/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15074246
>Seriously where the fuck does the heat go
Outerspace. Gets cold af quick in deserts at night, with no cloud cover to hold in heat.

Earth needs a tad more CO2 in the atmosphere to warm it up slightly to normal levels, so there will be more water in the atmosphere to hold in the warmth, and so life and plants can flourish.

The WEF and other deepstate rich 1% socialists want to reduce global population levels to more manageable and easier to control levels.
Easiest way to do that? Starvation. Hence why they are constantly trying to reduce CO2 levels so the planet continues to get colder, and less food can be raised and grown.

>>15074246
The earth radiates heat out into space. The earth glows in the infrared spectrum releasing photons and energy out into space.
The idea behind greenhouse gases is they let visible spectra light through but reflect back infrared to some extent. It's not that greenhouse gases don't let any heat out, it's just that they let heat out at a slower rate than if they existed in lower concentrations.

>>15074405
>The idea behind greenhouse gases is they let visible spectra light through but reflect back infrared to some extent. It's not that greenhouse gases don't let any heat out, it's just that they let heat out at a slower rate than if they existed in lower concentrations.
How much lower can it get than 0.04%?

>>15074408
Maybe 0.03%? I dunno tho

>>15074279
>The WEF and other deepstate rich 1% socialists want to reduce global population levels to more manageable and easier to control levels.
>Easiest way to do that? Starvation.
Did you and the propagandists ever though that through? Do you really believe an out of control planet were they have to rot on some islands or NZ is what they want? Do you really think that AI can replace a human even by climbing a stair? For decades? Do you really think Africa and other places were enough food is growing without any tech is global-, socialist idiots endgame? I am in doubt, and there is a simple proof. State of the world after thousands of years influenced by so called elites.

>>15074246
Did we forget about axial tilt?

>>15074246
are you fucking retarded?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

>>15074408
This how 0.002% of MB looks like. CO2 is the 'same' for a IR wavelength in the band that Earth radiates heat.
>if that solution has a opacity of '2', then CO2 in the atmosphere would be a '4'. CO2 isn't MB so the real value would be different.

>>15074966
yeah no, if I take a torch and heat a ball with it constantly it doesn't just magically get colder, that's basically what the sun does to earth so why the hell does it get cold when we are constantly being blasted by the sun.

>>15075285
>CO2 is a color
Why are you lying.

>>15074966
>Earths energy budget
>Budget
Sigh. I long for the day political faggots get pushed out of science. Meteorologists think like economists, probably because all they see is money signs. Look up how much your Meteorological professors make.

>>15075298
do you know what color is?

>>15075304
Do you?

>>15075298
it has a color* But in the IR. pic rel

>>15075311
P.S. 'color' would be correct because the word color is limited to visual band iirc

>>15075311
>This is the average intellect of a climate doomsday soothsayer
Kek.

>>15075301
>your Meteorological professors make.
they don't make money, they are given money. making/earning money involves producing or doing something of equal value to the money received.

>>15075323
Splitting hairs. It's public info. Look it up.

>>15075321
So that is your 5-yo-like 'argument'? laughable.

>>15075332
You're the one who thinks C02 has color. That's something a literal child would think.

>>15075339
'color' (but in the IR), it's really basic knowledge...

>>15075351
If you have to put quotes around the words you're using, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. CO2 is colorless. This is such a trivial piece of information it can be taught in middle school.

>>15075355
You don't need to double down in your retardation.
The visual band isn't all the EM spectrum and the visual wavelength aren't even relevant to heat emitted by Earth.
If you don't know something as basic as that, ok dipshit.

>this dipship thinks that eyes can see al the EM spectrum

>>15075365
IR isn't a color.

>>15075393
Both MB and CO2 absorbs EM radiation in some bands.
MR makes easy to show (to sci schizos) how even tiny amounts can lower the EM transmittance of a 'transparent' medium (water for MB).
As I said before, in the estimation of opacity, CO2 and MB aren't the same in their respective absorbance peak.
If you want some accurate data just search for an article o absorption coefficients at ~10 um. The analogy was a simplification to shut up sperging schizos talking about "0.4% is too little to matter". That solution has 0.002% of MB.

>>15075416
MB makes easy to show*

>>15075416
Dude, keep digging. Tell the audience why you cropped that image and didn't show how the MB with additives looked more transparent. So you're lying about CO2 being a color, and you're lying about the simplicity of your completely wrong analogy.

>>15075365
i can tell that you're experiencing emotional distress because of your use of profanity. you're emotion distress originates from seeing something that you thought was true proven false. that experience causes cognitive dissonance, which is the ultimate source of your frustration anger and emotional distress.
in a rational discussion, the first person to lose their cool and turn into an emotional wreck is always the one who was arguing the irrational point of view. cognitive dissonance has unstoppable power because it comes from within, its self inflicted, the mind at odds with itself.

>>15075285
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335035010_Properties_Improvement_of_activated_Carbon_Prepared_from_hit_Natural_asphalt_by_Phenol_Formaldehyde_Polymer_Waste
Hello Pajeet. I now understand why you think CO2 is a color (ESL retard pajeet), and why you double down on your horrible analogy. Go email Rashad and ask him to back you up.

>>15075420
>how the MB with additives looked more transparent.
You don't even understand the gist of the analogy (absorbance), of course that MB isn't CO2, you can't remove CO2 with charcoal, oxidize it etc as it's common in chemistry. What's next? are you gonna say that all pH (dye) something something because in tritation you need to make the solution colorless?

1. MB analogy is to show how 20ppm of a chemical can reduce transmittance in a band.
2. Tell me the atmosphere additive that "makes" CO2 "transparent" in the IR.

>>15075427
>TL;DR low tier fallacy fallacy

>>15075441
tripling down, nice. allow me to post the uncropped image then. why did you crop it?

>>15075427
getting triggered by your own ignorance

>>15075451
>why I would make my example based in a homogeneous solution with pure substances instead of an charcoal absorption
Lets go back to the analogy.
What would be the 'charcoal' in the atmosphere that sinks the CO2?
If you say the ocean you're spot on, the ocean (at some depth) holds +50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere.
But it doesn't work in the short term and thats why the CO2 level is 425 ppm iirc, +140 ppm above the levels of 1700s.
In the long term the CO2 levels are in equilibrium because of the volcanic activity and ocean retention, the problem is that we aren't rocks to care about 10 million of years of time span.

And that's why i show that pic, even at low concentration some compounds can alter the transmittance enough to matter.

>if you burn all the conventional fossil fuels the CO2 levels would be ~1400 ppm far below some historic values
>when green shills talk about climate change always is in the 'short' timescales of 100-1000 years

>>15075472
>because of the volcanic activity and ocean retention,
PS the crust itself holds 5000 times more CO2 (as carbonate) as the ocean, like 10-50% of that is biologic (mid depth deposits in ancient oceans) iirc

>>15075472
>And that's why i show that pic, even at low concentration some compounds can alter the transmittance enough to matter.
CO2 can't though.

>>15074279
>Earth needs a tad more CO2 in the atmosphere to warm it up slightly to normal levels, so there will be more water in the atmosphere to hold in the warmth, and so life and plants can flourish.
>The WEF and other deepstate rich 1% socialists want to reduce global population levels to more manageable and easier to control levels.
>Easiest way to do that? Starvation. Hence why they are constantly trying to reduce CO2 levels so the planet continues to get colder, and less food can be raised and grown.
this makes so much sense, considering the massive unscientific push to reduce one of Earth's most important greenhouse gasses.

>>15076181
>>15074279
Cold weather favours the white race though. Likewise slightly reduced food output will mainly affect shithole latitudes that depend on continuous aid.
Maybe Klaus is based after all?

>>15074279

>>15075321
he's right though

>>15076904
CO2 is colorless.

>>15076331
Good points. Bring on the ice age 2.0! White Neanderthals for the win once again!

>>15076331
>Cold weather favours the white race though. Likewise slightly reduced food output will mainly affect shithole latitudes that depend on continuous aid.
Cold weather spreads from the poles, destroying arable land in the northern latitudes. It will harm Whites more than anyone else if the Earth gets any colder, and will help Whites more than anyone else if it gets warmer.

>>15077590
>will help Whites more than anyone else if it gets warmer.
great! fuck cold.