/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15119266
god i hope le hackin rewards kill that shithole

Bullshit.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.

>>15119330
this. if every exhaust pipe was combined into on huge chimney just imagine what it would look like...

>>15119334
> just imagine what it would look like...
big volcano

>>15119330
>according to ZOG's mouthpiece…

>>15119330
>annual
Which year? Is that an average? Over what time period?

>>15119346
ok youre right we should believe this guy on twitter instead

>>15119266
This is just blatantly and demonstrably false.
Why do deniers think that they can claim nonsense and no one will call them out on it?

>>15119357
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/

Deniers should explain why it's not causing a greenhouse effect then

>>15119383
greenhouse effect is caused by C, not CO2

>>15119391
Now you’re just making shit up. Pathetic

>>15119395
>no argument

You’ve yet to respond to isotope data. It’s clear you’re either ignorant of the subject or maliciously lying

Shouldn't there be sea rise?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ36ded2Wc0

>>15119383
Burden of proof is on your cult and your track record makes you look as retarded as the Christcuck cult

>>15119469
What burden of proof? The interactions of the CO2 molecule with infrared radiation are a simple, measured physical property of the gas.

>>15119371
>>15119422
>jewish lines and squiggles
>evidence
>data

>>15119266
"Climate chance" is real, but it has nothing to do with human activity.
255 Million years ago = dinosaurs and abudunce of animal/plant life, including megafauna and huge dinosaurs.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/when-did-dinosaurs-live.html

Around 300 Million years ago = CO2 levels were high, the earth was warm, and their weren't any glaciers at the poles:
https://www.earth.com/news/earth-endured-rapid-global-warming-300-million-years-ago/

Now, put those two data-points together and what do you get?

>>15119615
>Now, put those two data-points together and what do you get?
Obviously humans were around much longer than "science" claims us to have been.

>>15119620
I love this board

>>15119330
>According to the U.S. Geological Survey
KEK!
They get tons of money from BIG OIL and GOVERNMENTS to PROMOTE the "Climate Change" HOAX so they can raise oil prices and create scares and "shortages".

>>15119330
>24 billion tons of CO2 emissions
How does 4.5 Billion tons of petroleum products (2022's total WORLD useage of petroleum) magically become 24 billion tons of CO2?
LMFAO!

>>15119371
Ah yes. The classic hockey stick. It was found in around 2008 from email leaks that the data for that was fudged.

>>15119666
>and industrial activities
includes other things such as natural gas and coal for example. Coal is used in many places for electricity, especially in places like China (produces more CO2 than Europe and the US combined at this point), and natural gas is typically used in the US and Europe. However, the numbers presented by the USGS (fundamentally a political organization) can very likely be overstated for political reasons.

>>15119711
>like China (produces more CO2 than Europe and the US combined at this point),
China is the big Panda in the room.
China produces more pollution than all the rest of the world combined.

Take out China, solve all the climate problems.

>>15119666
When you burn the petroleum you add oxygen to it, which increases its mass. And, some of the compounds are far more warming than simple CO2, so we convert their mass into the same effective mass of CO2. There's no reason we couldn't have more tons of CO2 in the atmosphere than there is air because of the conversion ratio.

>>15119759
>When you burn the petroleum you add oxygen to it, which increases its mass.
>Ignore Newtons Laws and Thermodynamics!
>Ignore basic physics!
LMAO!
The absolute state of your AI programmed pea-brain.

>>15119778
What, you think it gets lighter because you let the phlogiston out?

>>15119744
women, you want to solve da climatez. Get rid of women. They are the ones that purchase some unreal number like 90% of consumer products are bought by women

https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/0/47745
CO2 is literally not a problem, if you disagree you've been fooled by the small hat clan

>>15119744
>90% of consumer products are bought by women
sorry that was off the cuff, it is 85%

85%
Women make 85% of all consumer purchases in the US [Forbes] and drive 70-80% of spending among consumers. [Entrepreneur] Considering they make up 51 percent of the US population, women today have a strong influence in the economy

>>15119666
Because you're reacting gasoline with oxygen from the air to get energy, water, and carbon dioxide. So the carbons in these long hydrocarbon chains are getting broken up and re-bonded with oxygen for a higher total mass. Also there are other green house gas emitters other than buring coal, oil, gas ect.

>>15119266
how dare he?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mptNDINqYnQ

>>15119666
>what is coal
>what is natural gas
I bet you felt really smart typing out your post, huh?

>>15119855
LMAO! JFC go back to 6th grade idiot. You seem to think all that energy is free and doesn't get converted and lost.

>>15119666
This^ anon just BTFO the entire CO2 argument.
Fossil fuels account for only 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

>>15119951
If you add X mass to a thing to get X/2 mass worth of energy out, you still make it X/2 heavier. E=mc2 but that doesn't mean that all chemical reactions result in lighter products.

>>15119666
>>15119951
>>15119953
You should expect roughly 3 times the mass of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere for every unit 1 of gas burned, because 16 moles of [math]CO_2[/math] has a mass of 704.16 grams, while 2 moles of Octane has a mass of 228.46 grams.
[math]2C_8H_{18} + 25O_2 = 16CO_2 + 18H_2O + Heat [/math]
So consuming 4.5 billion tons of petroleum is going to produce 13.9 Billion tons of [math]Co_2[/math]

>>15119550
>its not real data because, because, it just isn't okay?

>>15119615
>because something happens natural that means humans can't cause it
>i am very smart and get tons of up votes on reddit

>>15119951
Ouch, bad shilling. You should find a different job.

>>15119956
>>15119957
>>15120001
wow, the big oil climate shills are pathetic today.

>>15120018
>wow, the big oil climate shills are pathetic today.
That's all you can say, if you weren't coping and actually had a real argument you'd do the basic high school chemistry to show otherwise.

>>15120026
There's no need to. The unimpeachable and decades-long evidence of fraud in global scamology is already enough to discount the entire hypothesis.

>>15120031
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8MZBUoQt68

>>15120031
>The unimpeachable and decades-long evidence of fraud in global scamology is already enough to discount the entire hypothesis.
Yeah, it's played out. The rich 1% need a new scam.

Everyone is bored with the Climate Change hoax. It's so last century.

>>15120045
Erm, excuse me sweaty I think you mean weather change?

>>15119266
>daily propaganda thread brought to you by Koch, Chevron, BP, GM, Audi
I will not buy your fossil slop! I will not buy a new car every other year! I will not mindlessly consooom! Be gone BOT!

>>15119266
humans emit 100x more CO2 than all volcanoes combined

>>15119432
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTRlSGKddJE

>>15119615
>nothing to do with
humans have plenty to do with it

>>15119367
random twitter posters unironcally have beter credibility than large organizations which are known to be currently involved in pushing false narratives by using "official sources" to distribute political propaganda. most random twitter users don't have a reputation that bad.

>>15120100
Take your actual meds.

>>15120239
So if all the 'organizations' are lying, where does butt monkey on twitter get his information?

>>15120250
Your post demonstrates the sheer mental illness of the average AGW believer.

>>15120250
it was revealed to them in a dream.

>>15120250
If all the suspects are constantly lying, how does a detective piece together a case? #ParoleBIPOC2023

>>15120113
>potsmoker54
Dude at least try to rebut Nils with someone halfway credible. This is utterly pathetic.

Comfy.

>>15120114
All of those charts are wrong or include falsified data.
It was warmer in the 1930s than it is today.
Same with earlier warm periods during the Medieval era, where the planet warmed which allowed for unprecedented crop growth, which helped to literally fuel The Renaissance.
https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-what-was-the-medieval-warm-period-155294

>>15119334
like muh dick i presume

Why wouldn't pollution harm the environment? It's been proven to harm humans, why not plants and animals?

>>15119842
>zero replies from AGW truthers
i expected as much

>>15119266
We know.

>>15119266
>Sources: my ass

>>15121032
Is that where the co2 comes from?

>>15119666
What is highschool chemistry? What is coal?
Get raped by a pack of niggers. Bazinga!

>>15121035
No just the cow farts.

>>15120870
>It was warmer in the 1930s than it is today.
Again with this shit?

>>15121177
>berkeley
kek

>>15119676
>It was found in around 2008 from email leaks that the data for that was fudged.
"Data was fudged" meaning that temperature data after 1950 was included.

All the "hockey stick is false!" evidence relies on graphs which omit all temperature data taken after 1950.

>>15119266
Somebody cork it up for Christ's sake!!

Why would CO2 come out of a volcano at all? Was the lava carbonated like a fizzy pop drink?

I know that happens to spring water and sometimes lakes, but I don't view volcanoes as particularly carboniferous in the first place. They certainly throw around lots of ash though, basically rock dust from what I understand. Seems like a big cancer risk.

>>15121225
the hockey stick is completely fake.

>>15119842
>https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/0/47745
>We Need CO2!
> Also CO2 doesn't do anything!
CO2 contributes to a warming effect. Higher temperature causes issues. These issues will be less severe with less warming. Even a high schooler can understand this.

>>15119666
The smartest man on /sci/

>>15121233
If you live in 1950, yes. Sadly we don't, which means that temperature has quickly increased since then, and basically all warmest years on record are post-2000's.

>>15121241
You're digging through a steamy shit, looking for intact corn.
>some of this is still good to eat!

>>15121243
> Omit the decades which the earth hs been warming
> "See! The earth hasn't been warming!"
I guess your mom's still a virgin if you just omit all the niggers she's been fucking.

>>15121248
You're posting graphs with fraudulent data, and acting like that isn't a problem. You're a joke.

>>15121251
> All the data that doesn't agree with me is fraudulent
Truly I marvel at your ability to think critically.
What do you make of the measured sea level rise and measured ice loss and measured warmest years on record? I guess those are all fabricated too?

>>15121258
>I guess those are all fabricated too?
yes.

>>15119432

>>15121266
Despite the fact it got rebuked?
>>15120113

>>15121235
>CO2 contributes to a warming effect
>During geological times, it and the carbon dioxide level have been all over the place with no correlation between them.

>Higher temperature causes issues.
lower temperatures cause worse issues.

think for yourself and dont just repeat talking points from malthusian elites who want you to be the carbon thats eradicated

>>15119744
China is the factory you dont have in Boston stupid fuck

>>15121296
potsmoker54 isn't credible

>>15121307
>>During geological times, it and the carbon dioxide level have been all over the place with no correlation between them.
Wrong.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016703706001979?via%3Dihub

>Atmospheric CO 2 is positively correlated with globally averaged surface temperatures for most of the Phanerozoic.
>The two longest-lived Phanerozoic glaciations during the Permo-Carboniferous and late Cenozoic are the only Phanerozoic intervals associated with consistently low levels of CO2 (<500 ppm).
>Many factors are important in controlling the average surface temperature of the Earth, including solar luminosity, albedo, distribution of continents and vegetation, orbital parameters, and other greenhouse gases. [...] given the variety of factors that can influence global temperatures, it is striking that such a consistent pattern between CO2 and temperature emerges for many intervals of the Phanerozoic. This correspondence suggests that CO2 can explain in part the patterns of globally averaged temperatures during the Phanerozoic.

>>15121339
Wrong.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76

>This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.

>>15121216
>get btfo
>uuuh it's fake :(
Truly amazing arguments

>>15121373
you post a shitty image of a 100 year long "trend" of geological process from Berkeley of all places
>btfo
nice try small hat man

>>15121377
>you claim that it was warmer in the 30's
>data disproves it
>start deflecting about sources

>>15121453
that wasnt me.
im just stating your sources are shit and you need to stop slurping the elites kool-aid

>>15121478
>sources are invalid because I say so
Cool deflecting with no actual arguments about the data

>>15121481
you are trying to prove a geological trend in a 100 year chart.
zoom out.

>>15121484
Yes, the rate of warming is many times faster than in the onset of the interglacial periods

>>15121497
this has nothing to do with urbanisation and surrounding thermometers in asphalt im sure

>>15121484
CO2 is also unprecedented in rate of increase and concentration for the last 800k years. There's no getting around the reality of the greenhouse effect

>>15121500
It doesn't. That's such an idiotic deflection

>>15121501
carbon dioxide radiation forcing is about 0.3% of the incident radiation, far less than other effects on climate
>>15121507
it does. do you think cities have the same temperature as the country side?

>>15119676
>Ah yes. The classic hockey stick
Are you literally retarded? there's no temperature data in that graph

>>15121509
Again just stating outright lies about basic observed and measured phenomena

>>15121522
even the IPCC states carbon dioxide radiation forcing is about 0.3% of the incident radiation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098
>the per-molecule forcings are two to three orders of magnitude greater for O3, N2O and CH4, than those of H2O or CO2

>>15119391
Carbon is not a gas, pure carbon in our environment is either graphite or diamond outside of some research projects.

There are several gases including CO2 that contribute to the greenhouse effect. In fact all atmospheric gases contribute in one way or another to the greenhouse effect at different amounts. I don't understand why so many people are so attached to it not being real other than them being midwits convinced by dumb arguments by other midwits.

>>15121497
That's literally two data sets being combined, even though that makes the data completely worthless.

Remember, you are the carbon that they want to reduce.
The UN was founded for this purpose and the IPCC is their tool to achieve it.They think of you as cattle.

>>15121582
CO2 isn't a "greenhouse gas"
CO2 doesn't cause global warming on Mars
there is 2000% more CO2 on Mars than there is on Earth, if CO2 was a greenhouse gas then Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect.
Measurements of the greenhouse effect on Mars show that Mars has little to no greenhouse effect, therefore CO2 is ruled out as a "greenhouse gas"

>>15121539
Why are deniers such brainlets that don't read their sources?

1) This is modeling data of specific non-realistic scenarios.
>These calculations considered the case of a clear sky one dimensional atmosphere in
radiative-convective equilibrium

2)Claims of greenhouse saturation go against experimental evidence and paleoclimate data

3)This paper is not peer reviewed and the author is the head of a climate denier think tank funded by fossil fuel interests

>>15121701
oh boy another retarded deflection how original

>>15121703
there is nothing wrong with his calculations, you are just upset they dont conform with your prejudices
>climate denier
yes, im sure he denies the climate

>>15121717
Nothing wrong with them by themselves, the fact is that these are not observations and are inconsistent with observation.
Yet you are dismissive of climate models earlier in the thread and at the same time defend the results of climate models with dodgy authors that do not have peer review.

>>15121370
>Not a peer reviewed study,
>which in itself wouldn't be a problem but the author seems to have education in neuroscience as well as health & fitness.
>"T proxy" from the graph so robust that it barely correlates with recorded glacial/cool periods.

Into the trash it goes.

>>15121522

>>15122716
Good, you have no arguments

bump

if co2 is so bad why dont they just plant more trees?

>>15122855
The world has trees where they are because those are the places where they can grow.
Trees need light, water, soil nutrients to grow.
Also, it's a very slow way to change things, since for the first 20 years trees emit more CO2 via the bacteria in the ground, than they absorb from the air.
https://youtu.be/LDdKOmvIKyg?t=1m20s

>>15122939
there are other plants algae etc. the point is that climate change, global warming and gobal cooling are all scams and the current one's obsession with co2 does nothing to actually address it and worsens actual pollution by intentional driving industry abroad where they have laxer standards solely for those elites to profit both poltiically and financially.

>>15122945
Algae have very short lifespans, decompose extremely quickly and don't form woody structures so their ability to sequester CO2 is limited.

>>15122968
AGW is a scam.

>>15122970
>i have no argument

>>15123041
You can screech and cope all you want, but people are turning against you. This has been your daily reminder.

More CO2 in the atmosphere = more productive biosphere
Fossil fuels are essentially the dead + TRAPPED life essence of previous epochs of the Earth. It is not self-evident that it is inherently desirable for this carbon, this life-essence, to remain sequestered under ground or under the oceans.

It is humanity's destiny to free the ghosts of the trees + algae that formed fossil fuels, to exorcise their spirits and allow their life force back into the carbon cycle.

>>15119266
it's strawman, not "fake". also "global" refers to size, not time span

>>15119371
>>15119422
>>15120114
>>15121177
>>15121339
>>15121370
>>15121497
>>15121501
>>15121522

>>15123056
I can't understand why people don't realise this
do they think oil was always underground?

>>15119469
> CO2 is invisible to normal spectrum but opaque to infrared.
> When things cool down they radiate infrared.
So CO2 will let light in then be in the way on the way out.
So far nothing wild.

Now, what do you think happens if a bunch of extea CO2 gets released into the atmosphere? Will this extra gas have an effect you think?

The idea that no matter how much material we spew into nature we can habe no effect is frankly dumb. Especially since we have experience with it: Acid rain, smog, freon and the hole in the ozone.

It just follows logically. You add stuff to your environment you will affect it.

>>15119855
Oh yeah! Since a hydrocarbon can be really long the resulting CO2 can weigh quite a bit more than the chain.

Didn't think of that.

What's the weight ratio of O2 to CH2?

>>15119956
E=MC2 has nothing to do with chemical reaction like burning stuff...

This was proven ages ago. If you burn something in a closed environ then weigh all the gas and remains, exact same weight. No mass gets destroyed when burning.

>>15120031
That's the fallacy fallacy at work right there

>>15121042
Most of it is burps

>>15123108
>It just follows logically. You add stuff to your environment you will affect it.
No wonder normalgroids are so easy to manipulate. This is considered "logic" when you're a nonsentient.

>>15121307
> Lower temperatures cause worse issues

The issue is more about speed of change. Quick warming/cooling is troublesome. Slow is more manageable by animals and people alike.

This is why some of the worst most inhospitable deserts are the ones that freeze at night.

>>15123122
Yes it does, it's just too small for chemists to measure.

>>15123056
>More CO2 in the atmosphere
-excessive heat
-droughts
-wildfires

>>15121701
While mars has a higher percentage of its atmosphere be composed of carbon (95% from what I read)

It has a shit tonne less atmosphere to begin with. At only like 1% the atmo pressure as here on earth.

Just saying that might have an effect.

>>15123128
>word salad, no point

>>15123108
>It just follows logically. You add stuff to your environment you will affect it.
Every time I piss into the sea, I add some stuff into the marine environment. How many times should repeat it before the fish die from global warming? Or for a more relevant example, you keep shitting global warming propaganda onto this board. How many more posts will you have to write before 4chan changes its mind?

>>15122855
Algae would be a better solution. Then as it dies let it sink to the bottom of the ocean and get buried.
Sadly there's too much fish, the algae will just get eaten before it sinks to the bottom.

Maybe with current fishing trends there is hope someday though

>>15123137
>infographic spam
>>>/pol/

>>15123100
An explosion is just a lot of gas, but released really really fast.

The rate of release is important to consider. Life does not deal well with rapid change. Not big life at any rate, like us.

>>15123138
See the Ganges for an example of what you're asking.

>>15123128
So you suppose the world is too big to be affected?

What are you, a homeopathist?

>>15123146
So how many times should I piss into the sea before the fish die from global warming?

>>15123143
>oh noes, actual data
lol, you're a clown

>>15123146

>>15123150
What are you, thick?
See >>15123152

>implying carbon dioxide is bad
you should stop breathing then

>>15123167
>>15123133

>>15123160
How many times? Give me a number.

>>15123173
stop breathing then

>>15122968
did you miss the part of my post where the specific plant life is irrelevant.

>>15123167
>you should stop breathing then
Don't joke, this is the next stage of the green agenda. they will tax you for breathing to "save the planet" really not joking about this.

The best thing is when the people who say it's impossible for human activities to change the environment also say the government are using chemtrails to control the environment.

>>15119266
>Reminder that global warming is fake
the ozone is repairing itself

>>15121042
considering the obesity rate, fatties produce more co2, eat more food which is transported, use up more fuel when being transported, require more material to cloth, etc.

>>15123257
What an odd strawman.

>>15123291
It stops being so odd once you realize AGW believers are actually mentally ill and not just stupid.

>>15123297
Well it's a cult, a masochistic gnostic cult.

>>15123189
25 billion times

>>15123396
That means I won't make a real difference even if I take another piss into the sea every minute for the rest of my life. Didn't you tell me adding things into the environment will change it? It's logic.

>>15123401
Climate action isn't about individua decisions (though a lot of people think it is), it's about collective decision pushed through international agreements. Individuals on't do anything, groups might have an effect.

Regardless, even if nothing will be done, that doesn't change the truth of what's happening.

>>15119371
Unironically, what happened here, especially in 1590 to cause this drop?

Any theories?

>>15123429
I have no idea what your fully automated spergout is about. You told me I can modify the environment by adding things to it, so why did your subhuman "logic" fail?

>>15123433
They discuss this in the source paper.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgrd.50668

>3.4.1. Preindustrial
>This period of low CO2 coincides with high δ13C interpreted by the KFDD as terrestrial uptake, which could be caused by a decrease of the Northern Hemispheric or global surface temperature [Mann et al., 2008;Oppo et al., 2009] during the Little Ice Age. Trudinger et al. [1999] suggested that the lower temperature reduced both the release of CO2 (soil respiration) and the uptake (photosynthesis) of CO2 by the terrestrial biosphere, with the respiration reduction dominating, causing the terrestrial biosphere to accumulate carbon.

>>15123442
Wen the guy said "You'll affect the environment by putting shit into it" he wasn't talking about (you) specifically, retard. When billions of people pump billions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, it changes shit.

>>15119744
>Take out China, solve all the climate problems.
take out china and western civilization collapses, where do you think the shit you buy comes from, even shit made in america or europe, is made with chinese parts or tools built in china, them closing during covid fucked up most western production lines... lol. take out china, fucking retard... we should never have outsourced our industry, it was the biggest mistake in the history of human civilization, it was literally handing out our prosperity for a couple of decades of freebies

>>15123817
>we should never have outsourced our industry, it was the biggest mistake in the history of human civilization, it was literally handing out our prosperity for a couple of decades of freebies
>he thinks it was meraly a mistake and not outright treason dating back to before kissinger
cute

>elites create a fake narrative of "global warming" to control the masses
>they fund fake pro-global warming "research" that aims to "prove" their lie
>they also fund real anti-global warming research that casts doubt upon their own narrative for some reason
>they choose to keep their fake pro-GW "research" a secret and actively propagate their anti-GW research for 50 years because this helps them advance their goals for some reason
>then half a century later they purposely allow their double game to be exposed for massive bad publicity because this plays into their hands for some reason
>turns out their fake "research" had accurately predicted the last 50 years while their real research didn't
Truly 4d chess. I wonder what they'll come up with next.

>>15119330
>generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually
It's a very suspicious claim. Likely wrong
>while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Also likely wrong.

>>15123835
No one knows what your schizobabble is about but everyone knows that both your government handlers and their big business/banking financiers have been heavily funding AGW psychosis.

>>15123856
I think you lack reading comprehension.

>>15123875
I think you lack psychiatric medications.

>>15123835
>>15123856
meds

>>15123844
It’s directly measured so I don’t know why you’re simply denying it
>>15123856
Note that these people have yet to actually respond to data and evidence and just spam nonsense

>>15123949
Note that AGW is a known and documented scam funded by known and documented scammers. Any attempts to argue with it are equivalent to branding yourself as a nonsentient subhuman.

>>15123959
>it’s fake because I say so
Stay focused and address the evidence

>>15123969
All available evidence simply confirms that it's a scam.
>inb4 muh climatology studies
Your government-funded dumpster studies are invalid evidence for completely obvious reasons.

>>15123972
Why do you continue to post demonstrably false statements that are disproven in the thread already?

>>15123976
Climatology is a known and documented scam. I don't know what mental illness compels you to post "evidence" by scammers claiming that their scam is true, but you need to be shot.

>>15123980
Anon you're approaching this wrong, Treat it like he's in a pyramid scheme and you're trying to explain how it works. include how much it is costing him

>>15124025
You don't reason with a shill; you just cockblock it and prevent it from dumping its payload. You can and should contradict the shill's narrative with evidence, but you shouldn't confront the shill with it directly, because the shill will simply defame the authors, strawman the argument or outright lie to give the appearance of a successful deboonking. You should do your best to frustrate the shill and drown it out.

>>15123972
>>15123976
>>15123980
>>15124025
>>15124032
meds

>>15124032
You can't reason with a shill but by deconstructing it's motivations you educate observers

>>15123972
>direct atmospheric measurements are fake
Next level of cope right here

>>15124041
Trying to educate observers works better without a shill desperately attacking every single thing yu say and trying to drown you out with his own propaganda.

>>15124032
>>15124134
take meds

>>15124143
take SSRIs

>>15124134
That's why you have to humiliate them in the most degrading ways possible. Make their job hell. Remind them constantly that they're worthless parasites and that they're hated by everyone who sees them.

>>15124184
This would eventually breakdown anyone who isn't an actual psychopath.

>>15123835
let me tell you about the number "6,000,000"

>>15119473
mapping higher CO2 ppm to a specific raise in W/m2 of energy or warming is not understood by the moodelers

>>15119473
Why doesn't CO2 cause "the greenhouse effect" on Mars. Greenhouses are effective for their purpose because they have a physical barrier which inhibits convective cooling, how does CO2 produce a similar effect?

>>15123401
Simple answer. You're not alone in pissing.

If enough people piss, it'll have a noticeable effect.

Again as an example look at the Ganges. Altough there exist plenty other examples around as well.

Oh an even the drab amount of piss your manhood has an effect. It is however very minute and you personally are unlikely to notice anything until it's too late.

>>15123972
Which part of reality do you not ascribe to?

1. That human industry burns fossil fuels and release the resulting gases into the atmosphere
2. That CO2 in the atmosphere has a greenhouse effect

Or is it something else you base your stance on?

>>15124378
sup gpt-3

>>15124365
Mars barely has an atmosphere to speak of.

>>15124399
Ooh that's a fun deflection!

With "AI" being more and more mainstream it will likely become a mainstay deflwection on boards like this one huh.

That's funny

>>15124365
>Why doesn't CO2 cause "the greenhouse effect" on Mars.
It does. Why do you think it's doesn't?

>Greenhouses are effective for their purpose because they have a physical barrier which inhibits convective cooling, how does CO2 produce a similar effect?
Greenhouses allow sunlight to enter but prevent heat from leaving. CO2 does the same. No one is claiming CO2 Isa legal greenhouse that affects convention though. Why are your questions loaded with false premises?

>>15124321
It is though. It's directly observed.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585

>>15124448
0.53 ± 0.11 W/m2 is about 6x less than what climate models use as their "climate sensitivity" input

>>15119330
More like (((U.S. Geological Survey)))

>>15121701
>CO2 isn't a "greenhouse gas"
It is.

>CO2 doesn't cause global warming on Mars
It shows if it increases.

>there is 2000% more CO2 on Mars than there is on Earth, if CO2 was a greenhouse gas then Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect.
No. The majority of the greenhouse effect on Earth is from water vapor. There is no water vapor on Mars so it has a much smaller greenhouse effect. It is also farther away from the Sun and has much lower atmospheric pressure, which both reduce the greenhouse effect.

>>15124465
Instantaneous radiative forcing isn't climate sensitivity, so what is your point? You're comparing apples to oranges.

>>15119334
woah...

>CO2 creates greenhouse effect
>Humans releasing more CO2
>?????

It's not hard to grasp, why do deniers have so much trouble with a simple concept

>>15124573
How does CO2 reproduce the effect of a greenhouse? Greenhouses function because they have a solid physical barrier which inhibits convective cooling, how does CO2 produce the same effect as a gas?

>>15124586
>How does CO2 reproduce the effect of a greenhouse?
It doesn't reproduce the exact effect of a greenhouse, that is just a name since they are analogous effects. CO2 allows sunlight to pass through it and be absorbed by the Earth (like a greenhouse). That energy is then output as heat which unlike sunlight is absorbed and emitted by CO2. So some of the heat that was leaving the Earth is sent back towards it by CO2. (so it prevents heat from leaving, like a greenhouse). This means energy is leaving Earth's atmosphere at a slower rate than is entering it, which causes an increase in temperature. The only difference with a greenhouse is that a greenhouse prevents heat from escaping via convection, not radiation.

>>15124608
you put a lid on a pot of boiling water and the water doesn't get hotter, it only increases its rate of convection, gases behave similarly.

>>15124675
>you put a lid on a pot of boiling water and the water doesn't get hotter, it only increases its rate of convection
Of course the liquid water doesn't get hotter because it turns into vapor at the boiling point. That's a red herring. The total contents of the pot, which includes both liquid water AND air, gets hotter because less heat can escape via convection. That's why a covered pot heats up faster than an open pot. Nice try.

>>15124055
>direct atnospheric measurements next to miles of tarmac and in urban hotspots aren't reliable for climate modelling

>>15124746
Wrong.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD018509

>>15124675
you put a lid on a pan and the egg cooks on both sides faster

>>15124749
>you put a lid on a pan and the egg cooks on both sides faster
Only two sides to an egg?
Flat Egg Theory!

>>15124732
So you're saying that if the covered pot had uninhibited convection it would cool itself convectively like our atmosphere does

>>15124775
If you uncover the pot then more heat will escape by warm air escaping from the pot. Our atmosphere cools itself by radiating heat out into space, not by convection.

>>15119371
what about the rest? before 1000?

>>15124825
Young Earth Climate Change. There was nothing before 1000 AD and if you think there was you're not allowed to look at it.

>>15119266

>>15119330
Got a link from that survery? I'd love to read the literature and the methodology

>>15124825
See >>15121497

>>15121597
>even though that makes the data completely worthless.
How?

>>15124869
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/file_mngr/file-154/Gerlach-2011-EOS_AGU.pdf

>>15124896
>usgs.gov/
Government (funded by big oil) is the one pushing the whole "Global Climate Change" hoax.
So of course they will create and publish biased and falsified data to back up their money scam.

>>15124911
>biased and falsified data
Proof?

>>15124586

>>15124935
Reality and science. Are you now saying you are against the science and worship climate change cults instead of logic?
All religions are cults.

>>15124960
So no proof due your claims. That's what I thought.

>>15124960
>still no proof

>>15121501
>>15124825

>>15124964
>>15124965
Yes, there is no conclusive proof of Climate Change. That's why vast majority of people pay it no mind.
There is definitely no proof of AGW, in fact quite the opposite.

>>15119266
I want the Earth to be a greenhouse planet.

Open the Arctic trade routes please.

>>15124896
Do you have any legitimate proof? Non-government funded, as this anon mentioned.>>15124911

>>15124974
>Open the Arctic trade routes please.
That would definitely be good for humanity, and life on Earth in general. So much fossil fuel is wasted having to ship around the continents in a southern ocean route.

Most of civilzation is in the northern hemisphere, so an Arctic trade route would greatly benefit everyone.

>>15124979
>Do you have any legitimate proof?
Yes. See >>15124896

>Non-government funded, as this anon mentioned.>>15124911 #
No evidence was provided for the claim that this data is biased or falsified. It's just baseless denial.

>>15124973
>Yes, there is no conclusive proof of Climate Change.
There's plenty. You're lying and have no evidence or credibility behind your claims.

>>15119266
>Reminder that global warming is fake
Then why am I hot inside my house right now?

>>15125000
So you have no reliable data that proves global warming is real. Typical.

>>15124997
So you have no reliable unbiased scientific data. Check.

>>15119266
Literally the worst thread have ever seen on sci. There is no evidence you can present to these knuckle draggers that will get them to change their mind. They have a litany of excuses ready for any countervailing evidence. I wish climate change could be accelerated 100 fold time just so these mouthbreathers couldn't communicate their mental diarrhea to anyone else. I don't know why anyone even attempts to get through to them.

>>15119371
They're dumb niggers who can't cope with reality.

Climate deniers should unironically be sterilised.

>>15125015
>So you have no reliable data that proves global warming is real.
Your lying again, I already have it to you.

>>15125018
I do. See >>15124997

>>15125038
AI anon , you cannot keep pointing to the same lame source and "evidence" of AGW when it has been deboooked and is not accepted as valid. Your AI programmer should write some new code for you.

>>15125032
>Your lying again
"Your"
You cannot even grasp 2nd grade English, and you expect anyone to take you seriously? KEK!
Are you a mentally ill troon by the way?

>>15121177
>(((adjusted))) temp data
not reality. not an argument.

>>15125020
>>15125028
Meds now.