pre-modern spikes are interglacial periods related to Milankovich cycles, corresponding to about +1-2C above average temps for the first half of the 20th century.
We do know that the current warming isn't Milankovich-related though, since NASA satellites don't show a rise in solar output.

>>14679286
You are speaking out of your ass. The arsenic content of biochar is negligible.

>>14679288
Year 0 on that graph is 1850

>>14679408
composition of wood in picture 11ppm. arsenic isnt volatile enough to be burned away.
coal has a 1.4ppm - 71ppm of arsenic.

>>14679601
That's wood ash, you disingenuous fuck. At least have the balls to post the source when you lie out of your ass.

>>14668889
What is the logic in caring about global warming when you'll be dead by the time the worse of it comes

>>14679755
Your ancestors gave you possessions and abilities to allow you to try to do the same to your descendants. The end of the world keeps getting pushed back. Jehovah's witnesses and climate scientism follow the same schedule because it's most suitable for growing the religion.

>>14668889
Too bad plants don't grow in the upper atmosphere where all the co2 tends to concentrate.

>>14679288
Where do you see it on the graph?
Are you faggot trying to confuse me? It's not going to work.
>>14679471
BP is 1950

>>14679967
How can that be if it's heavier than most of other atmospheric gases? It seems to me you faggot speak out of your ass again.

>>14680191
It is still light enough to be an atmospheric gas and plants don't grow in the atmosphere, they grow in the ground.

>>14669045
to remove the bad from ourselves, of course

>>14679062
and which media is considered respectable these days?

>>14675074
https://www.sealevels.org
Click and drag in the plot area to zoom in

>>14680239
>It is still light enough to be an atmospheric gas
I didn't say it wasn't. I just called your bullshit about it concentrating in the upper layers of it.

>>14680332
You are just being pedantic and you still obviously understand that most co2 ends up much higher in the atmosphere than any plant can grow.

>>14669198
these types of things are usually objective, but anything related to social issues or economics is usually far left lies

>>14680349
>most co2 ends up much higher in the atmosphere than any plant can grow
That's not what you said and it doesn't end up there, it circulates, an my guess it mostly circulates in the lowest layers of the atmosphere.
And such little details, when people are ready to speak out of their asses to lie their ass out only to prove their point indicates the liars, and that's why they say "allow a liar to speak long enough and he will eventually give himself away" and that is how I know that global warming is a hoax (this and also people I respect telling that it's a pseudoscience and only people I despise or never heard of tell the otherwise)

>>14680625
>it doesn't end up there
Yes it does, the majority of the co2 is higher up than plants grow.

> my guess it mostly circulates in the lowest layers of the atmosphere.
Your guess is wrong, it is distributed in all the layers of the atmosphere and most of the atmosphere is too high up for plants to grow.

>>14677826
>Because shit has bacteria that harms us but does not harm plants.
Large CO2 emissions cause rapid warming that harms us and plants. Congratulations, you figured out that something can be good for one reason but bad for another, my retarded friend.

>>14679029
Greenhouses don't just provide CO2, my retarded friend. Outside of greenhouses CO2 is rarely the limiting factor of growth for crops.

Also, what is the point of the circles and underlines in your image?

>>14680189
>BP is 1950
The data doesn't reach "BP."

>>14680636
>the majority of the co2 is higher up than plants grow
Once again, that is not what you said. It doesn't end up there, it circulates,
>it is distributed in all the layers of the atmosphere
I guess it's a possibilty, but do you guess it or do you actually have the data to it?

>>14680779
> Oxygen 20 to 21 percent
Which is normal breathing concentration. So why do the pilots need the oxygen tank to fly that high? Asking for a friend.

>>14680784
A vacuum chamber right after pumping out the majority of air also has about 20% to 21% concentration of oxygen. Try to guess why you can't breathe that.

>>14680784
Okay, I guess I could answer this by myself (the relative concentration isn't the same thing as the absolute concentration) but I had to push myself by looking it up:
> As altitude increases, breathing becomes more difficult because the pressure inside your lungs no longer has a large differential to the air pressure outside your body.

>>14680812
yep, thanks

>>14680812
>>14680821
So I guess most of the CO2 is concentrated in the lower layers of the atmosphere.

>>14680821
That's not all. I'm pretty sure that there has to be a high enough partial pressure of oxygen in the alveoli in your lungs for the oxygen to permeate the walls and bind with red blood cells at a significant rate. Otherwise, despite there being oxygen it's not being absorbed into the bloodstream.

>>14680636
>Yes it does, the majority of the co2 is higher up than plants grow.
Ok? Why does that matter? Most of the oxygen in the atmosphere is also higher than average human height. What's your point?

>>14668889
Growth doesn't equal causation or correlation.

>>14668889
Plant growth isn't always a good sign. In poor light conditions seedlings will grow rapid and big quick, but will be straggly.

Some tree species grow quicker than others, the slow ones have thicker, denser wood.

>>14680870
Are you redtard trying to tell us that CO2 is bad, because trees are not always wanted? Otherwise how is your comment even related to anything?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWM47SCZ_zM

>>14681936
>Are you redtard trying to tell us that CO2 is bad, because trees are not always wanted?
Are you retards trying to tell us that you can't read English? Massive CO2 emissions are "bad" because they cause rapid warming.

>>14681948
It is what you were brainwashed with, but you cannot prove it, so stay quiet or cry some more.

>>14681979
Here's proof: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174407/

>>14682771
>Climate change is a response to energy imbalances in the climate system
This line screams marxism, but jokes aside, can you actually line out the actual proof? a,b,c,d hence e,f,g hance h or something. It is written so poorly that I'm not going to read into it right now.
Also yes, because I'm biased. But feel free to demonstrate that you can understand their proof and not just can google academic articles.

>>14682920
America after Trump

>>14682946
So you're a marxist, just as I thought.
I'm not american, and you didn't prove shit, because most of academic articles are utter garbage. So the fact that there's an article saying that it's A, doesn't prove that it is A, especially when its proponents cannot explain what and how does it actually prove.

>>14681936
I'm basically saying that excess anything is bad for ecosystems. Commercial plant operation's goal is profit. They hurry a plant to its fruit phase, which is where the plant sheds its seeds before its death.

That ain't normal. In 3rd world countries you get pregnant 14 year olds. Possible quick turnover yes. A great life for the 14 year old, stuck pregnant?

I don't know the science on it no. But many a time do studies confirm common sense.

>>14682920
>>14682960
Are you illiterate? It tells you right in the abstract that they're using satellite measurements to determine the radiative forcing.

>>14679720
wood ash is made from charcoal are you stupid?

>>14683002
And how do the measurments prove what you say they do?

>>14682920
>This line screams marxism
This non sequitur screams mental illness.

>can you actually line out the actual proof? a,b,c,d hence e,f,g hance h or something.
There's a plain language summary for retards like you so I'm not sure how I could dumb it down even further. They used satellites to measure the amount of energy entering and leaving Earth's atmosphere and the amount of heating from small perturbations to various factors like greenhouse gases and clouds. They used the latter to determine how much of the former was due to each factor.

>>14675243
I have lived in places with very low humidity, it is quite unpleasant.

>>14683019
>Measure incoming radiation directly
>Measure outgoing radiation directly
>Can directly proof that there is a net difference
Not that hard to understand, but you've been in denial over this every thread it gets brought up

>>14683285
Could it be due to us absorbing some radiation and transforming it into work?

>>14683239
>This non sequitur screams mental illness.
But am I wrong? Because if you're a marxist, you have an agenda of detrimenting the economy of the first world nations, so that your chinese comrades have an advantage thus bringing on some mythical equality.
>They used satellites to measure the amount of energy entering and leaving Earth's atmosphere
So because earth is not a star, naturally it gets more energy than it emits.
>and the amount of heating from small perturbations to various factors like greenhouse gases and clouds.
From here please be more specific. I don't think I understood the second half of that sentence (or I haven't understood the whole sentence, it's also a possibility, because your writing skills are underdeveloped.
>They used the latter to determine how much of the former was due to each factor.
Did you take their word on faith or do you feel like explaining it further?

>>14680283
still waiting

>>14683328
>can't read
shocker

>>14683335
>reading is believing
Are you sure you don't belong to some church a little better than in science?

>>14683346
https://www.sealevels.org/#sources

https://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2016/02/17/1517056113.DCSupplemental/pnas.1517056113.sd03.xls

>>14683009
Are you actually retarded? Wood ash is what's left over after everything else in wood has burned away. It represents 0.1-19% of the mass of the wood depending on species and water content, and the constituents are affected by the soil it's grown in. Your argument is next level stupid and does not refute the arsenic content of biochar being negligible. If it were significant then biochar wouldn't reduce the levels of arsenic in plants grown in contaminated soil.

>>14683297
No

>>14682771
>>14683002
>>14683285
The data set used is Ceres EBAF. The instruments say the ocean should be heating up five times faster than it is. Instead of figuring out why the data is so bad, the Kramer paper instead assumes it has been correctly reconciled with the ocean temperature so they can do something interesting with data.

>>14683643
lol yeah arsenic is released into the environment from coal ash and wood ash. gas chromatography is used in assays of plant materials so wood or wood ash wont matter much. it is burned to ash before chromatography to not overload sensors. you just get over the levels are similar in ppm without water action. how bio char reduction of arsenic in plants works is the same way a water filter works. the surface area of bio char is greater. ion exchange of root cells wont absorb as many arsenic ions.

>>14683694
Wood ash isn't created in the production of biochar and they use the mass of the plant rather than the mass of the ash when analyzing the constituents with gas chromatography. Similarly, if the amount of arsenic in biochar were significant then more would leech out than would be adsorbed. You are legitimately retarded.

>>14683730
yeah but there is no point in measurements of organics once you have the mass in gas chromatography. id use thin film for organics. biochar accumulates larger ions faster than smaller ones. we have to test if the biochar filters are already saturated with silicates. have to remove alot of calcium from the waste water before it gets dumped.

>>14675233

>>14683648
Why not?

>>14683663
Your own image contradicts your claim. The EBAF dataset corrects for this imbalance.

Kramer is well aware of the uncertainty range of the data he's using and even cites the methods developed by the author of the paper you're misrepresenting.

>The various inputs and assumptions detailed above can contribute uncertainty to the estimated radiative changes. In a Supplemental Appendix we provide a comprehensive uncertainty assessment in the IRF trends due to these contributors, including from observed dR, radiative kernels, and the cloud masking constant, Cl. We find these uncertainties are smaller than the trend regression uncertainty associated with timeseries variability. Therefore, all trends presented hereafter are provided with 95% confidence intervals (or roughly 2 standard errors around the mean) associated with the least-squares linear regression. This is common practice when diagnosing CERES trends (e.g. Loeb et al. 2018a,b).

>In this work, observed, total TOA radiative anomalies are diagnosed using radiative flux data from CERES EBAF 4.1. This is identical to CERES EBAF4.0 (Loeb et al. 2018a), except it includes an additional clear-sky radiative flux dataset. While the traditional clear-sky products are comprised only of pixels designated as cloud-free, the new product uses an adjustment factor to mimic a total absence of clouds for all regions, similar to how clear-sky is defined in model simulations (Loeb et al. 2019). While CERES has well documented uncertainty in the magnitude of the TOA radiative flux measurements, our work to estimate the IRF is conducted in anomaly space, where uncertainty in absolute fluxes is irrelevant. Instead, it is the uncertainty due to the stability (or lack thereof) of the observing platform that is important.

>>14684781
The correction is big. There are multiple ways it can be done. The multiple ways are not a proper object of statistics because someone can pull the results in their favor by publishing the same method with countless inconsequential variations. By contrast, ocean temperatures can't be manipulated by putting more sensors somewhere hot because the nearly duplicate sensors do not get a bigger share of the ocean. Kramer can propagate uncertainties from observations like ocean temperatures, but he can't propagate uncertainties introduced by the choice of methods like the details of the correction.

The need for a correction makes your earlier claim >>14683285 wrong. Ocean temperatures and an energy balance are not part of a direct measurement of radiation.

>>14678828
...and all the rest of it, Poindexter.

>>14685896
>The correction is big.
Not really, it's within the uncertainty range of the data.

>There are multiple ways it can be done. The multiple ways are not a proper object of statistics because someone can pull the results in their favor by publishing the same method with countless inconsequential variations.
There's only one method published by Loeb, so I'm not sure where your claim that there are multiple methods comes from or how he can be cherrypicking. Do you think he colluded with Loeb to publish a dataset amenable to his analysis many years before his analysis existed? Ridiculous. And Kramer validated his results by replicating them with MERRA-2 data in addition to CERES.

>The need for a correction makes your earlier claim >>14683285 # wrong
Not my claim, and not wrong. There is a net difference in outgoing and incoming radiation at the TOA, which is measured directly. Please explain why you are misrepresenting these papers. It seems like you're restorative grasping at straws to reach the conclusion you want.

>>14682946

>>14686863
>>The correction is big.
>Not really, it's within the uncertainty range of the data.
So CERES is consistent with heating or cooling then?

>I'm not sure where your claim that there are multiple methods comes from
There is an energy balance involving surface fluxes and the oceans' thermal potential energy but over a year added up over space: in-out > accumulated. To make it equal you can raise "out", but now you have to make assumptions as to where and when to raise the "out" to make the yearly average flux difference match the ocean heating. There doesn't have to be collusion between Loeb and Kramer. They just have to have the same goal in mind, namely being cited for turning satellite data into climate change.

> replicating them with MERRA-2 data in addition to CERES.
GEOS is older than CERES. They wouldn't start CERES if it wasn't better for this purpose. So MERA-2 has the same problem.

>>The need for a correction makes your earlier claim >>14683285 # wrong
>There is a net difference in outgoing and incoming radiation at the TOA, which is measured directly.
You have a different definition of "directly". It is still direct to convert the telescope's to radiance to flux. But that flux is not good enough, so they involve ocean temperatures in calculating better fluxes. Once measurements of the natural effects/causes of the flux are used, it starts to be indirect.

> explain why
I want to understand what they're doing. How do we get causation out of passive observation? How does data with uncertainties bigger than the average heating ultimately get to say something about the average heating?

>>14687437
The properties of CO2 are set and measured. It absorbs and re emits infrared. This has been known before anyone was thinking about climate. The more fuel burned the more CO2 accumulates.
There’s several observations both ground based and space based of the direct forcing and the spectrum of the incoming and outgoing radiation.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

*farts*

>>14679288
Also on other global reconstructions you can see that there has not been such a high rate of warming in the onset of the interglacial periods. Which took 1000s of years to rise by 1C now we’ve increased the temperature by more than that in a 100 years

>>14687462
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Volcanoes don't excuse you from your responsibility to lower your own emissions.

>>14687462
Demonstrably false with isotopic ratios

>>14683328
mods, are you fucking serious?
deleting a graph of a PNAS data set on a science board? Is this place turning into a reddit snowflake cancel culture shithole!?

>>14687606
What an amazing argument

>>14687462
I also love microplastics in my food and the water supply, I'm trans btw.

>>14687606
...aand oc this isn't deleted
well done janny

>So CERES is consistent with heating or cooling then?
If you read your own paper you would know it's only consistent with heating. Did you read past the first page?

>There is an energy balance involving surface fluxes and the oceans' thermal potential energy but over a year added up over space: in-out > accumulated. To make it equal you can raise "out", but now you have to make assumptions as to where and when to raise the "out" to make the yearly average flux difference match the ocean heating.
This isn't even relevant to Kramer's analysis. You're talking about uncertainty in absolute flux. Kramer analysis uses flux anomaly.

>There doesn't have to be collusion between Loeb and Kramer. They just have to have the same goal in mind, namely being cited for turning satellite data into climate change.
They can't create spurious trends in the data, and you haven't even shown they've made incorrect choices. You're grasping at straws.

>They wouldn't start CERES if it wasn't better for this purpose. So MERA-2 has the same problem.
What problem?

>You have a different definition of "directly".
I have the same definition as Loeb and Kramer, who actually know what they're talking about.

>But that flux is not good enough, so they involve ocean temperatures in calculating better fluxes.
Most of the uncertainty is in the satellites' calibration. So you're saying if other data is used to correct the calibration then it's not direct measurement? Makes no sense.

>How do we get causation out of passive observation?
In a nutshell: if you observe the total effect and the individual effect of perturbing each potential cause, then you know the cause of the total effect.

>How does data with uncertainties bigger than the average heating ultimately get to say something about the average heating?
You're conflating uncertainty in absolute flux with uncertainty in the trend.

>>14687462
>10,000 times the CO2
Source?

>>14683324
>But am I wrong?
Yes.

>So because earth is not a star, naturally it gets more energy than it emits.
So you're saying everything that isn't a star is always getting warmer? Amazing. Have you thought about publishing this insight? Physics will be revolutionized by your disproof of blackbody radiation.

>From here please be more specific.
If you wanted more specificity you would read the paper. If you can't understand simple English then lack of detail isn't your issue, it's lack of intelligence.

>Did you take their word on faith
Their words are cited, peer reviewed and published. No need to take it on faith. If you actually have a reason to disagree then state it. Otherwise you're just arguing based on wishful thinking.

Freeman Dyson, the great physicist, often made just this argument in suggesting warming is good and plants will love it.

>>14668953
>but the planet isn't a greenhouse.
if it wasn't you wouldn't be posting on a mongolian basket weaving forum
you wouldn't exist to begin with, along with any life

>>14668889
Do this:
Africa plant coverage and stop posting that shit

>>14687606
>total global annual mean surface temperature
>scale goes from -0.5 to 1C
What a strange graph.

>>14687462
people emit 100x more CO2 than all the world's volcanoes combined

>>14688458
volcanos emit 100x more people than all the world's CO2 combined

>>14688458
And we can offset all of it by dumping some dust in the ocean, but there is a legitimate conspiracy to suppress this basic scientific fact, because climate change fearmongering is the perfect method of social control.

>>14677258
Was anyone saying that in 2014?

>>14688811
>And we can offset all of it by dumping some dust in the ocean
Can you provide more information about this?

>>14688955
NTA, but he's probably referring to iron fertilisation. In a toy model, it should work, but research on how it pans out in the real world is severely lacking. I hope it is this easy, and that schizos won't block the necessary research because "man no play god!". Of all the geoengineering proposals, this is probably the least dangerous.

>>14688998
>but research on how it pans out in the real world is severely lacking.
Not true, the Canadian government raided their own scientist's lab and memoryholed all of his work with a fucking swat team, because a small scale experiment simply worked. It isn't schizos who will block the necessary research.
>>14688955
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4Hnv_ZJSQY

>>14688998
According to Wikipedia the maximum possible offset is 1/6 of emissions, so while it may be a big step it doesn't instantly solve everything.

>>14689042
>Not true, the Canadian government raided their own scientist's lab and memoryholed all of his work with a fucking swat team
Yes, research in this area is severely lacking. Also sauce that isn't infowars tier?

>>14668889
When will boomers die so we can start using nuclear energy without retarded tech illiterate politicians shidding their pants about Chernobyl 2.0

>>14689057
An interview with the scientist who's lab was raided isn't enough for you, and nothing will be.

>>14689091
Where did he receive his PhD? Who funded his research? What did he do before this project? What was the official reason given for the raid?

I thought we were above listen & believe.

>>14689042
There has been research into this and it’s simply not enough to offset our emissions. Much bigger natural blooms of these organisms are observed but their impact is sadly not enough. Plus eutrophication of the ocean is not a good idea. The guy got fucked because he didn’t have permits for his stunt.

>>14689071
>baby boomers most recently born in 1964
>add life expectancy for your country
That was hard.

>>14689104
Okay I was misled by his video. He's not a scientist, he's an opportunist. His wiki page lists his exploits. It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_George
>>14689117
It seems scientists are divided on the issue.
>similar Experiments, like the EisenEx experiment conducted in November 2009 had shown that fertilizing the ocean with iron in this manner would especially promote the growth of a genus of microalgae known as Pseudo-nitzschia which in turn produces large quantities of Domoic acid, a potentially deadly neurotoxin which accumulates through the food chain.[22] >However, Professor Victor Smetacek, a top authority from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany, who has done many experiments in the oceans with Ocean Pasture Restoration, or OPR, related projects, had this to say about OPR safety concerns: “In general, the claim that OPR may cause harmful algal blooms (HABs) and lead to closure of fisheries in coastal waters is completely unfounded. Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences report mentions that OPR does not pose a threat of HABs in the open deep ocean. I fully agree with this.”[24][self-published source]
>In the seas of Southeast Alaska, the relevant area of the experiment, the expected catch of Pink Salmon in 2013 was predicted by salmon experts and managers to be 54 million fish.[36][37] The catch turned out to be 224 million Pinks, the largest catch in Canadian history.[38][39] Russ has claimed this to be definitive Proof of the success of the Experiment,[40] despite claims that no definitive link between the experiment and the higher levels of the food chain (including Salmon) could be determined.[35][41] Research conducted on 13 major iron-fertilization experiments in the open ocean since 1990 determined that the method is unproven; with respect to the Haida Gwaii project, "scientists have seen no evidence that the experiment worked", concluded a 2017 article in Nature.[42]

>>14680655
>cause rapid warming that harms us and plants
ROFL, it doesn't harm anybody and it doesn't harm plants. Those are wild fear mongering myths like muh worser hurricanes and muh forest fires, and 99% of the time these "harms" are actually just theoretical and will happen in the future/just 2 more weeks. Stop drinking the kool aid.
>Congratulations, you figured out that something can be good for one reason but bad for another, my retarded friend
WHOOOSH!....No I stated a mechanism for why this concept is true for shit being a healthy energy source for plants vs harmful for humans and rhetorically asked a question to expose that it's a false analogy to apply this concept to global warming alarmism, retard.

>>14689493
>ROFL, it doesn't harm anybody and it doesn't harm plants.
Wrong.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/

>No I stated a mechanism for why this concept is true for shit being a healthy energy source for plants vs harmful for humans
And I gave you a mechanism for how CO2 can be good for some plants but bad for humans and other plants.

>and rhetorically asked a question to expose that it's a false analogy
You didn't though, you just explained exactly why is a good analogy. Something can be good in one context but bad in another.

>>14687883
Meant to reply to >>14687437

>>14688390
>if it wasn't you wouldn't be posting on a mongolian basket weaving forum
>you wouldn't exist to begin with, along with any life
How so? Were not even in a greenhouse climate, there's still ice at the poles.

>>14688446
It's a fake graph. And not because it uses tenperature anomaly.

>>14688934
No one ever said it, he's making shit up. It's what deniers do.

>>14677258
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deVkQB6jb7g

>>14689815

>>14690789
One photoshopping idiot is not a conspiracy.

>>14668889
What kind of reasoning is that? They also use ethylene gas to speed up the ripening of fruit, which is toxic to humans.