/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15386219
Really, think about this: A 4.6 billion-year-old planet with an 8000-mile diameter, with a molten core (heat, etc.), with an atmosphere that is only 50 miles/240,000ft thick (being rather generous), that orbits a star only 93 million miles away with 330,000 times the earth's mass and that emits enough radiation to burn your naked ass in 30 minutes, is having its weather unalterably changed over the course of the next 5/10/15 years (whatever it is now) by the presence of a weak greenhouse gas, CO2, that happens to now be at its lowest level in damn near the entire history of the planet -- a history punctuated by global glaciations while that weak greenhouse gas was far higher than it is now -- and that also happens to be the basis of plant life (and therefore atmospheric oxygen), a gas whose greenhouse effect is dwarfed by that of water vapor (on a planet with a surface area that consists of 70% water), and that geologically is currently in an interglacial period. The models that generated this political bullshit have predicted nothing correctly -- not sea level change, polar ice cover, or weather.

And everybody believes it anyway, to the extent that they are handing the management of the world's economy to elderly megalomaniacs with an agenda based on their own personal power. You're not even allowed to question it -- otherwise sensible people have agreed with the ridiculous premise that CO2 is a deadly poison that must be eliminated from the surface of the earth.

>>15386239
Ya well, most normies can't comprehend any of that and appreciate the insanity of it all. Then there are those that get all their funding to push any result as evidence no matter the statistical insignificance. Take the energy earth imbalance for instance. 0.03 W/m^2/decade and they think this is catastrophic. It's fly shit on a piece of paper to be honest.

But not having a radiative equation to explain their fairytale is probably the most egregious of them all.

>>15386219
>>15386258
If I recall, the "back flux" is hidden in the net effect of heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere, but I agree the whole thing is handwavy as fuck. My understanding is they fudged the emissivity constant in order to justify AGW, and retards (almost everyone it seems) just accept it uncritically.

>>15386392
>If I recall, the "back flux" is hidden in the net effect
That's their game. The "hide" everything in bullshit pseudo science. The back flux net heat is just a nebulous thing that doesn't actually have a process.

>>15386421
I too want to see a rigorous model of the greenhouse effect. It's probably something like muh CO2 molecule releases a photon for (((reasons))) which hits the Earth and warms it up, goyim.

>>15386239
Earth receives an average of 1370 watts per square meter of energy from the sun. This is easy to measure. Plugging in to the Steffan-boltzmann equation E = σT4 for the temperature of the Earth with a reflexivity of .3 as 255 degrees Kelvin. However, the measured temperature of the Earth is 288 degrees Kelvin. Where is the extra heat coming from?

All your questions have long ago been answered.

https://www.acs.org/climatescience/energybalance/predictedplanetarytemperatures.html

>>15386433
The Te of earth is in the center of the atmosphere, not at the surface. As for the additional heat, pressure. But climate science even states the 255K is an average which means the 33 should be as well (if provided by ghge) but they treat it as a de facto number, which is one-sidedness.

>>15386432
>I too want to see a rigorous model of the greenhouse effect.
buy a greenhouse. once you do that you'll notice that the greenhouse relies on a solid physical barrier to prevent convective cooling, a process that no free floating gas can possibly replicate.

>>15386435
>TP = (Save(1 – α)/σ)1/4
Flat earth.
And it only describes sun absorption on the surface.

>>15386435
https://www.acs.org/about/governance/board.html
all female board of directors

>>15386435
Mine haven't. Please address my evidence from the second post.

>>15386432
>I too want to see a rigorous model of the greenhouse effect. It's probably something like muh CO2 molecule releases a photon for (((reasons))) which hits the Earth and warms it up, goyim.
What a scientific post, anon.

>>15386433
>degrees kelvin
pseud detected

>>15386435
>https://www.acs.org/climatescience/energybalance/predictedplanetarytemperatures.html

This contains a bunch of studies that aren't really valid and don't account for many variables. It also makes a lot of assumptions which means it can't produce any reliable results. Most of these studies also assume that there are no correcting mechanisms the environment has to keep the temperature and gas levels oscillating within a range.

>>15386433
>The Earth has an albedo of 0.3, meaning that 30% of the solar radiation that hits the planet gets scattered back into space without absorption. The effect of albedo on temperature can be approximated by assuming that the energy absorbed is multiplied by 0.7, but that the planet still radiates as a black body (the latter by definition of effective temperature, which is what we are calculating). This approximation reduces the temperature by a factor of 0.71/4, giving 255 K (−18 °C).
>The above temperature is Earth's as seen from space, not ground temperature but an average over all emitting bodies of Earth from surface to high altitude. Because of the greenhouse effect, the Earth's actual average surface temperature is about 288 K (15 °C), which is higher than the 255 K effective temperature, and even higher than the 279 K temperature that a black body would have.
what a stupid fucking argument. the calculation in pic rel makes sense, and climate cultist have to modify it to justify their greenhouse gas warming. absolutely pathetic.

for those who actually understand science (and particularly, physics), i'll spell it out. the sun's temperature is reported as 5780K, but there's a standard error of about 100K associated with it. thus, we're only confident the sun's temperature is 5800K (two sig fig accuracy). the sun's radius is known to extremely high precision, and thus that value is fine. the earth-sun distance is taken to be a constant. meaning that to two sig figs, the earth's temperature is calculated to be 280K, which is in agreement with the measured earth's temperature of 288K. any "modifications" to this value is tantamount to p-hacking at best. i mean, if you want to use albedo (to one sig-fig accuracy), congratulations: you turned the calculation into giving only one sig-fig accuracy as 300K.

can't say i'm surprised that these climate cultists don't understand scientific principles taught to literal freshmen in college courses

>>15387388
to be more precise, we can actually use standard error propagation formulas to track how the error in the sun's temperature measurement propagates to an error in the earth's temperature. it's a trivial calculation, again taught to freshmen in physics laboratory classes. anyhow the final result is that earth's surface temperature is calculated to be [math]280\pm5[/math] K, which means earth's measured temperature falls within \pm two standard errors of the calculated value, which is well-within agreement.
>but meh heckin albedo of 0.3!
again, as argued that's known only to one sig fig. assuming best case scenario that it's as confident as possible (to one sig-fig accuracy), we can say its [math]0.3\pm0.1[/math]. repeating the error propagation, tracking only errors in temperature of sun and of albedo (since rest are negligible) now gives a reported earth temperature of 255K.... but with a standard error of 20K, meaning the new reported value of earth's temperature is [math]260\pm20[/math] K. again, this is well within agreement of the measured value of 289 K.

congrats, you reduced the calculated value at the cost of a higher error. you might be able to fool idiots who don't understand error propagation, but you won't be able to fool trained scientists.

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

>>15387476
>twice the energy from ghg than the sun
Pure bullocks.
>Recycles energy
Violation of thermodynamics

>>15387526
wikipedia also has a page that shows that the "greenhouse" effect is only responsible for about 15ºK of the planet's temperature above kelvin

>>15387388
>>15387417
Significant figures are not science, they are a rough rule of thumb for engineers in the slide rule era. Back to >>>/pol/

>>15387340
Thank you, anon. I strive to be as impartial and objective as possible.

>>15386433
>Where is the extra heat coming from?
volcanoes & tidal forces

>>15386433
>Where is the extra heat coming from?
Quantized Inertia

>>15389570
>sliding era
>/pol/
what did he mean by this?

>>15387388
>>15387417
This is the first time a climate scientist has ever encountered physics, and they have no answer for it.

>>15386433
2.7ºK comes from the cosmic background radiation. The calculation which results in the 255ºK number starts from 0ºK, but we don't live in a 0ºK universe, we live in a 2.7ºK universe.

>>15391304
There is also the unaccounted for sunlight which falls on the annulus of atmosphere that isn't directly between the sun and the earth.
The "caclulate the surface temperature of a planet using the Stephan-Bolzmann equation and basic geometry" problem is freshman level astronomy, covered early in the first month of the first semester, it is by no means authoritative, it is only a simple rough estimate. Albedo conditions on Earth change day by day and hourly as well as seasonally, solar output also varies. There is no one fixed number for the baseline temp of the planet, the Stephan-Bolzmann equation itself is inaccurate, it was derived on the presumption of a static universe with a baseline temp of 0ºK, which we now know not to be the case.

>>15386239
>And everybody believes it anyway

Humans are not rational creatures.

Most humans are near wholly controlled by 'authority' or 'group opinion'.

>>15391304
The CBMR has never been measured away from earth. It is water. Cosmology is a joke.

>>15391357
>There is also the unaccounted for sunlight which falls on the annulus of atmosphere that isn't directly between the sun and the earth.
that would increase effctive surface area by 0.5%, which would in turn account for more of the 33º than co2 supposedly does.
if global warming were a real problem then cities could just paint all their blacktopped areas white to fix it, that would fix a lot of urban heat bubble issues too. also landscaped roofs are good, i have that on my home, i had spinach and kale from my roof for dinner tonight. saves moneyon air conditioning too

>>15390083
Attempting to stop discussion of thermodynamics by intentionally mischaracterizing it as off topic

>>15394630
It's incredible how they tried to slide this thread after having no response to the math.

>>15391304
>>15391357
these two factors together reduce "the greenhouse effect" by 20%

>>15395452
I'm still in shock they don't have a canned response for it. This implies they never heard that argument. How is that possible?

>>15397265
Most climatologists are physics-illiterate and have never done any complex calculations in their lives. You can't expect low-wage shills to be smarter than their source of information.

>>15397279
"Atmospheric science" was a subdivision of physics until about 1990 or so, it was then separated off into it's currently, less scientifically rigorous form and renamed "climate science"

oh man dis nigga sayd a lot of numbas anb shiet he must be right

>>15397480
>Resorting to racism
>Posting images with no context
You sound upset. Is it because you don't understand the argument laid out, or is it because you do understand and have no rebut?

>>15386219
The climate science community relies on ignorance of physics as a means of proving their theories

>>15398309
The latter.

>>15399241
This. Warmists won't even touch this thread and are just hoping it falls off the board, because actual physics empirically disproves their lies.

Won't any extra temperature rise just be radiated away quicker by the earth until it reaches an equilibrium anyway?

>>15387353
>This contains a bunch of studies that aren't really valid and don't account for many variables. It also makes a lot of assumptions which means it can't produce any reliable results. Most of these studies also assume that there are no correcting mechanisms the environment has to keep the temperature and gas levels oscillating within a range.
If you could have done better, you would have. Write your schizo screed out long form and link it here so we can review/mock it.

>>15399786
You're so buttblasted you can't even challenge the math, you have to spew some schizophasia.

>>15399791
Nah I'm just too tired from a long day of science to engage with your vague ramblings. You need to present them in a cogent form if you want a proper rebuttal.

>>15399754
Do you guys understand how scattering and re-radiation actually works? It's not rocket science. Certain amount of flux goes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by various gases floating around. Those gases then re-radiate the trapped energy either into space or down to Earth. So the more re-radiation that happens because of higher greenhouse gas content the warmer it gets on average from increased flux per square meter or foot or whatever other measurement/metric you want to use for a patch of land.

Where it gets tricky is with humidity and it's a known fact that more parts of Earth are passing wet bulb thresholds, meaning if you get hot you're not gonna be able to cool off by perspiration. So core temperature keeps increasing until you get a heat stroke from dilated blood vessel.

This is all basic science and arguing about it does not change the reality of increased energy flux per square meter of earth and increased atmospheric humidity which, by the way, also contributes to increased temperature.

So what exactly are you retards arguing about? That the basic physical model doesn't account for all of the energy flux or is it something else because the science of greenhouse gases and wet bulb temperatures is very well established. You can do all the verifications in your own home even. You just need a light source and a transparent gas chamber with water. You can verify yourself what happens when you increase greenhouse gases and how it affects temperature and humidity.

>>15399792
Thank you for conceding. You have no argument.
Anyone who wants to do real science can comment on:
>>15387388
>>15387417

>>15399793
>you can make a greenhouse yourself with a solid barrier that prevents convection
Yeah no shit retard.

>>15399796
You can add convection as well, it doesn't change the basic logic of the experiment. In fact, whatever source of convection you can think of will introduce more energy into the system and make the overall temperature even warmer.

Honestly, you guys are not sending your best. Try harder by learning some more basic math and physics, it's really not that hard to understand the basic in enough detail to know why global warming is a problem. Weather events all contain more energy now. Tornadoes are worse, mansoons and rainstorms have more water, and energy flux across the planet is increasing. These are all basic facts, either refute how increased energy flux is not bad or just shut the fuck up because global warming is real, the only question is whether you're actually going to do something about it or continue with your head in the sand as if it's not happening.

The science is settled on this and if you want to deny it then you need better arguments.

>>15399803
Ok flat earther. You can live in a world where we're surrounded by a glass dome or whatever, and we'll live in the real world.

>>15399809
The atmosphere is a glass dome, what is confusing about this for you?

>>15387388
>The Earth has an albedo of 0.3
Retarded argument made for the sake of convenience by lazy doofuses who never go outside of their gay little offices.
Earth's albedo changes day by day, seasonally & hourly. For example, its spring northern hemisphere spring right now so larger than normal amounts of the sunlight that lands on the planet is landing on the snow and ice in the arctic and the surrounding continents. Snow and ice are almost completely reflective, so the absorbed solar radiation is much lower now than it will be in August after most of the snow in northern Canada and Siberia have melted off, even though the sun is in the same position relative to Earth.
The calculation you're using "estimate the average temperature of a planet using thermodynamics" is entry level stuff that freshmen astronomy midwits are taught, it isn't a meaningful calculation, only a rough estimate. Theres a lot more open water in the southern hemisphere, so when its summer there, absorbed solar radiation increases.
Wikipedia is for ignorant gaywads

>>15399812
kek! this really is the level of you flattards isnt it?

>>15399818
>Earth's albedo changes day by day, seasonally & hourly.
How much? If you remember the physicschad said the albedo is 0.3±0.1 which is a large spread

>>15399839
What does it matter, it makes no difference to overall increased energy flux.

>>15399847
What are you babbling about? Imagine you have a mass scale that's accurate to ±0.5 grams. You measure your diamond's mass before lending it to a friend. It weighs 14.6g. After your friend returns it, you weigh it to see 13.8g. Do you conclude it's the same diamond? Justify your answer. Yes this is relevant to make sure you understand how errors work.

>>15399859
He won't answer you because he has no answer. He knows that it destroys the entire global warming narrative.

>>15399803
>The science is settled on this
lol, do you get paid for this, faggot?

>>15399812
Glass is a solid, the atmosphere is gaseous

>>15399959
I don't get paid for anything that I do because I'm not a moneyfag. If you don't think greenhouse effect is real then that's great, good luck living your life in ignorance.

>>15399859
>>15399914
You got me. Global warming is fake and gay. Your retarded thermodynamics have convinced me there is nothing to worry about. I'm gonna fire up my backup generator to add more combustion byproducts into the atmosphere for good measure.

>>15400007
No shit Sherlock. That's why it's called an experiment but if you're retarded enough to question the experimental set up for demonstrating the greenhouse effect then we don't really have much else to discuss. You're wasting your time so I recommend you make some placards and hang it around town to make sure that people know global warming is a hoax and burning fossil fuels is actually very good for Earth's climate stability.

>>15400040
I honestly don't know how you people think. How can you look at all the experimental data and physics of spectral radiation and still think that global warming is a hoax. I guess if you think the collapse of civilization is imminent then you'll try all sorts of mental gymnastics to deny reality but that never works in the long run. Denying reality is only possible for so long before it catches up with you and your retardation

>>15400028
>>15400040
>>15400050
Having a melty?

>>15399859
It does not matter. I don't care what number you're cooking up for albedo. All that matters is energy flux per unit area. That's it, it's all very basic stuff.

>>15400057
I'm jerking off right now to how retarded you guys are. It makes me hard knowing there are so many idiots in the world that deny the reality of the greenhouse effect

>>15400040
>the greenhouse effect
not possible with a free floating, convecting gas.
greenhouses function because they have a solid barrier which prevents convective cooling.

>>15400062
Where do you think the cooling happens? Explain in detail

>>15400061
So yes, you are. I hope you get better.

>>15400066
I'd hope you got smarter but u fortunately IQ is genetic and there is nothing you can do about yours. You will die a retard and that's that

>>15400058
Filtered by atmospheric physics.

>>15400074
Right but why don't you retards look at flux per unit area? You're all geniuses after all so how come none of you have actually ever managed to calculate flux per unit area?

>>15400075
If it's so simple and explains global heating so thoroughly, I'm sure you can calculate it yourself and post your work right now. Unless you were filtered by atmospheric physics, of course.

>>15400077
I'm not the one trying to convince others that global warming is fake and gay. So go ahead, show me flux per unit area

>>15400080
>le world is le ending!!!
>you must le believe me!!!!
>proof? no i have none
>math? no i wont do any
>you posted equations that totally debunk me?
>heh, kid, im not the one who has to prove anything

>>15400080
Unless you're filtered by even more basic physics than atmospheric science in which case I recommend you kys because you're not going to get any smarter. Retardation has a genetic basis and yours can't be changed

>>15400084
When you're done having your melty you can come back to the table with the adults. Maybe we can solve another global crisis.

>>15400082
Flux. Per. Unit. Area.

Go ahead, do the calculation

>>15400087
Meds. Now.

>>15400086
Still jerking it, none of you retards have managed to get me off yet

>>15400090
Ah little baby can't do basic math? Or are you just a retarded adult?

>>15386219
Its not a problem for them, they rely on their ignorance of physics, they couldn't do their jobs without ignorance of thermodynamics

>>15400087
see
>>15387388
>>15387417
you may recognize the radiant flux being used in the perfectly valid derivation.
>>15399818
remember, it was you climate cultists who brought up the albedo. all i did was introduce error propagation, which is again taught to freshmen in physics. let me remind you, in case you forgot:
>>15386433
>for the temperature of the Earth with a reflexivity of .3 as 255 degrees Kelvin.
if you have a better quantitative assessment of the earth's temperature, including your greenhouse effect (WITH ERROR PROPAGATION), please provide it. if you don't know how to do it, then share the calculation you used and the standard errors in each value used, and i'll do it for you.

>>15400077
>Unless you were filtered by atmospheric physics, of course.
if you weren't taught what the standard errors in the values used in your calculations in atmospheric physics, then i regret to tell you that you didn't learn any physics. do you even know how sig figs work, and was it taught in your "atmospheric physics" class? the fact you keep REEEEING about your radiant flux, without knowing it was already taken into account, indicates to me all you learned was a bunch of talking about and no critical thinking.

>>15400656
>>15400671
I'm not shocked that he failed to reply again. All he could do was have his little melty, but he couldn't do even a tiny bit of math. There's no refutation they can make because none of them are smart enough to understand the physics.

>>15401573
Still no flux tho, how come?

>>15386219
Wait, this thread's still up? Seriously, as I said before every question you have has long ago been answered.

"Waaaaaah, where's the precise model for how energy is radiated from each CO2 molecule? If you don't tell me it exactly then you can't say how much CO2 contributes to climate change!"

We don't fucking need to model it, we can measure it. Holy shit, I even linked you a website where you can read about how we know the source of climate change. Everything you need is in there. Here, since you're too dumb to fucking read.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355488859_Trends_in_spectrally_resolved_outgoing_longwave_radiation_from_10_years_of_satellite_measurements

Dumbass thinks that because he knows physics that makes him an expert on climate. Go be a retard elsewhere.

>>15401747
Already calculated in the derivation. You're just not smart.

>>15401800
Another substanceless melty. How embarrassing.

>>15401805
Thanks for conceding!

>>15401815
I concede that I've won the argument. Thank you for acknowledging that you lost.

>>15400090

>>15400050
No argument or evidence then? How embarrassing.

>>15399803
It’s not bad because nobody has any concrete solutions to fix it. Nuclear power is still verboten, nobody is willing to entertain large scale geo engineering projects. The only “solution” being offered up is giving money to oligarchs. If you can’t see how someone offering nothing of substance but still standing there with their hand out looks like a scam I don’t know what to tell you.

>>15403953
I also posit that even the climate scientists themselves don’t believe it. If climate change is truly doomsday, the end of civilization, then why no violence? Why aren’t billionaire CEOs and politicians being murdered? It’s doomsday after all.

If you think you've debunked climate change, why not publish a paper on it? What? You're afraid that your stupidity will immediately be discarded by experts?

>>15403984
It's a one-way ticket out of academia. Any scientist, no matter how well-regarded, is almost instantly cut off from funding and tenure opportunities if they contradict the narrative.

>>15404276
Cope

>>15404398
In the early 2000s, the father of hurricane prediction had his lab's entire budget cut by the feds for showing proof that hurricanes weren't getting worse.

>>15404402
Any more excuses from you?

>>15404411
Cope

>>15403984
Peer review has a dual meaning by people like you. The first meaning is what you pretend it means: where ideas are critiqued by your peers and only the strongest and correct ideas survive. The second meaning is how peer review actually works (especially so for topics that have become politicized): write articles in journals in support of the status quo. Rejecting the status quo is to have your paper rejected and not published. As such only a single narrative is promulgated.

When you talk about publishing a finding with peer review, you're relying on the dual meaning of the phrase either intentionally or not. You're presenting it as the former while relying on the function of the latter. In short, you're being a dishonest fuck.

Source: recent nature paper on the decline of disruptive journal papers + your boneheaded post.

>>15404468
>I don't like what science has learned about a subject, I'll therefore declare all science false.

Yup. The last resort of a failure. Declare the opposition to have cheated.

>>15404472
Thank you for conceding.

>>15404472
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3eMWLG7Rro

>>15404532
>peer review means new insights can never be published
Ok dumbass

>>15401803
Show me the exact place in your derivation where you derive flux per unit area.

>>15404415
Contemporary civilization is a monstrosity. The scale of what is required to maintain it is almost unimaginable.

>>15404593
That has nothing to do with an invisible, harmless trace gas, cuck. If you want to fight against industrial society then pick a meaningful issue instead.

>>15404575
just pass a basic university thermo course and it'll all be obvious to you

>>15404575
Bro that Wikipedia screen shot spoonfeeds the calculation. It even explicitly tells you where it uses the flux. It's so easy to find that the words radiant flux are highlighted in blue. Is this the kind of critical thinking drones get from their atmospheric "physics" classes?

>>15406061
They probably don't even take atmo in "environmental science" degrees.

>>15407010
That's because they're not scientists.

>>15406061
Climatefags don't study physics, their beliefs are reliant on ignorance. If they took a basic thermo class they would die of cognitive dissonance

>>15404593
kys if you don't like it. why be miserable and dissatisfied for a whole long lifetime? just end your suffering now, you'll be better off that way

>>15407902
Maybe they should study agriculture and learn that a greenhouse requires a solid barrier.

>>15387388
>>15387417
Be honest, were you hit on the head regularly while you were a child?

>>15409997
The absolute state of climate soience.

>>15410044
So why are your posts full of blatant fallacies?

>>15410050
That's a different anon. I'm just disappointed in you.

>>15410056
So why did you jump in when I asked him a question? Were you hit on the head regularly too?

>>15410059
Your refusal to engage his arguments on their merit is disappointing. I thought climate soience was rigorous and settled science.

>>15410062
Which of his "arguments" do you think is not blatantly wrong? Since you're very eager to defend him, try answering this

>>15410070
You haven't even presented any evidence on where he's wrong. I'm not going to spoonfeed your narcissism. Shut up and calculate.

>>15410071
I'm not even a climate scientist or anything close to it and even I can see how stupid his posts are. What's your excuse for not being able to do that? For example,
> the calculation in pic rel makes sense, and climate cultist have to modify it
They have to modify it because it obviously ignores the effect atmosphere you retard
>5780K, but there's a standard error of about 100K
The uncertainty in the temperature of the sun doesn't even come into consideration since you don't calculate energy received at the earth using the sun's temperature but measure it directly instead. In fact, you estimate the temperature based on the energy received.
>as argued that's known only to one sig fig.
Notice how he has no evidence for this claim at all.

If only you weren't such a retard, you would realize these simple things

>>15410107
>the sun's temperature isn't what's providing the earth energy
is this really what climate cultists believe?

>>15410113
Did you just hallucinate a statement I never said and then think I said it? Very amusing, do it again!

>>15410107
i'm the anon who provided the original argument you're buttblasted over. allow me to refer you to another one of my comments.
>>15400656
specifically,
>if you have a better quantitative assessment of the earth's temperature, including your greenhouse effect (WITH ERROR PROPAGATION), please provide it. if you don't know how to do it, then share the calculation you used and the standard errors in each value used, and i'll do it for you.
look, all the values i'm finding for reflexivity are reported to one sig-fig. so, i made the most generous assumption i could and assumed it was precisely known as possible to one sig-fig accuracy. if you have a more accurate value of albedo to use, please let me know (with source).

as for your egregious claim that the sun's temperature is calculated based on the energy earth receives, that's fucking retarded. star temperatures are calculated by the blackbody spectrum they emit (cf. planck's law). this is a technique used to determine the spectral composition of fucking galaxies that are 12 billion light years away from us, which clearly aren't irradiating earth with any appreciable energy.

as for the rest of your buttblasted comments,
>They have to modify it because it obviously ignores the effect atmosphere you retard
once again, the calculation matches the earth's measured temperature to high precision. it doesn't need to be modified, though if you want to include albedo you get a lower temperature at the expensive of a larger error. again, if you propose a better calculation... well, do it. and if you don't know how to propagate errors, again give me the formula you use, the standard errors of each value, and i'll calculate the standard error in earth's temperature for you.

What drives retards to deny stuff like pandemics, climate and globe? I don't get it.

Fun thread though, some amazing dunning-kruger peak moments. And they seem genuine rather than pretending to be retarded.

>>15387388
>>15387417
based

>>15410121
>please let me know (with source).
Ok
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2000GL012580
>Our data imply an average terrestrial albedo of 0.297±0.005

> that's fucking retarded. star temperatures are calculated by the blackbody spectrum they emit
Stars aren't perfect black bodies you moron. Look at this graph for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
You can only estimate the temperature using the measured energy and a simple way of estimating the sun's temperature is to measure the energy received at the earth or more directly by a satellite placed above the atomsphere and then calculate the temperature based on the planck distribution. You never measure the temperature and then use that to calculate the energy received at the earth, you measure the energy received directly so only the uncertainties in the latter are relevant

>once again, the calculation matches the earth's measured temperature to high precision. it doesn't need to be modified,
I know ignoring simple but inconvenient facts such as the existence of an atmosphere is commonplace to you, but you can at least try a bit harder

>>15400057
>>15400061
>>15400007
>>15399809
RETARD ALERT
>RETARD ALERT

>>15410156
>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2000GL012580
>In modeling the reflectance of the earth, we use scene models developed for the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) observations. The cloud cover data, updated every 6 hours, are a whole earth composite of visible-light satellite images from WSIINTELLICAST
>The cloud cover data, updated every 6 hours, are a whole earth composite of visible-light
>visible light
do you realize that the albedo is a function of the wavelength of light, and that visible light is a very, very, very narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum? probably not, because you're a dunce. i mean hey, if you want to argue visible light is what's causing global warming, by all means. go ahead.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg
who said the sun is a perfect black body? look dude, if you really think the sun's temperature is calculated based on how much energy is detected at earth (red bands in your plot), then i honestly don't know what to tell you.
>You never measure the temperature and then use that to calculate the energy received at the earth, you measure the energy received directly so only the uncertainties in the latter are relevant
you clearly don't understand my comments then, because that's not what i'm doing. i'll spell it out more, though i thought i was being clear from the onset. the calculation shows that what, from first principles, that our measurements are consistents with physics. it's climate cultists like you who see a problem where it doesn't exist, and try to refine the calculation using albedo and end up with a less precise calculation. though if you occlude the errors you get to parade around the 255K value of earth's temperature, and then justify the need for green house gas warming. but the point is that you don't need that to make sense of the measured value of earth's temperature--it's already consistent with what's calculated!

>>15410156
>>15410225
adding on, the reason why your paper calculated such a precise value for albedo is that they used a very narrow band of electromagnetic radiation (visible light). when you include more wavelengths such as UV, IR, etc., all of which the earth has a different albedo for, the albedo will will change somewhat (0.3) and acquire a larger error due to the more disperse values of albedo. your graph (solar spectrum measured on earth) already proves this: the earth absorbed (i.e., reflects) different wavelengths to much different degrees: some of which nearly 100% so and some of which nearly 0% so. it's so funny to see you dips post data which refutes your own arguments. my original posts in this thread were pointing out the issues in a calculation made by one of you drones, and now my posts are btfo'ing you again on your own fucking claims with your own data and your own citations. funny how that works, when someone actually reads your drivel and understands what's going on, isn't it?

>>15410225
>>15410251
Gigachad physicist lays the smackdown on ignorant climate soientists twice in one thread. Truly blessed. Saving these posts.

>>15386219
science is a problem, government is a problem

>>15410225
>>15410251
Based

>>15390083
Imagine not knowing what a slide rule is, and still cheekily directing people to a retard board.
Made me Zozzle lad

Its an absolute laugh riot that climatefags can't do undergrad thermodynamics.

>>15410225
>>15410251
You might be the biggest larping retard I've seen on this site. I don't even want to reply to you since I can't even consider you human now because of how stupid you are, but here's my last reply to you and to this dumb thread.
>>The cloud cover data, updated every 6 hours, are a whole earth composite of visible-light
You imbecile, that's not saying they're only measuring visible light (they were but that's not saying it). That's saying that the photos of the clouds (which they don't even use in the actual measurement of the reflectance) were taken with visible light. How are you this stupid?
>visible light is a very, very, very narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum
About 50% of solar radiation is in the visible spectrum you idiot
>who said the sun is a perfect black body?
You: >>15410121 >star temperatures are calculated by the blackbody spectrum they emit
> if you really think the sun's temperature is calculated based on how much energy is detected at earth
That is how one of the first reasonably accurate estimates of the sun's surface temperature was made you buffoon
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%%93Boltzmann_law#Temperature_of_the_Sun
But notice how you ignored the part where I said you could also measure the energy outside the atmosphere.
>you clearly don't understand my comments then
I clearly do understand and have concluded that you are a schizo who ignores reality and the fact that 30% of the solar radiation incident on the earth is reflected.
>the albedo will change somewhat (0.3) and acquire a larger error
No it won't you retard.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science/#earths-energy-budget-and-surface-temperature
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1580
>absorbed (i.e., reflects)
Lmao. Did they not teach you the difference between absorption and reflection in the larp school for retarded cranks?

>>15411330
You sound upset.
>Admits to presenting a result that omits over half the data
>Doesn't see a problem
Yep definitely a climate soientists. Are you an intentional liar or is it accidental?

>>15411351
So you, the guy who was repeatedly caught lying about the errors in albedo measurement, are accusing me of lying about something?
Notice how you can't respond to a single point I made

>>15411358
I'm not the physicist who laid the smackdown on you. I just think it's funny how much you're seething. Doubly funny how hard you're projecting. Wasn't that supposed to be your swan song — your last post in this thread? Here you are posting immediately again. To laugh at you more
>He doesn't realize the Stefan Boltzmann law used to calculate the suns temperature treats the sun as a black body
My sides man. You will never be a real scientist

>>15411363
Don't worry, I know that neither he not you, his sycophant lackey, are real physicists and are instead larp school graduates who don't know the difference between absorption and reflection that even a kindergartener would know :-)

Bumping this thread just to embarrass the schizo who thought he debunked climate change

>>15411387
Based

>>15411358
>>15411367
>>15411387
Pure seething due to being BTFO twice by physics.

>>15411387
> climate change
it's strawman, nothing to debunk really

>>15412494
This.

>>15411326
Greta never even graduated high school and she is the world's leading voice on climate soience

ITT we learnt that climate change deniers:
1. can't read and understand simple sentences
2. think the atmosphere doesn't exist
3. think reflection is the same as absorption

>>15413262
The climate soientist is still absolutely seething kek

>>15413785
Notice how your butt buddy who was larping as a physicist has suddenly gone missing. You must be really ashamed for thinking that he was a physicist, or at least you would be if you had any shame.

>>15413791
You've still been unable to respond to any of his work. His explanation is still correct no matter how much you seethe.

How do you calculate albedo for an organic system that can store radiation as matter rather than as heat? the leaves of a living plant have an effective albedo greater than 1

>>15415690
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/7/11/15536

>>15415905
>https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/7/11/15536
>by Jingjing Peng 1,2ORCID,Wenjie Fan 1,3,*,Xiru Xu 1,3,†,Lizhao Wang 4,†,Qinhuo Liu 2,5,*ORCID,Jvcai Li 1,3 andPeng Zhao 1,3
into the trash it goes

>>15415905
That's not even what he asked for.

>>15415690
Thermodynamics as conceived of by Boltzmann, Stephan, Planck and the rest of the gang only applies to inert, nonreactive matter. Applying those concepts to Earth is retarded.

>>15417352
Feel free to prove your claims, anytime! Right now you sound like a young earth creationist yammering about how the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.

>>15386219
>chatgpt
kys retard. I believe this paper answers your question: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174548/
Can't you retards do a google search?

>>15417503
Obviously the fact that plants convert energy into matter in a process that consumes energy (heat) means that their real albedo is different from what soientists calculate based purely on radiation emission.

>>15418492
As per my last post: feel free to prove (quantify) your claims, anytime. You really sound like creationists claiming thermodynamics disproves evolution.

>>15418561
What is your highest level of education?

>>15418574
>deflecting under scrutiny
Thanks for answering, albeit indirectly.

>>15418585
I need to know how much remedial education you need before you can learn the answer.

>>15418587
Simply post relevant papers, I'll read them in my spare time.

>>15418591
My friend, this is so simple that it's on the AP Bio exam for high schoolers. Photosynthesis removes energy from the system on top of the measured albedo of a plant.

>>15418611
And how significant is this, especially on the scale of a planet? You, or another anon claimed
>Applying those concepts to Earth is retarded.
but for all we know, this albedo change is negligible.

>>15418671
Are you moving the goalposts now? First you claimed it was totally fake, now you're claiming it exists but it's negligible (even though that is obviously not the case on a planetary scale). Even a very tiny error in the energy budget would totally deflate the global warming agenda, as >>15387388 proved.

>>15408656
why would i kill myself? the system is broken, that doesn't mean i need to kill myself over it

>>15406061
show me the flux per unit area, go ahead, write out the equation with [math] tags

>>15412545
flux per unit area, where is it tho?

>>15413262
flux per unit area bruv, where is your calculation?

>>15386433
1370 watts/m^2 is way too much. also massive amounts of heat is just geothermal.

>dumb climate cultist keeps saying flux per unit area not knowing he also needs a rate in there
lel. as for why i haven't responded to your seething posts yet--it takes time to actually read the papers to formulate good faith responses, and some of us are busy with real jobs. if you really need to get owned a 3rd time in one thread, then so be it. give me a couple days.

>>15418932
>>15418935
>>15418937
The most stable and mentally healthy climate cultist.

>>15418975
>>15418945
>>15418944
>>15418937
>>15418935
>>15418932
>>15418820
This is some massively mentally ill climate change denier engaging in samefagging

>>15418986

>>15418994
There's no other explanation for your behaviour

>>15418998
Is "you" in the room with you right now?

>>15419000
Mental illness, the post.

>>15418945
Multiple people are replying to you and you don't even know who you're arguing with. I'm the one who btfo'd your middle school tier understanding of physics and global warming with these posts >>15411330
>>15410156. I'm not waiting for your replies since I know how stupid they'll be if at all you do reply

>>15419058
He's having a meltdown and sliding the thread because he lost the argument.

>>15418820
>First you claimed it was totally fake
I don't think I said it was fake - I was mostly asking you to prove and quantify the effect in order to establish whether it's negligible.

>it's negligible (even though that is obviously not the case on a planetary scale)
This remains unproven, and I'm yet to see your attempts at quantifying the effect.

>Even a very tiny error in the energy budget would totally deflate the global warming agenda
Wrong.

So, are you even able to tell *how much* the biological processes affect the albedo/energy budget/greenhouse effect etc? You still haven't done that, so I'm thinking the effect is in fact negligible.

>>15418994
dial8

So now that climate change has been debunked by both physics and biology, what is /sci/'s perspective on the issue? Is the /sci/entific consensus changing?

>>15418944
Well done. Now who can explain what happens when greenhouse gases are increased in the atmosphere? Does the flux go up or down?

This is very basic stuff so even retards should be able to figure it out

>>15420460
>So now that climate change has been debunked by both physics and biology
Wrong. See >>15419241 and >>15418994

>>15420636

greta never completed high school, she can't do basic math, same goes for the rest of the global warming hysterics

>>15410251
there is no method for calculating albedo in organic systems that store solar energy as matter rather than as heat

>>15422501
Which is why climate sois repeatedly fail to account for the heat it takes out of the system and think that the energy budget is solely based on radiation reflected into space.

>>15420825

>>15422501
>>15422720
>can't be calculated
>can't be measured
>most likely negligible climate-wise
>b-but it's real okay!
lol

>>15423054
>it's m-most likely n-negligible guise!!!
>"Why?"
>b-because- BECAUSE IT JUST IS OK!?!?!!

>>15422720
They do ever worse than that. Trees are considered as having albedo of about 0.1 in their calculations. In reality they should be calculated as having a value greater than 1

>>15423683
Do they ever justify that number, or is it based solely on their radiative properties?

>>15423683
>greater than 1
Proof?

>>15423835
Low plant albedo comes from actual measurements, as opposed to this 'le greater than 1' dogma.

>>15423906
given their proclivity of using only visible light in their albedo calculations, i wouldn't be surprised if they're saying trees absorb 90% of visible light only.

>>15424180
So, no proof?

>>15424180
This. Schizos can scream as much as they want, but it's obvious that transforming energy into molecular bonds in an endothermic reaction consumes energy.

>>15386219
The climate models lack:
>An entropy balance.
>Heat transfer (of any kind).
>Long term non-linear analysis.

It's all worthless semi-emperical fits global temperatures. There is no science behind it.

>>15423906
Those measurements are then modeled using Boltzmann's thermodynamics, which does not account for the properties of organic matter. Organic matter can absorb radiation without reemitting it at any frequency.

>>15426174
Sounds like it should be trivial to detect and measure. So, why don't you post such measurements?

>>15426460
The quantum mechanics of photosynthesis is well studied, has been for a long time already, possibly since before you were born, kiddo

>>15426783
Okay, I understand you don't have any measurements to prove 1) that photosynthesis meaningfully affects global energy balance, 2) 'le greater than 1 albedo' dogma.

>>15386239
Unfathomably based summary. God damn leftist midwits are gullible

(1/2)
what a strange post. i admit i levied a few insults in my previous post, though i also admit they were few and far between amid the heavy mathematical and physics context. in short, all i did was say an argument made earlier in this thread was stupid (notice how i attacked the argument, not the user), and the most i attacked the user was calling people like you climate cultists. sure, i implied your ilk don't understand freshman level physics, but that's only because it seems to be true. nonetheless those were small parts of overall larger comments. in contrast, your post seems to be majority (personal) insults with little content. to summarize your content (in green text):
>you admit i'm right about your cited paper only used visible light, yet you attack my reading comprehension
hey, buddy. how do you think i recognized it's only using visible light? and why didn't you reveal that when you cited the paper? you also claim it's about 50% of solar radiation. are you really making the claim that 50% of solar radiation is enough to give you three significant digits for the planet's overall albedo? again, i assert you don't understand how errors work.
>sun's temperature isn't determined via blackbody radiation spectrum a la planck's law, it's ackshually done via the stefan boltzman law!
it's just baffling you don't understand these are the same concepts (planck's law is more correct).

>>15411330
>>15426936
(2/2)
>the albedo, when factoring in the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum (not just visible light) will not acquire a larger error (two citations)
anyone who analyzes data can easily understand the visible light spectrum is roughly flat and thus will be confidently measured. in contrast when measuring the rest of the spectrum, it's clear that the albedo is not 30% for all wavelengths of light. i mean, some wavelengths are clearly perfectly reflected and others are clearly perfectly absorbed. regarding your two citations, i've read them both and i don't see them reporting an error with their albedo. in fact, they're just citing older literature claiming the albedo is measured to be 30%. once again, what equation are you using to calculate the earth's temperature? what are the standard errors in each number used?
>absorption and reflection aren't the same, hurr durr you're stoooopid because i can't read
it's standard language in physics texts (cf. Jackson) to be concise with language via parenthetical statements. for example, see pic rel. on a random image i grabbed from jackson (a graduate text used for electrodynamics). do you honestly think jackson is trying to claim 4pi = 0 and that inside = outside?

>>15426876
The quantum mechanics of photosynthesis is well studied, has been for a long time already, possibly since before you were born, kiddo

>>15418944
>geothermal
insignificant

>>15426936
>>15426938
Stupid retard thinks he can pretend to be less retarded by taking a screenshot of Jackson lol. Jackson is using parentheses because he's referring to two cases. Notice also that he's not just using the parentheses once but twice because there would be no point in just using it just once. You were doing no such thing in your post and you also didn't just use parentheses but included an "i.e." which means you literally thought absorption is the same as reflection and are now trying to make up retarded excuses for your stupidity.

The rest of your post is similarly trite garbage consisting of you trying to cover your ass and it's not worth addressing (not that any of it was worth addressing anyway).

>>15428602
Kek he owned you so hard you don't even have a response. Nice concession faggot. Based thread

>>15428718
As expected, the braindead lackey immediately arrives to lick his retarded master's ass.

>>15428721
Just admit you're a liar and got exposed. It'll be much less embarrassing for you that way. He proved on multiple occasions that climate soientists like you would fail physics classes.

>>15428725
Try saying that again without his microcock in your mouth

>>15428737
You sound upset

>>15428777
You sound like your mouth is full of semen

>>15387388
>can't say i'm surprised that these climate cultists don't understand scientific principles taught to literal freshmen in college courses
most of the people on this board dont understand elementary scientific principles, most of them are incapable of grade school logic

>>15427847
I don't dispute the quantum mechanics or photosynthesis. However, your deflections clearly prove that you have no idea whether those phenomena meaningfully affect the global energy balance.

>>15429636
The only way you can disagree is by disputing the quantum mechanics of photosynthesis.

>>15428602
not an argument. honestly not surprised, since you don't often encounter people capable of calling your bs. you've tried everything, including talking points, citations, insults, and flooding. each and every one of those approaches didn't just get countered and rebuked, rather they got thrown back in your face. you make a calculation, i propagate errors. you provide a citation, i explain the citation to you. you insult, i counter with attacking the argument. you flood the thread, i counter with sparse, informative posts. what's next in your arsenal bud?

>>15429651
>The only way you can disagree is by disputing the quantum mechanics of photosynthesis.
Wrong, but thanks for confirming once again you have no measurements to back up your claims.

>>15430007
He'll shrink away from you and refuse to respond at all.

>>15429636
>I don't dispute the quantum mechanics or photosynthesis.
you clearly do, you're willfully ignoring it's effects in order to push your disproved global warming hysteria

>>15430667
aaand yet another post that failed to prove anything and resorted to straw-mans instead. Unsurprising.
Still waiting for the evidence of biological processes meaningfully affecting global energy balance. None ITT so far.

>>15430667
>>15430711
relax, there's no global warming, it's all globohomo bullshit, one of thousand

>>15430098
You called it. He must be hoping this thread dies so he can pretend he didn't get schooled

>>15430711
>None ITT so far.
you're just ignoring what you don't like seeing

>>15431493
There's no evidence (i.e. actual measurements/observations) mentioned ITT. Please stop lying.

>>15431493
>>15431640
However, in case I missed the aforementioned evidence - could you link the relevant post/posts? Much appreciated

>>15429651
https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2016/summer-science-exhibition/exhibits/quantum-secrets-photosynthesis/

the photosynthetic bands pretty much dominate the region of peak solar output, enabling plants to convert massive and climatologically significant amounts of solar radiation to matter without reemission. plants are the overwhelming majority of life on earth

>>15432696
We need to feed those plants, the more CO2 we feed them, the more cows,pigs & chickunz the plants can feed

>its another episode of "climate scientists don't understand basic math and physics"

>>15386239
science is always like this. its why most people with sense do not join your organizations and theres nothing left but grifters

You don't need to know shit about black body radiation to figure out the earth is warming when you can directly measure the amount of radiation entering and leaving the earth

>Step 1, point a bunch of satellites at the sun to measure what is coming at the earth
>Step 2, point a bunch of satellites at the earth to measure what is leaving it
>Step 3 is just finding the net difference

>>15434647
What's happening in this thread is as follows.

Someone with a physics degree is complaining that the model of climate change doesn't work. He starts off by stating the reason is because we can't accurately measure the flux from CO2. This is false because we don't need to model climate change to measure it. Because we can measure it we know it's caused my humans. I even posted resources he can use to learn but he refuses.

>>15434905
Points out exactly how we do it and have been doing it for decades. Pic related is a book on remote sensing from my personal library. Something clearly OP has never studied before. He is in WAY over his head but doesn't understand why. None of his points matter but because he's never studied climatology he doesn't understand why. He keeps backtracking to his understanding of physics and demanding answers to modeling questions that don't make a difference. Repeatedly I have tried to tell him that we don't need to model everything in the atmosphere to know what it's doing. Instead of reading anything posted by actual scientists he repeats his demands then declares science is full of lies which is why he can't publish his idiocy in a scientific journal.

>>15434950
Sorry, my image of the book on Remote Sensing.

>>15434950
>Doesn't address anything the physicist said
Textbook.

>>15435468
Sigh, need I explain as if you're a child then?

You don't even understand what remote sensing is or does. Nor do you even have a clue why I would bring it up in a thread arguing about climate change. You are so in over your head that you don't even know what you don't know.

We have been staring at Earth's atmosphere every single day, day after day for decades. We know exactly what Earth's atmosphere is made of. We know exactly how sunlight interacts with it because there are people who's jobs depend on knowing. Every single day, day after day for decades people have been collecting data about our atmosphere and how sunlight interacts with it.

Do you understand? I cannot sit here and teach a college level remote sensing class in a 4chan thread. Again, as stated by me many times in this thread, we do not need to model where all the energy is going because we measure it directly. Hundreds of thousands of hours of data. Do you comprehend even a little how in over your head you are?

If you wish, you may consult professors of climatology at any number of universities. We are not stupid like you think we are. We have the data to back up our assertions. I have even linked for you where you may start learning for yourself.

Clear?

>>15435694
> we, we, we
shill, man made climate change is a fucking hoax

>>15386219
Climate science is good for business, there are a lot of products to sell and a lot of money to be made when you can con idiots into subsidizing your company with taxes and criminalizing/outlawing your competition. It can also serve other political goals for the communists, so it has support for that reason as well.

>>15435694
Midwit come back to reality
>cold outside all over the city
>cold inside
>open the weather app
>it says it is 7 degrees hotter than measured local temp
There is no coherent team of bright and industrious scientists looking at the weather. There is only an echo-chamber and blackboxes doing some calculation that misses even something as simple as current temperature . The scenario you described is only in your brainwashed dreams. Maybe AI will change things. Take care

>>15434952
>horse sauce

>>15435694
you can't do basic thermodynamics

>>15437339
Here, I'm not going to play your game. You don't even know what your argument is. I'm done with you uneducated fools.

https://www.amazon.com/Balance-Climate-Atmospheric-Physics-Sensing-ebook/dp/B075H52V2Q/

>>15437392
any proof it's not another government fraud?

>>15434952
>>15437392
Good stuff

>>15437392
I don't think you addressed agw though, if I understand what's going on in this thread.

>>15437392
you can't do basic thermodynamics

>>15418671

>>15439349
> top scientists
this is the punchline. cattle is indoctrinated into worshipping "adults" right from school.

>>15434905

MY POST REMAINS UNREFUTED

NO AMOUNT OF PHYSICS "THEORY" CAN BE ACCEPTED UNTIL YOU CAN PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR DIRECT SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION OF THE REAL WORLD

>>15439435
if you're going to surround the planet with satellites to measure all the radiation coming and going then you're going to block out the sun and negate the value of your observations.
consider yourself refuted

>>15439349
As a top scientist I can confirm that we do not have receding hairlines or dress like slobs in our study rooms, nor is most of our work done on a shitty laptop that was stolen from a homeless guy.

>>15437392
>I'm not going to play your game.
You can't, you never learned how thermodynamics works, because you're too low IQ

>>15437392
>If you just buy this book, all questions will be answered
You're literally a proselytizing preacher. Only worse because you're demanding I buy the book instead of giving it to me. You people deserve the wall.

>>15400062
do you think there is air beyond the atmosphere so that convective cooling can happen? otherwise, where is the convection coming from? lmfao you fucking retard

>>15442095
Yes? The moon is covered in it, the earth is continuously offgassing. We lose ~95 kilotons of hydrogen alone in a single year.

reminder: there's no man made climate change.

>>15443042
thanks for the reminder

>>15387526
Why do you think temps dont get to absolute zero at nightime?

>>15444256
not enough night time to go to zero

>>15396173
that's why jannie deleted them

>>15435813
Dude... Petroleum and gas will run out in 2050-2090 and energy prices will skyrocket soon enough. Wars will be fought for energy. Millions will die. Even without climate change Oil is not renewable. It will run out and the bliss we have experienced during the years of cheap oil will dissappear into a world that needs renewables, regardless of climate change.
Also, you are acting like oligopolies have the possibility to easily transition to renewables when the industry becomes more economically viable. The reason we all dont have solar panels is because Oil energy is that much better and cheaper, but these companies already have a stake in renewables, inevitably what will change in the future with market restrictions are the workers of the lower strata of oil companies will run out of jobs in the transition.

>taxes and criminalizing/outlawing your competition.

Mein bruder in Christus, I ask of you, do you know what competition is? There being more energy companies is pro-competive, as it creates conflict in the market that will lower prices and incentivize to innovate.

Also, the big oil companies frequently engage in lobbying with the purpose of keeping their stake and maximizing profit, not giving a shit about neither you nor me, caring not the amount of microplastics we will have to consume to keep up their successful business.

> It can also serve other political goals for the communists, so it has support for that reason as well.

The only "commies" that exist are libshit socially left wing govs that are controlled by a elite cabal that works for the interests of big oil and other major companies. This climate change fiasco is another ruse for them, another way to make an extra buck while contaminating the planet with their filthy waste and unneccesarry profit drive motive to produce more regardless of anything of anyone. An all consuming behemoth, laying its waste and dirtying the beaches, poisoning the well. The beaches must be purified.

>>15386219
I'm starting to believe it's not the greenhouse effect.
But is sci saying there isn't any warming at all?

>>15445326
>their waste
kek you got no idea how much of your life depends on THEIR waste

>Petroleum and gas will run out in 2050-2090 and energy prices will skyrocket soon enough.
Okay sure

>Wars will be fought for energy. Millions will die.
Just two more decades

>>15445340
>kek you got no idea how much of your life depends on THEIR waste
I have every idea. Plastic production is essential in modern day. This doesn't mean that waste isn't watse, and it must be purified. I believe in beauty and purity in contrast to utilitarian notions of endless production for the sake of production.

I've also realized that you are functionally retarded, as my points on waste didn't seem to go through your head. Next time you reply, at least try to understand what a person is saying. I'm calling for a complete slaughter, a cleaning of every facet of modern existence in an effort for rejuvenation. Your tactless stupidity is proof enough that I've wasted my time, although I do hope you learned a bit through my text and can cease to spout such retardation.

>>15445377
Maybe I'm stupid but that saved me from midwit trap of buying into commie doomsday narratives so I still better off than (you)

>>15445439
Thank you for your input, but I rejoice im the prospect of conflict as it will put to test the shaky ground modern humanity has based itself on. I would rather know the truth than live in your blissful ignorance, and never in a million years would I change my place for yours.

>>15445456
Kek and your collapsitarian too
Dude your textbook dunnig kruger

>>15445461
I simply recognize that the earth has a finite amount of resources that will become more scarce which will create conflict. I don't know much, but I certainly know that I know more than you on the aspects that I've talked about, and you haven't proven me otherwise.

>>15445476
>which will create conflict
How do you know this

>earth has a finite amount of resources
Okay but how do you know humans smarter than you or I can figure out mining asteroids

>>15445484
you are such an idiot, product of propaganda pacification and optimization (from optimism). fact is, Ukraine and cvoid is only beginning.

>>15445522
>pacification
You're the two more weeks retard not me.
How long have you been waiting for the big boog

>>15445484
>>>15445484
-How do you know this?
Because its already happening and has happened before.
>Okay but how do you know humans smarter than you or I can figure out mining asteroids
You misunderstand me, I'm sure asteroid, moon and planet mining will eventually happen and I imagine there are already plans for it. My thesis is that resources will become scarce regardless, and renewables would offer a semblance of sustainability that would prevent this, although I think conflict will occur soon enough for socio political and geo political reasons. I don't think mindless optimism is smart though, you should hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I hope in my heart of hearts that the best will occur, and im willing to fight for it. That is one of the reasons I replied to your post(although its also because it was really dumb). I don't think anyone should lose hope really, but rather learn and try to fight for something better.

>>15445616
>renewables would offer a semblance of sustainability that would prevent this

>>15387388
Did you even read the last sentence in your picture?

>>15445616
plans to reduce population to ~1 bln till the end of this century were already voiced many times.

So, if man made climate change isn't real why is the world getting warmer? Why is it getting warmer faster at night? Why is it getting warmer faster in the poles? Why is it getting warmer in the troposphere but getting cooler in the stratosphere? Why is incoming radiation from the sun staying consistent but outgoing radiation from the Earth dropping?

I feel like someone doesn't know what's going on and it's not the climate scientists.

>>15446001
it's not. it's just what globohomo paid you to write.

>>15386432
Almost
It absorbs photon

>>15446029
See, this is the problem with the denialists in this thread. They focus on only one thing they know. A specific piece of physics. Ignore all the evidence against them, and declare themselves winners.

>>15446054
> denialists
you deny that you are shill paid to propagate bullshit, you deny reality

>>15446308
Okey dokey mate.

>>15445625
Yes, I know that silicon which is important for renewables and other types of energies are kinda shit. But, can't a man hope? Indifference won't change anything.

>>15445737
Good, in that case be preparad. Ibdont know if youve read my text, but I do think great conflict will happen. Whether it goes down to 1 or 2 billion doesn't change the fact that we need to prepare ourselves for the worst, and try to fight for the best. Cucked mentality makes you think you have no power over changing the future, but you do you fag. Great men of history have. It's a matter of knowong when the time is ripe, don't get so fucking hopeless.

>>15446308
Schizo. If anyone were getting any money from climate change activism we would all be activist. Except you, you seem very noble and courageous standing up for the truth. I admire such.

>>15446332
> smug anime pic
stupid shill

>>15446377
global warming is major business, and 4chan is great shillery.

>>15446432
It is, but I'm sure no 4channer is getting money. I think its mostly concern for the future that is driving climate change arguments, which, ngl is kinda fucked the way things are going. You aren't any better than them really.

>>15446377
>Schizo. If anyone were getting any money from climate change activism we would all be activist.
But every big companies are shilling environmentalism because of the ESG rating system.

>>15446456
> I
and I know this site is a paid shills den

>>15446596
Do something about it then pussy.

>>15446965
What a strange way to respond.

>>15446971
shill run out of imagination

>>15445335
the global warming narrative is just a religious doomsday scenario for atheists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology

>>15447310
Keep talking, you won't change anything here. This is a fucking echo chamber for faggots. Go on. I hope you the best, truly.

>>15446971
No, its a reacción based on my principles of the neccesity of action after the completion of a thought. Doing, as opposed to sitting still on 4chan with cock in hand. Hope that clearly things up for you. Echo Chambers on the internet won't change anything, action will(i.e. stop being a pussy).

>>15447369
That's what I'm thinking too.

>>15447700
>>15447706
>Reacción
Hola. Then what kind of meaningful action are you suggesting ? I know I'm feeding the troll but I'm still curious to see what is fueling that bitterness.

>>15447700
> demoralization
okay

>>15447700
>I hate 4chan
why are you here?

>>15386219
Incels from 4chan must save the world by forcing everybody to produce even more CO2.

>>15386219
> /sci/ - Science & Math
> refuse science and believe in fairytales in order to deny reality

What did a bunch of losers living with their parents mean by this

>>15447916
They're addicted to being angry and can't rationally explain or defend their beliefs. It's why the first thing they do when they see a post that slightly disagrees with them is to chimp out.

>>15439349
Really, think about this: A 4.6 billion-year-old planet with an 8000-mile diameter, with a molten core (heat, etc.), with an atmosphere that is only 50 miles/240,000ft thick (being rather generous), that orbits a star only 93 million miles away with 330,000 times the earth's mass and that emits enough radiation to burn your naked ass in 30 minutes, is having its weather unalterably changed over the course of the next 5/10/15 years (whatever it is now) by the presence of a weak greenhouse gas, CO2, that happens to now be at its lowest level in damn near the entire history of the planet -- a history punctuated by global glaciations while that weak greenhouse gas was far higher than it is now -- and that also happens to be the basis of plant life (and therefore atmospheric oxygen), a gas whose greenhouse effect is dwarfed by that of water vapor (on a planet with a surface area that consists of 70% water), and that geologically is currently in an interglacial period. The models that generated this political bullshit have predicted nothing correctly -- not sea level change, polar ice cover, or weather.

And everybody believes it anyway, to the extent that they are handing the management of the world's economy to elderly megalomaniacs with an agenda based on their own personal power. You're not even allowed to question it -- otherwise sensible people have agreed with the ridiculous premise that CO2 is a deadly poison that must be eliminated from the surface of the earth.

>>15446054
Yes, how foolish to rely on Physics. You should only rely on the daily beast.

>>15448794
You don't understand what science is. It is a methodology, not a tenet of unquestionable religious beliefs.

>>15448829
>No, I won't read your words diarrhoea.

>>15448829
Modern "science" is nothing more than a religious cult for midwits.

>>15448841
And you have learned this methodology from 4chan, a website made for people whose entire personality and beliefs are based around not having had a girlfriend in high school.

>>15448854
Take your meds schizo.

>>15448855
Look at the mirror and repeat it.

>>15386219
You're absolutely right anon. In fact, the earth is flat which explains why the co2 produced from humans will simply fall down from the oceans at the edges of the world and disappear into space.

>>15447916
I love 4chan. It's a place where you can express anything, and I can call you a retarded faggot without any grand social repercussions like ostracization. You really don't get my points at all. Never have I said that I hate 4chan, but rather that I see a need of action, of planning rather than creating a retard echo chamber where you jerk each other off and tell each other how retarded the media is and society is so bad boo hoo you fucking cuck baby. Do something about it cuck. You're a fucking pussy and you know it.

>>15447871
Is my cock being in your mouth demoralizing you? Take it out then pussy.

>>15447855
You can start by doing actual fucking science you cuck. Even if you won't get published you'll be contributing to the knowledge of humankind. Hell, you might even be able to change a couple of mind while you're at it.

And of course, you should organized your community for it to become stronger. Tight knit communities create strong bonds and will provide the strength to face the future.

Even a retard could figure this out, but meaningful action is also contextual. And genuine impactful action depend on opportunities, rather than pure organizing action. Hope that clears things up for you cuck baby.

>>15448982
man, you surprised me. not sure you are actually a man. off your meds?

>>15448971
dude, you write/talk too much. many such cases, cause of many lolz. toxic narcissism.

>>15449043

Talk more if you have something to say pussy boy. So far, youve only shaped platitudes. I'll gladly listen, but I'm sure it will be mostly worthless.

>>15449034
It seems obvious from the fact that you keep putting my cock in your mouth. Keep talking pussy boi. I'm right and you know it.

>>15449189
> cocks
you must be scientist with HUGE experience lol

>>15447369
Not all that ironic.
If they had any religious education, atheists would know not to follow false prophets, their lack of religious opens them up to being influenced by liars

>>15449458
Are you? If so enlighten me on the wonders of the scientific investigations you created.

>>15450004
you do have to take meds lol. you are right on the way to shrink.