/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15314336
post your tfw face when you realize that ppl dumb enough to believe in global warming are also to dumb to make heads or tails of your chart.

>>15314336
Looks like temperature anomaly(green line) follows CO2 decently closely. What are you try to say OP?

>>15314384
>Looks like temperature anomaly(green line)
Black line.

>>15314386
Green line.
It says so on the right side of the image.

>>15314367
Wow, you were right! He really is too dumb to read it! >>15314395

>>15314386
>>15314395
These are two different studies.
So either Marcott is a faggot or Liu is.

I like Marcott's science better since black lines matter.

>>15314336
>>15314367
>>15314386
>>15314397
Here.
Seeing as you obviously don't look at the images you post. You're probably bots. But just in case you aren't, I made an edit that makes it more clear.

>>15314433
Oof, he can't even get it the second time. How embarrassing.

>>15314336
>>15314367
>>15314397
>>15314438
>>15314455
Okay you obvious bot. What change was made to the image in? >>15314433

>>15314462
Haha no way schizo. Is the bot in the room with you right now?

>>15314336
>Marcott temperature data blatantly mislabeled and missing data
>CO2 caps at 290 ppm when we're at 420 ppm now
Why do you post falsehoods and think no one will call you out on it?

>>15314475
This is what the same data but correctly plotted looks like

>>15314475
>>15314476
11:00 is awfully late at night for you to be working isn't it? Do they really make you do night shifts in the DC field office?

>>15314478
No arguments as per usual

>>15314480
Argue about what? Nobody cares about your fraud anymore. We're just going to laugh at you when you post it.

>>15314336
>also Liu's data on a completely different scale

>>15314482
Why is the Marcott data tampered with?

>>15314488
Why would I know the reason you tampered with your data? I'm not a psychic.

>>15314490
The Holocene optimum was 0.4C warmer in Marcott's paper. Why did you raise it to 1.1C?

>>15314494
Why are you having schizophrenic delusions that you're talking with a single anon in a thread with multiple posters? Is there some reason why you fear that other posters here are the result of a bot or shill farm?

>>15314336
Who is S.A.Marcott et al. and why haven't they been banned from twitter yet ?

>>15314499
Don't deflect with bullshit. Why has the Marcott temperature data been maliciously mislabeled from his paper?

>>15314507
You're a paranoid schizophrenic having a delusional episode. The conspiracy against you and the evidence you believe exists is all in your head.

>>15314476
looks like bullshit; whys it like a little tail that suddenly makes the water spread up

>>15314511
Why do you refuse to answer such a simple question?

>>15314555
There is no question to answer. You're having a delusional episode and I'm trying to talk you down.

>>15314557
The data is clearly tampered from its original values in the paper. It's a pretty simple question.

>>15314563
I'm not a psychic, anon. I don't know why you would tamper with the data. All I know is that you need to seek help.

Scientifically speaking, why do people with grandiose delusions lie that the globe is going to become insanely hot because of an invisible gas?

Fact is humans dug shit from the ground to burn it.
All of that is carbon and water in the air.
Actually how much extra water did we made from burning oil? Everybody talks about the CO2 Nobody talks about the H2O

>>15314833
So not only are we making the planet more fertile by increasing the food for plants, we're also making it more fertile by increasing the available water vapor? Is there any technology that has improved life on Earth as much as the steam engine?

>>15314478
DC licks crude off the floor. They just bailed out oil-fueled technological ~~banks~~ DePoSiTs, frogposter.

>>15314849
All of the banks they bailed out were ESG investors, heavily capitalized in abolishing oil production and "green" energy scams.

>>15314384
This is a typical case of a confounding factor being in play. You can’t possibly argue CO2 went up by human activity in the Holocene, so something else is driving global temperature. What this chart in fact tells us is that this factor is driving both CO2 levels and global temperatures.

Temperature <-> confounding factor <-> CO2.

But what can the confounding factor be? What factor or factors could cause our planet to heat up and release CO2?

>>15314866
this.
It is either the Sun or geomagnetism.
Whatever it is is something powerful.
Not CO2 and most certainly not human-produced CO2.

>>15314455
I have the better graph.
I'll wait for the officialist explanation.

>>15314336
How can scientists claim to possibly know what the temperature was like 11,000 years ago? Just seems like sophistry.

>>15314936

Ice cores

>>15314941
But you have no way to verify that they give you accurate information because you can’t go back in time and test whether the extrapolations from the ice cores match up with reality. How do you know your tool is effective if you can’t even test it? Plus the trapped air in the ice cores only gives you information about the “greenhouse gases” so to extrapolate temperature from that assumes you already know all of the factors that go into determining temperature. Plus it assumes you know the exact age of the ice cores, you know that the laws of nature remained constant over all that time, you know that environmental and geological factors remained essentially the same. Sure it’s a hypothesis but to put it on a graph and display it as fact smacks of an extreme lack of intellectual humility.

>>15314476
LMAO, sombody s fucking with the data

>>15314948
There are many more temperature proxies than ice cores and yes those variables are known to a given uncertainty.

>>15314866
>the greenhouse effect isn’t a measured and quantified reality
Ok dude

>>15314933
>yet another purposely mislabeled graph
The end of that data is at 1883, not “today”
I’m seeing a pattern of behavior here

>>15315021
if it be that way then why isn't there any measurable greenhouse effect of mars, which has 2000% more co2 per unit surface are than earth does?
do the laws of physics work differently on mars?

>>15315044
Mars has less than 1% of the atmospheric pressure of the Earth and lacks the presence of water vapor, which has a positive feedback mechanism with CO2. But you already knew that, didn’t you?
Increasing greenhouse forcing has been directly measured for more than a decade at this point.

>>15315067
>Increasing greenhouse forcing has been directly measured for more than a decade at this point.
only in the replication crisis journals, in irl there has been no significant change in the climate going back at least half a century other than minor variations resulting from the solar cycles.
>i'm gonna save the world from an imaginary problem which does not exist
>then everyone will owe me bigtime!
>i'll finally get the respect i know i deserve
Munchausen syndrome by proxy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_another

>>15315097
Do you have any specific arguments against a direct measurement or are you just posting easily disproven nonsense?
>no significant changes over the last 50 years
Ok dude

>>15315010
Then why are the estimates so varied in the OP chart? If scientists can’t even figure out simple questions like does eating red meat cause heart attacks why do you think they can go back thousands of years into the past and tell you with exact precision what the temperature was back then? This whole theory relies on an extreme over-estimation of the capabilities of reason.

>>15315118
As I previously posted, the data in the OP is maliciously mislabeled from the research team’s paper. >>15314475
Go read the literature and see what their calculated uncertainties are and where they come from. They’re are graphed in the original paper’s figure.
Here’s the locations and types of proxies used.

>>15315021
Look up what confounding factor is. The greenhouse effect may have a minor role to play but how substantial is it when historically increased CO2 levels have been the result of increasing temperatures rather than the cause of rising temperatures.

>>15314929
I have never thought of geomagnetism before.

>>15315141
>I’ll keep posting blatantly false statements
Are you seriously suggesting emissions aren’t real you retard?

>>15315117
thats just lines and words on a jpeg, anyone an fake that shit real easy, them replication crisis journals are filled with all sorts of fake data graphics, lmao that you think they're real.
>omg lines and dots on a jpeg!
>this has got to be real!!!
low iq

>>15315149
Now adjust for the Y-axis so origo is at zero and stretch out the X axis a couple of thousands of years.

>>15315141
Furthermore, yes the greenhouse effect is the demonstrably the main causal mechanism for increasing global temperatures. The problem with taking a single ice core and treating it’s temperature as global is that while CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and ice cores can represent the global ppm, temperatures from the ice core are specific to the site. For example we know Antarctica is warming at a different rate than the rest of the planet due to the strong circumpolar current in the southern hemisphere.

>>15315149
What did you think this would show exactly?

>>15315155
>>15315161

>>15315157
How come CO2 concentrations haven’t been the main cause previously? Historically increased CO2 is just an effect of an increase in temperature. In other words you have the order of causality reversed.

>>15315161
>different methods before and after 1958. I see so if ice core data have a lower resolution than Mauna Loa data the model is junk. Now add temperatures so we can all see once again that rise in temperatures supersede that of CO2.

>>15315043
I don't care. I want the explanation for the massive lag of hundreds/thousands of years between temp and CO2.

>>15315173
The causal mechanism is the greenhouse effect. This is a basic property of CO2s interactions with incoming infrared radiation. This is a demonstrated fact that has been observed for CO2 way back before people knew what climate change was.
The glacial interglacial cycles show an interplay of the global carbon cycle with Milankovich cycle triggers. This was mostly driven by the drawdown and release of CO2 from the deep ocean. This is verified by the isotopic composition of the CO2.
We have dumped so much CO2 into the atmosphere that we have increased the concentration 100+ppm over what it usually goes up to in an interglacial period. This completely overhauls the carbon cycle and overpowers the Milankovich-carbon cycle interplay with the vastly increasing additional greenhouse forcing. Again, these have been measured and quantified.

>>15315198
>the greenhouse effect
greenhouses function because they have a solid, physical barrier which prevents convective cooling. nothing in a gaseous state can reproduce that effect.

>>15315198
To iterate:
> different methods before and after 1958.
I see so if ice core data have a lower resolution than Mauna Loa data the model is junk. Now add temperatures so we can all see once again that rise in temperatures supersede that of CO2.

The nation that we haven’t experienced higher CO2 levels are based on the assumption that ice core have a high enough resolution to detect spikes similar to what we are seeing today. If that’s not the case then you are comparing different ”groups” with different resolution.

How is CO2 absorbed into ice? Isn’t there a saturation level that effectively makes ice core data incomparable with data taken directly from the atmosphere?

>>15315201
Oh boy an fundamental lack of understanding of how the greenhouse effect works, how surprising.
When CO2 is hit by infrared it reflects it back to the surface this is either by incoming infrared from the sun or emitted by black body radiation from the planet.
>>15315021
Once again, a measured and quantified phenomenon.

>>15315207
We can absolutely determine that the ice cores accurately capture the atmospheric concentration of CO2. This is verifiable with in situ CO2 measurements from the atmosphere at the site of the ice cores. Anthropogenic CO2 is also visible in more shallower ice core records.

>>15315215
>>15315207
If you lack understanding of these methodologies maybe don’t call them junk.

>>15315215
How much CO2 can be absorbed in ice? There has to be a limit. Kindly answer the question using whatever formulae you prefer.

>>15315207
Furthermore, temperature proxies have the ability to resolve climate perturbations caused by volcanic eruptions. They certainly have the resolution necessary to assess these changes.

>>15315221
The CO2 is not “absorbed” it’s trapped in air bubbles and extracted in cryogenic grinders without melting the ice so gasses that are within the ice itself are not in the analysis. Maybe read up on the literature and methodology first.

>>15315222
How can you tell without actually knowing the atmospheric CO2? Your chart can be purely explained by CO2 concentrations in ice/water reaching a saturation limit making the resolution of ice core unsuitable for comparisson with direct atmoshperic CO2 measurements.

>>15315226
That post you’re replying to references temperature proxies, not CO2.
Either way I just posted how CO2 measurements from trapped ice accurately reflect the atmosphere concentration as demonstrated with direct atmospheric measurements at the site. Once again, I’m telling you to go read the literature and methodology involved. Your ignorance on the subject doesn’t mean these methods don’t work.

>>15315232
More data on the subject

>>15315225
The air bubbles are obviously from CO2 being disolved by the water.
CO2(g)+ H2O(l) —> H2CO3(l)
Obviously the reverse reaction happen but the CO2 is still in a medium (water). This is just semantics from your part. As a consequence the CO2 measurement will have a saturation threshold but you don’t seem to know what that limit is so I’m wasting my time here. I conclude that ice core data is a flawed method as atmospheric CO2 once high enough will stay in the atmosphere rather than disolve into liquids, meaning CO2 will decrease only gradually with the temperature as a result of other forms of CO2 absorption (non oceanic water, photosynthesis etc).

>>15315232
>direct atmospheric measurement at the site
Yeah we travelled 100,000 year back and took an atmospheric sample of CO2.

>>15315237
This chart have a higher resoution than the chart previously posted. Are you saying they have one CO2 ice core reading of every year 100,000 years back?

>>15315239
Seems that you’re arguing out of ignorance on the subject and refuse to see the data that I posted on how on modern ice measurements the trapped CO2 accurately captures the atmospheric concentration on the site. Dissolved gasses are not measured in these analyses, only the bubbles. Read up in the subject because you’re clearly making baseless assumptions.

>>15315250
The bubbles are from disolved H2CO3(l)—> H20(l) + CO2(g). In other words it is fully dependent on the mediums ability to absorb CO2. Given a temperature, atmospheric pressure and concentration of reactants there will be a threshold after which a diminishing amount of atmospheric CO2 is disolved in water. This atmospheric CO2 then ends up elsewhere, for instance in plants and microbes by photosynthesis.

>>15315254
>The bubbles are from disolved H2CO3(l)—> H20(l) + CO2(g)
This is simply wrong. You're describing CO2 dissolution in liquid water. If you're referring to ice diffusion and gas exchange, CO2 diffusivity dampening of the signal maxes out at around 5% for ice as old as 1.5 Million years, beyond the ice cores posted in this thread.
You should really read up on the subject.

>>15315208
You don't own a greenhouse and have never operated one. I own three, heres how they work:
When it gets too hot inside, you open the roof and the hot gasses all evacuate real fast, because you're removed the impediment that was preventing convective cooling.
If I could get that same effect with a gas, then I could greenhouse hundreds of acres very easily by blowing gas around and grow crops all winter long, but it doesn't work that way, because gasses are subject to convection.
"The greenhouse effect" in the context of atmospheres is a retarded concept which hinges on ignorance of the function of actual greenhouses.

>>15315284
So just because you don't like the name, you're denying the properties of CO2 when exposed to infrared radiation? Truly a galaxy brain take

>>15315288
The terminology was intentionally selected in order to create a false equivalency and deceive those unfamiliar with greenhouses to misconstrue it's meaning. Resorting to that type of deception isn't something honest people do, but it is something those intent on malicious manipulation engage in routinely.

>>15314336
https://youtu.be/1sFyrfqTdcg

>>15315239
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>15315329
This is nonsense has has zero to do with the discussion we we’re having before. Why do you people always do the same thing when caught lying?

>>15314455
Except that tipping points occur all the time in weather and climate where the natural oscillations go out of sync.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/14/1041321/climate-change-ocean-atlantic-circulation/

Even if a tipping point doesn't occur, it turns out that adding a few degrees to the climate every few years isn't going to go so well in the long-term.

>>15314455
>bro why care about the end of the world if it might not even happen?
Except that tipping points occur all the time in weather and climate where the natural oscillations go out of sync.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/14/1041321/climate-change-ocean-atlantic-circulation/

Even if a tipping point doesn't occur, it turns out that adding a few degrees to the climate year-on-year isn't going to go so well in the long-term.

>>15315161
>mixing incomparable datasets
so this is the power of climate scientists

>>15315565
Why is it incomparable?
The modern instrumental data is averaged to the same effective resolution as the ice cores and and I showed how the anthropocentric spike of greenhouse gasses is already captured in the ice cores.
I just gave a pretty detailed explanation with accompanying data earlier.

>>15315208
>how the greenhouse effect works
The main contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor. And I don't see any politician complaining about water emissions.

>>15315724
>water emissions.

>>15315724
Yes, because we can't control water vapor in the atmosphere, however the amount of water vapor is a function of a positive feedback loop with CO2. That one we can control.

>>15315247
Since I know you won't actually read the data, I went ahead and graphed ice core based CO2 measurements and did a 100 year and 200 year resolution sampling, showing that even at those resolutions the anthropocentric signal is clearly visible. The red dot is CO2 ppm today.

Keep in mind that it took more than 7,000 years to increase CO2 by 70ppm from 18k to 11k years and that's the at the fastest interglacial warming rate.
Even lowering the resolution of the data an 80 ppm increase in CO2 happened in the span of 400 years.

>>15314849
1. Oil production doesn’t stop. It just gets monopolised by “government-certified” companies. It is an anti-competitive measure, because now if you as a small entrepreneur want to start an oil company to compete with the big players it will be virtually impossible unless you have a huge team of lawyers and lobbyists to skirt government regulation. It therefore protects the big oil companies, not harms them.

>>15314849
>>15315787
2. Unlike Kings, who gain their legitimacy from ancient custom, democratic politicians gain their legitimacy from their supposed “energy”. They must always be seen to be doing something: waging some war, saving us from some catastrophe, redistributing wealth, imposing regulations and taxes. A monarch didn’t have to do anything to prove his legitimacy; it was recognised by custom and heritage, which is why even women and children could become rulers. A politician on the other hand always needs to prove his usefulness to society to retain legitimacy. It is therefore necessary in a democracy for there to be constant crises, whether fabricated or real, to keep the public in a state of fear so they look to the state to save them. By this means politicians and oligarchs in bed with the state increase their power and crush competition.

This explains why they constantly fabricate/exaggerate crises: 9/11, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Coronavirus, racial conflict, and most importantly the climate narrative. This last one justifies their very existence because they claim it cannot be solved by private initiative and can only be solved through technocratic state coercion. It gives them free rein to regulate almost every single industry (from farms to car manufacturers to electronics companies to electricity providers to waste disposal companies to anything you can imagine) and even private individuals (eat bugs!).

In short, it gives the justification for the oligarchs and technocrats who are in charge of the state structure —- the managerial elite — to take full control of society, a fully dictatorial socialist regime ruled by technocrats. This is exactly what Schwab means by “you will own nothing and you will be happy”. In a word: it is the justification for the Mark of the Beast.

Does this prove that climate change isn’t real? No. But it demolished the simplistic “muh oil companies” argument.

>>15315067
>Venus has the coldest north/ south poles in the solar system.

>>15315117
You have no correlation to CO2 and temperature except re-describing it in line form.

>>15315288
>So just because you don't like the name, you're denying the properties of CO2 when exposed to infrared radiation?
"Inert gas". Now throw out one of your accurate descriptions and classify it as an explanation using coping mechanism. How about you fill in the rest of the puzzle regarding "Light the electromagnetic waveform" and tell us what CO2 does when exposed the rest of the spectrum of light that hits us?
Then when you tell us what that does perhaps you could also tell us what properties CO2 has when it's eaten by the blanket of diatoms that cover every body of water on earth?

Basically, I will throw batteries and glass into the ocean. Then I will drive diesel. It will be infinitely more beneficial to the planet than whatever synthetic environmental disaster these retards in charge have cocked up.

>>15315208
>Once again, a measured and quantified metric
FTFY.

>>15315732
Water vapor increases in warmer air. I wonder what else increases with an increase in temperature (and not the other way around)?

>>15315887
>Venus has the coldest north/ south poles in the solar system.
Irrelevant to the point about Mars’s atmosphere and the observational data of increased radiative forcing that was attached
>You have no correlation to CO2 and temperature except re-describing it in line form.
It’s been described multiple times in this thread that not only is CO2 correlated to temperature with observational data of radiative forcing but we discovered the causal mechanism due to the properties of CO2 long before we were paying attention to the climate
>How about you fill in the rest of the puzzle regarding "Light the electromagnetic waveform" and tell us what CO2 does when exposed the rest of the spectrum of light that hits us?
Also already described multiple times in this thread both in a spectral measurement of incoming and outgoing radiation and a simple conceptual cartoon a retard like you can understand.
>Then when you tell us what that does perhaps you could also tell us what properties CO2 has when it's eaten by the blanket of diatoms that cover every body of water on earth?
It’s converted to biomass. Part of the carbon cycle in the ocean. However it’s pretty clear that we’re pumping too much CO2 for the ocean to intake
>I wonder what else increases with an increase in temperature
Yeah Temperature due to massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Pretty curious you have yet to post any sort of data or evidence and are responding with ignorance of the subject.

Why is climate change universally supported by malignant narcissists, scientifically speaking? Is it because they can feel like they're global saviors, or is it because it's one topic where the science is so nonexistent that they can always claim victory using fraudulent data?

>>15316116
>radiative forcing
This is why I corrected the part where that poster said "quantified phenomena" when really it's just this metric being treated as phenomenal. It's not "phenomenal", you're just taking the reproducibility crisis data and plugging it into your own equations. You've complicated your already backwards belief that CO2 causes warming when it has never been shown and is literally impossible given that it's a byproduct of heat in the first place? It comes out of combustion engines, not in...I'm sure not even you will contend that fact.

>not only is CO2 correlated to temperature with observational data of radiative forcing
Once again...there is no "observational data" regarding a metric that's arbitrarily made up.

>but we discovered the causal mechanism due to the properties of CO2 long before we were paying attention to the climate
Yeah it's called a "campfire". The CO2 happens after the heat and burning, moron.

>spectral measurement of incoming and outgoing radiation and a simple conceptual cartoon a retard like you can understand.
You measure it. You never explain what the light actually does to the CO2. You once again re-describe using lies and lines.

>It’s converted to biomass.
Oxygen too. 30 percent of the earths to be "precise", not that they focus on that important aspect and instead glue their eyes on coral reefs and inert gasses.

>However it’s pretty clear
To you and the people who manufactured the end of the age of abundance

>that we’re pumping too much CO2 for the ocean to intake
How? That's what makes life in the ocean in the first place.

>Yeah Temperature due to massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Which again has never been correlated.

>>15316441
Do not waste any more time.
The entire thing is ridiculous.
It is faux science just like vaccine science.

Sent from my samsung - SM-A405FN

>>15315234
the mentally ill savior complex cases try to just ignore memes like this because there is no argument against it
the meme irrefutably proves the fraudulence of their savior scam

>>15316176
>Why is climate change universally supported by malignant narcissists, scientifically speaking?
Because it is a scam to enrich the already rich elite.

>>15316176
"mental illness" which is a synonym for "brain damage" is a phenomenon of low iq people, just like down syndrome is.
poorly functioning, ill brains work badly and are easily tricked

>>15315239
>>15315254
The absolute state of (You)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGuUO-gu9Ho

Bunp

>>15315144
Or plate tectonics

>>15314336
how dare you
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mptNDINqYnQ

>>15315242
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sample+of+CO2+from+ice

>>15319822
duckduckgo has an ex CIA/In-Q-Tel executive on the board of directors, its a government controlled propaganda operation posing as a search engine.
the CIA guy's CV used to be here
https://alsop-louie.com/team/stephen-mendel/
but it was scrubbed when the wrong people started to notice it
you should still be able to look it up on the wayback machine.
this CIA guy is also the founder's uncle. duckduckgo was founded using In-Q-Tel funds, so what happened is that uncle CIA gave government funds to his nephew and in return nephew gave uncle CIA a paid board position.
yes, they're jewish, did you even need to ask?

>>15314462
Jesus Christ! Are you fucking stupid? Are you absolutely fucking blind?

>>15314475
>Outright denying scientific data because it doesn't fit your alarmist agenda.
Oof!

>>15319864
i can tell that you're experiencing emotional distress from your use of profanity and other exclamations, why don't you take a break from the board so you can calm down and come back when you're ready to discuss science with us on a rational rather than an emotional basis.
do you really expect people to change their minds because you screech profanities at them? you think you're some kinda tough guy or something?

>>15319925
Follow his red arrows, anon. Stop denying reality and just look at the picture.
Denial will never make your tiny penis any less pathetic.

>>15315118
>simple questions like does eating red meat cause heart attacks
The fact you think that is a simple question makes you an absolute brainlet

>>15315887
>Venus has the coldest north/ south poles in the solar system
yeah, what's up with this bullshit?

>>15319865
The data is real, the person who made that figure changed the temperature values. I wonder why

>>15320014
Okay perhaps I exaggerated a wee bit and maybe some outer gas giants are a bit colder. Pluto too if we're counting that as a planet. Otherwise it's quite below -200 F at the northern/southern poles where the gasses do an excellent job of insulating the naturally cold part of the planet.

If the CO2 levels get high enough we wont be able to breath our own atmosphere.

>>15320842
There is literally not enough free carbon on the earth to make that happen. Flora gobble it up too quickly and abiotic CO2 uptake increases rapidly with increases of CO2 in the atmosphere.

>>15316441
>dude if I can’t see it with my senses then it’s not real
Go troll somewhere else with thaws flat earther tier nonsense

>>15321157
>mentioning flat earth when no one else did
Ah, a timeless classic I enjoy once in a blue moon. I hope you guys never automate it with bots.

>>15314336
>Nooooo, stop emitting CO2, you are killing the planet!!!
i mean, physics isn't really something you need to have faith about, just read

>>15316441
So you're saying that measurements of energy from the sun reaching the surface is a made up concept?
Doesn't surprise me from someone who thinks burning things is what makes the atmosphere hotter.

>>15321766
>So you're saying that measurements of energy from the sun reaching the surface is a made up concept?
Considering scientists routinely leave out some of the most important inputs of energy from their equations, yeah the replication crisis paper definition of solar energy input is made up.

>>15321771
>direct measurements are made up
lol
lmao

>>15320866
If flora was allowed to propagate freely then sure but it's not so it won't.

>>15320866
Why aren’t we seeing neither the ocean or terrestrial plants absorb all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere then?

>>15321791
>seeing
CO2 is colourless and odourless

>>15321809
Ah yes if it’s not visible to me it means it’s impossible to measure
Great arguments going on here

>>15321791
greenhouse growers create co2 for their greenhouses, do you think they do it because they're stupid and it has no financial benefit for them

>>15321813
>impossible to measure
For you perhaps, because you belong to a cult that neither sees nor understands the science.

>>15321820
Funny how you lot refuse to engage with all the data that has been posted here and are just capable of making schizo arguments about semantics

>>15321773
Measuring only part of something and then claiming it's the whole thing is a lie of omission. That's fraud by law.

>>15321836
>engage with all the data
I don't deliberately step in shit either, but that doesn't mean I don't realize it is shit.

>>15321925
>more schizophrenic ramblings
Good stuff

>>15314336
Don't give a shit about your climate change.