/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15185286
"Ohmugherd! Muh ocean-front mansions! The beaches are expanding and I'll be in the dunes soon! Common people will have more legal access to the beaches and ruin my view! Muh property values!"

Guess Obama and Gore will have to relocate their $40 Million dollar houses.

>>15185294
>Gore
that veritable nigger made literal billions from his scam film.

>>15185286
ruh roh
we need to pollute more it seems

>>15185301
Have to hand it to that lurchy blocky idiot, he knows how to scam the public.

>>15185309
>pollute
Doesn't have anything to do with climate change. Seperate issue.

CO2 and Water Vapor are not "pollution".

>>15185315
CO2 doesn't matter at all with the climate?

>>15185317
Very little

>>15185322
something tells me you're bullshitting me, how can a major component of the atmosphere not matter in the climate?
if it doesn't what should we pollute then to stop this sea level rise?

>>15185324
Because its contribution is miniscule. all you're really going to achieve is maybe more plant growth, on the other hand the water vapour cycle is locked in a feed back loop with cloud cover and illumination.

>>15185324
how can a major component of the atmosphere be measured in ppm?

>>15185340
I don't know, I know jackshit about geology and climate science
but are you trying to imply CO2 isn't a major component of the atmosphere?

>>15185324
>how can a major component of the atmosphere
>he doesn't know

>>15185341
0.04% of the atmosphere's composition is CO2. There's over 20x more Argon gas than CO2.

>>15185341
It's 0.04%

>>15185348
>>15185349
wow what the fuck
then what the absolute shit is this narrative that it's so important?
i mean, sure media is a retarded machine, but what about the scientists saying it

>>15185353
Because the media machine you receive your information through is controlled by the very iinterests that benefit from their "consensus" narrative.

>>15185286
>sea level is lower in 1 small region
>therefore its lower everywhere

>>15185353
>then what the absolute shit is this narrative that it's so important
Because it still has a warming effect even though its a small fraction of the atmosphere. By comparison, Potassium is only 0.4% of your body weight, but its important to how it functions.

>>15185353
>but what about the scientists saying it
the ones who refuse to say it lose their jobs

>>15185324
>how can a major component of the atmosphere not matter in the climate?
Less than .001% of the atmosphere idiot.
You have been brainwashed and scammed and you just don't want to admit you got played for a fool yo.

>>15185353
not only, that, but CO2 is nearly all of Mars' atmosphere and the same scientists who say a few ppm of CO2 is going to turn earth into a fireball also have found that there is no CO2 induced global warming on Mars.

>>15185451
>Potassium is only 0.4% of your body weight, but its important to how it functions.
>the atmosphere is a living organism that depends on electrical conductivity between atmospheric cells to function!
Bwahahahahhaha

>>15185286
Thule rises.
We are going to complete German Idealism.

>>15185505
>the ones who refuse to say it lose their jobs
Yes, this is official ipcc policy going by their history

>>15185505
>Mr. Goldberg murders dissenting scientists
REDPILLED comic

>>15185353
High CO2 levels can reduce cognitive function.

>>15185774
When experimenters say "high" they mean 100s of times what the ppm CO2 could ever be in the atmosphere.

>>15185555
>all of Mars' atmosphere
almost nothing

>>15185781
Still more by volume of gas than is in Earth's atmosphere, even at the reduced pressure. So why does it have zero CO2 greenhouse effect? Does the behavior of gas change based on whether there's tax dollars on the planet or not?

>>15185784
>tax dollars
All racism, climate issues, pollution, scams, immigration/emigration, gender, pride and hate, etc. revolve around taxes/government.

It's almost like government causes all the problems in the world, but that couldn't be, because only saints form the governments.

>>15185341
It's a moderately potent greenhouse gas. Not as potent as water or methane, but still pretty good. The first 200 ppm in the atmosphere is responsible for most of its contribution to the greenhouse effect. The next 200 ppm is going to have much less of a contribution because of the Beer-Lambert Law. So almost all of the warming that the Earth would experience from CO2 is already there. Going from 0 to 200 ppm gets you 12 W/m2. Going from 200 to 400 ppm gets you to 15 W/m2. This is supposedly what has happened in the last 150 years. Going to 800 ppm would get you to around 21 W/m2. I'm not worried about that.

>>15185823
yeah, C02 is a non-issue. Just more hype to extract wealth from morons.

>>15185784
>zero CO2 greenhouse effect?
Mars isn't like the Moon. The night side isn't 100s of degrees colder than the day side.

>>15185286
>OP provides information that doesn't support their claims
>A dozen 80 IQ Pol posters show up and start parroting their retard-babble.

This could describe 50% of /sci/ threads.

>melt ice cube in glass of water
>water level goes down

>melt ice cube in ocean
>water level goes up

doomsday cultists: explain yourselves.

Most ice that is at risk of melting into the oceans sits on land.
There is also thermal expansion.

>>15185322
Yes it does. It’s interactions with infrared radiation are physical property of the gas

>every single last thread and post on /sci/ doesn't cater to my whims and desires, this is the end of the world
>i cannot be satisfied if only half of the posts on /sci/ are of interest to me
you get what you pay for and 4chan is free, so if theres any good content at all here then its a bargain. 50% good threads, all free, why are you complaining?

>>15185353
It’s obvious what you’re doing here playing dumb

>>15185823
The thing is that we’re not even close to that why are you posting easily disproven claims.

>>15185555
If only we didn’t have observational data on it’s forcing you might get away with your lies

>>15185906
They have to play both sides of the argument to make the threads look real.

The jannies tolerate it because since ads site traffic is their primary consideration. This behaviour is easily exploited if you have a method of posting under multiple up addresses.

>>15185914
Bot spamming more fake science graphs.

>>15185910
>>15185914
These bot posts are spammed in every thread btw.

>>15185917
You know CO2s interactions with infrared have been known since the 1800s right?

>>15185906
>>15185915
No, I wasn't playing dumb
I really know shit about any of this
I'm aware that /sci/ for some reason has been flooded with /pol/ and /x/ fags alongside the resident schizos that have always been here
Sucks I decided to come to this board at the worst time
>>15185917
>>15185920
do you have a point/argument that isnt
>bot
>fake

>>15185920
And yet you fail to post arguments beyond saying that empirical observations are fake

>>15185925
So you posted all of those questions as well as all of the graphs?

>>15185928
If they were real you wouldn't need to run a bot to shill the same graphs with the same post text constantly. There would be more evidence than that.

>>15185931
nope
I don't get why you're even conflating me with that since the thread makes it clear carbon isn't even close to the issue and the climate isn't really changing..

>>15185928
>arguments
Only people who are unsure or ignorant "argue".
Arguing is for women, children, and talk shows.

>>15185938
Well if you know that then I don't see what your issue is?

>>15185944
Well, the points made when I asked my questions were good and made me realize what bullshit the narrative is
But I think calling people bots and saying data is fake doesn't help anyone, right?
If we want the truth we can't just dismiss or derail by saying such things

>>15185286
You’re purposely misrepresenting real research out malice. Regional sea level change is influenced by many factors love erosion rates and tectonic subsidence or uplift. For example in places like the the northern US and Canada lovely sea level is falling because the crust is still rebounding from the ice sheet that used to cover the region. Eustatic sea level is indeed rising and quantified by the loss of the arctic ice sheets in Greenland.

>>15185938
The graph is stale pasta and also debunked. Most of us aren't autistic enough to repeat the same arguments every thread.

These threads are a psyop.

>>15185947
It’s not though. The effects of the CO2 are well quantified and directly observed. Note how no one is posting any data.

>>15185947
>But I think calling people bots and saying data is fake doesn't help anyone, right?
Demoralizing the people who constantly derail good threads is called gatekeeping. It's a net positive for the board and for society to make sure they feel unwelcome when they trot out the same old religious arguments.

>>15185950
>observational data is fake because I say so
Great arguments being done here. You’re denying a simple plot of CO2 vs temperature that clearly shows we’re not even close to saturation of the greenhouse effect.

>>15185954
>Note how no one is posting any data.
Because AWG = pseudo science, political bullshit. There is no legitmate data supporting it.

Follow the money. It is a scam by rich elitists and corporations-government.

>>15185956
>says the guy who hasn’t posted any data and is repeating arguments from the oil funded Heartland Institute

>>15185958
Correlation != causation.

>>15185963
>oil funded
Exactly, same people who push the AGW climate change crap, so they can raise gas prices.

Government goes along with the "climate change" big-oil grift because it means more tax revenue for them to stick in their pockets and slush funds for pork barrel politics.

Badlands chugs is back at it again

>>15185965
You posted graphs about the theoretical greenhouse effect saturation and I showed that based on observations that state hasn’t been reached. Is that your argument, that simple observations are wrong?
Also it is indeed causation since he spectra of radiation from the atmosphere clearly shows it

>>15185990
>Also it is indeed causation since he spectra of radiation from the atmosphere clearly shows it
The empirical data regarding CO2 says that's not the case. Therefore it's a spurious correlation.

>>15185965
>Muh undergrad college kiddies level anecdotal argument
Omg also there's that saying "the father doesn't falls long from the tree" and whatnot
Woah dude science dud

>>15185992
Again lying about basic observations?

>>15185997
This alleged graph, with no source or methodology, is contradictory to empirically observed, laboratory-controlled results. What you're doing is not science.

>>15185309
I'll get right on throwing more batteries into the ocean, champ

>>15185336
>miniscule contribution
I'd hardly call something required for plant life miniscule. You can hire companies to seed clouds and use EM radiowaves to affect clouds. The latter is more military tech.

>>15185852
Don't forget the sperglords that keeps coming back to this site despite getting triggered all the time (p.s. I'm talking about people like you and the other clowns getting mad in this thread).

>>15186003
Are you seriously suggesting that the greenhouse effect can’t be observed in the lab? It’s been known since the late 1800s. You can even replicate it at home.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174548
https://edu.rsc.org/experiments/modelling-the-greenhouse-effect/1543.article

>>15186035
The greenhouse factor of CO2 has a well-known limit in an atmosphere with the conditions of Earth's. Those experiments do not disprove settled science, their more advanced counterparts agree with it.

>>15186044
And yet observational evidence shows that is not the case. Why do you keep deflecting?
>>15185823
>>15185910

>>15186044
>>15186054
The saturation of the greenhouse effect is real but you purposely misrepresent it since we know that limit is not close to being reached.

>>15185938
>carbon isn't even close to the issue and the climate isn't really changing
That's not true though

>>15185353
Even at that concentration it's effects are very real

>>15186095
has causation and correlation been proved?
nothing else could be causing climate changes?

>>15186116
It's never been sufficiently explored. We only just recently discovered that electromagnetic coupling with the Sun caused Jupiter's anomalous heating since the 1970s.

>>15186116
The ability of CO2 to re-emit infrared radiation is an intrinsic property of the gas vibrating with specific wavelengths. It was discovered long before people knew about the climate. It has also been directly observed to increase with the atmospheric concentration increase due to emissions. this is a simple observable empirical fact.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174548
Climate dynamics are extremely complicated but the greenhouse effect is a pretty simple concept.
>>15186122
Stop misrepresenting and answer the questions above about how the saturation state of the greenhouse effect has not been reached.

>>15186134
>Stop misrepresenting and answer the questions above about how the saturation state of the greenhouse effect has not been reached.
I don't see why I would care to. Experiments performed on other planets in the solar system have shown that the largest part of Earth's energy budget isn't even governed by atmospheric chemistry.

Take your shilling back to >>/reddit/ or wherever people seriously buy this nonsense.

>>15186134
>>15186116
Additionally
>https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

>>15186136
>Ah yes, Jupiter is such a good analog to the Earth but I'll ignore the mountains of observations here

>>15186144
Every other planet with a strong magnetic field experiences auroral heating and has shown an anomalous increase in atmospheric heating over the last 50 years irrespective of the presence of tax-paying life. Why is it that Earth is the only one where the energy input hasn't been tracked?

>>15186134
>gas vibrating with specific wavelengths.
kek
sounds mystical and hokuspokusy.

>>15186146
Neither solar irradiance nor cosmic ray flux which has absolutely been measured in the Earth are responsible for the modern warming.
Even then cosmic rays seeding clouds would be an albedo cooling forcing, not warming.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035049
You were soundly BTFO in a previous thread when you claimed this where I graphed raw temperatures and there was no increased temperatures accompanying CMEs.
Also you keep deflecting about the greenhouse saturation because you know yoou were caught lying.

>>15186196
Here's the figure since I know you won't read the research

>>15186196
You don't even know what you're talking about if you think those are relevant statistics. You need to go back to school, or maybe reddit.

>>15186203
Nice refutation bro

>>15186210
You're so far from forming a single argument that refutation is irrelevant. Your constant shilling of this board is unwanted and is only making you and your masters look worse. No-one is interested in indulging you by doing the work to constantly BTFO you again and again, it's much more effective to humiliate and deride you.

>>15186203
what are the relevant statistics?
you cant just say that man

>>15186215
He's using graphs of cosmic rays and solar irradiance (visible light) to try to refute a point made about solar auroral heating, which is caused by a direct infusion of electric charge from the Sun into a planet's magnetic field. Consider it something like the heating element of a toaster being activated by mains voltage.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2021/juno-jupiter-auroral-heating

This kind of heating is also a cause of destabilized polar vortices like we see on Earth, suggesting a strong causative effect behind modern weather changes.

>>15186213
>data directly disproves your claims
>whine about conspiracies
Seems about right
>>15186215
Those are the relevant data. His claims are demonstrably wrong Note he has yet to post any himself.

>>15186217
Also FWIW NASA tracks solar energy input wrong for some reason. They completely neglect some forms of energy input such that on days with severe solar storms the energy input appears to decline because irradiance is lower despite the overall real energy input being higher.

>>15186217
If you think Jupiuter is in any way an analog to the Earth in atmospheric composition or magnetic field strength then you're completely hopeless. The data from this planet disproves it.

>>15186218
Face it man, you're finished. No amount of solo shilling will make you right. In 10 years your best outlook is that nobody will even remember you said the things you did.

>>15186221
You're seething so hard you can't even spell, let alone show me with any real data why magnetic heating never happens on Earth. You have no evidence to contradict my claims and you understand the subject so little that you never will.

>>15185294
>Ohmugherd
2008 /b/ wants its meme back

>>15186220
I have already plotted raw daily temperature and there were no effects in the dates with CMEs. Stop lying

>>15186230
>>15186222
Even in the giant CME in the 1850s event there's no appreciable warming to be seen. You should be able to produce data to support your claims right?

>>15186224
You should easily be able to produce such data showing correlations of CMEs with temperatures seeing as there are public datasets of both upper atmosphere and surface temperatures.

>>15186217
i see
makes sense logically
>>15186230
>>15186234
but this seems like there isn't a correlation

>>15186245
Using Jupiter as an analog of the Earth is nonsensical, heating caused by CME's should be readily evident in the data and it clearly isn't.

Do people actually care about “”climate change””? I’ve seen nothing of the sort when I go outside.

>>15186134
>It was discovered long before people knew about the climate
1856
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Newton_Foote#Scientific_career

global warming is fake

You're still posting after getting BTFO?

>>15186384
>his source of information is a woman

>>15187772
Yeah this AGW shill is shameless isn't he? He slinks away only to come back and try to pretend he's not being ridiculed and laughed at.

>>15185959

>>15188682
go back

>>15188766
Does it ever occur to you that if every thread on every board is full of posters and posts that upset you deeply, maybe you don't belong on this website? :^)

>>15185286

>>15186134
>The ability of CO2 to re-emit infrared radiation is an intrinsic property of the gas vibrating with specific wavelengths.
imagine something presumes that they understand the quantum nature of molecular interactions with photons and then they tell you that molecules vibrate at the frequency of the photons they emit

>>15185286
Good. This is Planet EARTH. Not planet SEA. Earthchads RISE UP! REJECT THE SEA MENACE

>>15186230
>>15186234
nta but CMEs aren't the only non-luminance thing the sun does - CMEs don't appear to impact Jupiter's auroral heating either, FWIW