/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15664343
CO2 doesn't modify climate; climate modifies CO2.

>>15664343
Also, the idea that steak is responsible for climate change is the most fucking retarded thing ever. All the CO2 the cow emits comes from the grass they eat which comes from the air and soil. If cows are driving climate change then things would have been warming up sooner with all the bison that were in North America. Eating vegan to save the environment is the most retarded thing ever.

>>15664343
CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. It traps heat by letting visible light through and reflecting infrared light (heat).

Humans began burning carbon fuel from the ground, releasing carbon dioxide. The average global temperature has increased quite rapidly since then, the fastest the earth has ever warmed as far as we know. But that’s just a coincidence right?

What info do you have that makes you skeptical of anthropogenic CO2’s effect on global climate? Or is it more of a gut feeling, A general distrust of authority?

>>15664427
It's not because of co2 it's because their manufactured diet makes their gastrointestinal system less efficient so they produce more methane 200 liters a day or 200 pounds per cow per year, 20 times worse a greenhouse gas, they are responsible for 9 percent of greenhouse gasses emitted by weight. bison make less methane per pound of mass, even though there were 45 mil bison in us vrs a billion cows world wide, 90 million cows in the us, and we(Usa) eat 30 million a year, after them living for 5 years importing most our beef, the solution is dietary enzymes, new gut bacteria, feed them less corn, and just general dietary changes at industrial scales, which is difficult, I don't belive changing diet worldwide is a real solution, I loooove beef
tldr; huff cow fars to get hiiiiggh

>>15664343
ok so when is the world gonna end? I’ve been hearing about the end by climate “scientists” for decades now… they’re habitual backtrackers

Meat is my breaking point. I will tolerate some higher taxes, I will tolerate laws that limit certain kinds of vehicles. I am not going to tolerate not being able to regularly eat red meat. This is going to be the same way for most people. If laws are passed limiting subsidies on meat production the reaction is going to be the same thing with trannyshit, people are just going to turn against respecting the science of climate change at all

>>15664571
>so they produce more methane
But that methane is part of the natural carbon cycle between atmosphere -> earth -> animal -> atmosphere & earth. Whatever carbon they are putting into the sky is coming from it at some point. It is completely different than burning fossil fuels because then you are taking carbon that has been stored in the ground for millions of years and releasing it into the atmosphere.

>>15664457
Shouldn't that be absorbing IR? How does reflecting heat trap it?

>>15664580
>I will tolerate some higher taxes, I will tolerate laws that limit certain kinds of vehicles
cuck'd
u give an inch, they'll take a mile

>>15664343
>Maui wildfire
>california wildfires turn the sky black
>canada wildfires turn the sky orange in NY
>texas wildfires
>all this SneedO2
>temperature hasnt changed from SneedO2
>you cant use your stove or drive a v12 despite the equivalent amount of SneedO2 being released in 10 minutes of wildfire to drive a V12 car for 6 million years
its all a scam to make money off carbon tax and electric cars

>>15664457
CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of light. Once 100% of that wavelength is absorbed, more CO2 makes no difference. We have already reached this point.
The entire AGW narrative depends on made-up "feedback effects". If they're real we should soon see them thanks to that underwater volcano that bumped temps up by 1.5 degrees

>>15664571
Just collect the methane and use it as fuel

>>15664580
I can't believe you're so fragile and poor that you can't either pay the real price of beef or eat something you can afford instead.

>>15664573
You have poor reading comprehension. Nobody respectable has ever said we would be dead by a certain date. You were simply unable to parse a sentence about a presumed point of no return.

>>15664961
>natural
What makes you think cows, an unnatural species created by humans, having a population of a billion is "natural"?

This is why methane is a problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

>>15665029
Greenhouse gasses do reflect part of the sun's IR. The issue is that the light absorbed by the earth is reradiated entirely as IR which is reflected back to the ground, heating the Earth. This section explains in more detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Energy_balance_and_temperature

>>15665031
Wildfires don't burn carbon that has been displaced from the carbon cycle for millions of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

>>15665035
Wrong.

>>15664343
>rice
>Increases co2
Go to hell

>>15665118
So what's that got to do with atmospheric gases? If the problem is re-radiance on the ground, you need more cloud cover and the atmosphere is less relevant.

>>15665126
You know google is free, right? Flooded rice patties create methane from anaerobic decomposition. Rice contributes nearly as much to the greenhouse effect as beef.

>>15665122
If it's old growth forest then it's displacing carbon that was sequestered centuries ago, which seems relevant.

>>15665134
CO2 is an atmospheric gas, you imbecile.

>>15665135
It says Co2 tranny
Woops!

>>15664457
>the fastest the earth has ever warmed as far as we know
* The fastest its warmed in the last 100 years FTFY

>>15665139
It wasn't old growth forest, it was grass and some buildings.

>>15665150
In Maui sure, but what about in Canada?

>>15665134
Cloud seeding is a proposed form of climate change mitigation that has several drawbacks. You might be interested to know that recent legislation reduced sulfur emissions with the intent of reducing acid rain and it had the unintended side effect of reducing cloud cover and therefore global dimming, which in turn allowed additional heating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

>>15665153
Yes
Burning carbon releases CO2

>>15665139
It wouldn't matter if it were. A century is not very long.

>>15665142
from your article: "The atmosphere and clouds reflect about 23% and absorb 23%. The surface reflects 7% and absorbs 48%."
So again, if the issue is that the surface absorbs a lot more heat, then we need to block sunlight getting there, hence cloud cover? This isn't some bad faith gotcha post, on god.

>>15665145
It's CO2 equivalent emissions. The person posting the graph likely doesn't understand the difference.

>>15665100
>n-nooo, we never claimed that everyone was going to die! Only that the entire worlds ecosystems would collapse and that it would be hot enough to melt lead outside by 2010!

>>15665160
Increasing CO2 drives an increase in water vapour, which is itself a much more powerful greenhouse gas. But yes, that increases cloud cover which increases the earth's albedo, you're right. But water vapour doesn't stay in the atmosphere for very long because you know... It rains.

>>15665165
Post anything that you believe corroborates your claims and I'll walk you through what it actually says. I'm sorry the American educational system failed you.

>>15665167
Isn't that kind of what we need though? Faster rotation through the water cycle helps mitigate depletion of water resources because it rains more frequently, and this restores an albedo that's only out of whack because of us in the first place?

>>15665174
See
>>15665155

>>15664343
Eating billionaires is a carbon negative activity

>>15665176
Based

>>15665175
I don't get it. The cloud seeding article opens with "Its effectiveness is debated" and then proceeds with a very long list of times it's worked.

>>15665093
You will never be a woman. Just a sad eunuch, sweetie.

>>15665181
Typically cloud seeding is used to attempt to increase rainfall, which is what their talking about when they refer to the effectiveness. You can read more about it under the effectiveness section.

>>15665186
Stay mad and poor.

>>15665174
Water vapour increases temperature but also more clouds decrease temperature. I don't know which one overall is greater.

>>15665195
Shouldn't you just be able to do the math on insolation on a square foot of ground versus cloud?

>>15665198
I don't know, but I can tell you that more clouds means less water on the surface of the earth

>>15665200
Sure, but earth is mostly covered in water and most of that water is useless to us, to boot. Not that I expect even total cloud cover to make up 0.01 mm of sea level change, there's no shot its anything but statistically irrelevant.

>>15665172
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-salt-lake-tribune/46297968/
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/934139/
https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-strategy-a-chilling-prospect.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
https://web.archive.org/web/20150912124604/http:/www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
https://www.newspapers.com/image/247922164/?fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjI0NzkyMjE2NCwiaWF0IjoxNjkyMDc1ODI2LCJleHAiOjE2OTIxNjIyMjZ9.q4N-FW94IvrGnYX4R0cF1oQ5kb5lwadRLAPEXe0g0kM

>>15665202
I'm talking about things becoming a lot drier, not sea level change.

>>15665205
First one is about a population explosion. The man making the claim is taking about a malthusian trap. The second one is a statement from someone trying to sell their book.Third one is an assessment by the Pentagon, who are not a scientific organization and prepare response plans for worst case scenarios of any possible threat. The scientists responding are not confirming the Pentagon's assessment, they are voicing their hopes that this will spur Bush to change his policies.

That's three misses in a row so I'm not going to bother with the other three. Please work on your reading. You might have fun with Captain Underpants or Amelia Bedelia to get you started.

>>15665149
you realize there are geologic records that accurately estimate temperatures for the last 11,000 years, and so far the world has never heated up that quickly

>>15664343
The real solution is to exterminate 7.5 billion humans from the face of this planet
They are trying to avoid this truth at any cost

>>15665282
>accurately estimate temperatures for the last 11,000 years
how do you know the estimates are accurate? did you use a time machine to double check them?

>>15665155
>>15665160
There’s new research coming out that has mentions in Science and Nature that we may have been unintentionally geo engineering for decades because of the sulfur in shipping boats induced significant bright cloud seeding that noticeably slowed down warming. Now that regulations have removed that sulfur, there’s significantly less clouds and less bright clouds. It may related to the unprecedented marine heat being observed right now

>>15665149
Even at the fastest rate on the onset of the interglacial periods, it took 1000-2000 years per degree of warming. Now we’re getting a degree of warming per 100 years.

>>15665381
The new parts of the research are mostly data about measuring how much the new policies have affected what's known as global dimming, which is when cloud cover reflects more of the suns light away. We've been researching it for decades. We caused global dimming, mostly with sulfur like you said, which partly shielded us from global warming. Now we've begun to reverse it, which is beneficial in a number of ways, but also we will gradually lose that shield and experience more warming. You should read up on it, especially because seeding clouds to mitigate climate change relies on causing global dimming and it has been a popular topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

>>15664427
Cow burps methane. And also cow is god. If you eat cow you are demonic.

Nothing burger.

They don't care about the environment, they just want to stop having to produce beef. Cows are a terrible investment, you only get about 2-3k per cow at sale, and with keeping them alive you barely scrape a profit. They're also incredibly stupid animals and can die in dumb ways.
t. ruralfag

>>15665102
>What makes you think cows, an unnatural species created by humans, having a population of a billion is "natural"?
Natural isn't the point, you are missing the point of the post.

>>15664961
>methane is part of the natural carbon cycle
>>15666077
>Natural isn't the point
So are you trolling, or just retarded?

>>15664343
CO2 does modify climate, but its more of a rounding error. Not the primary thing to be concerned with.
The Sun is emitting increased radiation, which is warming our planet.
It is this simple.

>>15666090
Lol, no.

>>15666095

>>15666087
Whether the cycle is natural or not doesn't matter. The point is that the carbon that is being put into the atmosphere is coming from carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere, unlike fossil fuels where you are adding new carbon to the system by pumping it from the ground and into the air. You just had a knee jerk reaction to a word and thought you spotted a logical fallacy when none existed. Work on your reading comprehension skills before posting here again.

>>15666095
Post Y axis.

>>15666101
Yes, solar irradiance and the average global temperature are closely related. Now, see how recently the sun has began to cool while the Earth has been warming even faster? That means that the sun is not the cause of the heating.

>>15666143
Are you blind?

>>15666141
>Hurr durr, all of this is natural, but it's not about it being natural because that's a buzzword
You are definitely a retard. Try reading this page and see if you can spot the issue with methane emissions, regardless of where the carbon came from. Actually try to read this time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

>>15666150
I'm 100% smarter than you. I'm basically a God compared to what meager activity is going on inside your brain (which is basically nothing). The reason methane coming from cows is not the equivalent of dumping loads of CO2 into the atmosphere is because the cow is taking CO2 from the atmosphere to make methane. Whereas when you drive your car you are taking carbon that has been in the ground for millions of years and putting it into the atmosphere. You are just parroting talking points made by oil and gas companies to shift the blame onto agriculture and live stock. You are only repeating these talking points because Bill Gates and Mark Robber told you to.

>>15666189
Wew, lad. You're really determined to be a retard, huh? Read this and see if you can figure out the issue with methane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

>>15664343
1856
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Newton_Foote#%22Circumstances_Affecting_the_Heat_of_the_Sun's_Rays%22

>>15664343

Global warming is a mass mental illness propagated by all kinds of bottom and top feeders, deranged women and basedmen, third world whiners, and le epic reddit scientists. Everything is exactly the same as it was 20 years ago. Somehow we are in a climate emergency but the world population keeps growing by insane amounts. People can't cope with a few shorelines rising yet western countries can somehow cope with importing a billion third worlders. Western consumption is unsustainable but yet we insist on bringing more consumers into the population.

Ive analysed all the raw US weather station data and even with all the shenanigans (measuring temperature next to fucking buildings) the warming trend is like 0.2C over a century with a small decline towards the last decade. After climategate and all the schizo rhetoric these people put out any sensible person should be ignoring them and shaming anyone going along with this new religion. EU energy consumption has declined since 2008 due to this lunacy and there has been zero economic growth and everything is falling apart. US will probably follow suit soon.

how did they get people to freak out agaibst crypto and nfts but people just ignore this about meat?

>>15664343
There is no proof that is not heavily manipulated by interest seeking to steer society in a certain direction.

There's no reason to trust any of it honestly.

>>15664343
Lmfao
>The data
>The science
>How dare you question it

When you aren't allowed to question something then it becomes a religion.

That's what this stuff is. Repent from your sins and live the way we want you to (but we won't live that way ofc :)) ) or you will suffer eternally and so will your children.
No different than any corrupt mega church preacher preaching chastity and then going and banging three thots on the alter while snorting a mound of coke

>Remember, we're all in this together

But honestly this stuff is supposed to capture the fear of the lowest common denominator. And I'd be perfectly fine if all of them stopped doing and enjoying everything that is in the circles.

Maybe we can price them out

>>15664343
The goal is to make living life so miserable that people will kill themselves because we can't ethically wipe out billions of people.
Systematically killing off religions and belief systems that want you to live long and prosper is part of that.

>>15666240
Take your meds

>>15666255
>>15666269
>>15666274
>>>/pol/ is that way

>>15666283

Take your dildo

>>15665373
>This data would prove me wrong! I.. uhh.. the data is wrong! There’s a climate conspiracy! I base this on my fear of being wrong and no other scientific evidence!

>>15666189
Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, about 25x more potent. If cows convert CO2 to methane, they will increase the effectiveness of the atmosphere to trap heat.

>>15666240
How about satellite imagery? Did you analyze those and find a warming trend?

>>15666255
There’s no proof that it IS heavily manipulated

>>15666672

>>15664343
Wow the Economist is brilliant, surely, if we eliminate steak consumption we will just fast like wise eastern philosopher.

>>15666842
>Unironically posting propaganda from oil companies
Cringe

>>15666842
Ok so you don’t trust the models, even the ones that have predicted the climate accurately, fine. Lots of people don’t understand models so lots of people don’t trust them. Do you trust satellite temperature data that indicates rising temperatures? Do you trust geologic temperature data that shows natural warming is much slower than what we’ve seen in the last hundred years? Or would you dismiss anything that doesn’t conform to your beliefs?

>>15666923
Ok so you trust the models, even the ones that haven't predicted the climate accurately, fine. Lots of people don’t understand models yet still trust them. Do you trust satellite temperature data that doesn;t indicate rising temperatures? Do you trust geologic temperature data that shows natural warming is much slower than what we’ve seen in the last hundred years? Or would you dismiss anything that doesn’t conform to your beliefs?

I think a lot of climate deniers are simply uncomfortable with the fact that humans can have such a large effect on the world. There are many cases of ancient human societies harming their local ecosystems to the point where they ultimately harmed themselves. Now that humans are a global species they’ve started to negatively affect the globe.

I think they’re scared of the possibility of such large negative consequences, so they claim conspiracy and fraud. To them it’s more comfortable to think that a small group of people decide how things go, and that the world is not a large chaotic process.

They’d rather tell themselves that everything’s fine, it’s just those damn climate alarmists making everyone afraid!

>>15666668

Haven't looked into it yet.

>>15666926
The anger you're feeling is the result of cognitive dissonance.

>>15666938
>projection

>>15666926
1. Yes I trust scientists over 4chan
2. Satellite imagery overwhelmingly shows warming
3. Yes I trust geologic data (but you didn’t change that part in your epic retort)

I look into data that challenges my beliefs. So far nothing has been convincing

A warm planet reflects the warmth in our hearts.

>>15666951
>i hate 4chan
why are you here?
>Satellite imagery as analyzed by ZOG propaganda agencies overwhelmingly indicates that ZOG's political agenda is the correct one
trust the soience!! trust the government!!
>I look into data that challenges my beliefs
Mars has over 2000% more CO2 per unit surface area in it's atmosphere than Earth does and yet, Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect. Whatever the greenhouse effect on Earth is due to CO2, the greenhouse on Mars should be over 20x greater, yet Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect whatsoever. You will ignore this because it doesn't fit into your preconceived notions, tickle your confirmation bias, empower your motivated reasoning and you will continue to spout all the same pilpul that has been fed to you by the professional propaganda agencies you worship

>>15667002
Is this picture from 1900? If not, the percentage is wrong.

>>15666947
You're so close to awareness

>>15667002
>imagine being this retarded

>>15667002
Interesting point about Mars. Let’s dissect it.

You’re correct, Mars proportionally has a lot more CO2. But that doesn’t translate to having a stronger total greenhouse than Earth, because there are other things that contribute to total greenhouse effect. Namely being other greenhouse gases, like gaseous water which Mars lacks, and solar energy, which Mars has less of since it’s further from the sun.

If Mars were perfectly identical to Earth except it had 20x the CO2 then yes it would have a much stronger greenhouse.

CO2 is not the only factor in how warm a planet is. But it certainly is a factor, and more CO2 means it will be warmer, all else being equal. You can’t deny carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it’s simple physics.

>>15667219
It has nothing to do with earth. There is zero effect and your conclusion is wrong.

>>15667231
>you’re wrong because I say you are
I accept your concession

>>15664571
LMAO, morons blaming cow farts because CO2 can't do it.

>>15667257
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, cope.

>>15667219
>can’t deny carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it’s simple physics.
Is a greenhouse gas to feed the plants, not to warm them you dumb ass.

>>15667002
>Earth does and yet, Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect.
Why do you keep lying when you’ve been repeatedly been proven wrong?

>>15666240
>I refuse to understand the difference between regional and global temperatures

>>15667261
CO2 molecules absorb and reflect infrared radiation. They do not absorb and reflect visible light. This is a fact.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FpofhHd2jcs

>>15665102
>What makes you think cows, an unnatural species created by humans, having a population of a billion is "natural"?
It doesn't fucking matter if they're "natural" or "unnatural" because the total amount of ruminants is actively lower than its ever been in human history. The hand wringing over cow farts producing methane is insanity because its lower than its ever been, the true culprit is fossil fuels from human production, and all of it is because China, India, and Africa are industrializing.

>>15667353
>the total amount of ruminants is actively lower than its ever been in human history.
That is incorrect. Would you like to try to prove otherwise with real data?

>all of it is because China, India, and Africa are industrializing.
That's wrong too. Pic related.

>>15667367
Every industrialized nation keeps track of the total number of cow they have, every single one peaked back in the 1950s-1970s period of time and has been in decline ever since. The amount of Cow in the US has never replaced the number of Bison that existed prior to colonization, the total number being between 40-60 million in the 1500s, before dropping down to a total of 325ish in the late 1800s. >>15667367
>That's wrong too. Pic related.
Being purposefully stupid I see, the total sum of emissions from Asia India and Africa IS INCREASING from the 1950s, that means Europe and US + The new total from developing nations. Even a fucking midwit can figure this shit out.

>>15667458
>he doesn't know the difference between local and global
>he doesn't know that most of the meat he consumes is imported
Wew, lad. Would you like to try again?

>>15667458
>the total sum of emissions from Asia India and Africa IS INCREASING
Because they're industrializing. The per capita emissions are still a fraction of US per capita emissions. Why isn't the US having industrialized an issue in your mind? Is it because it already happened? That's a little like asking your neighbor "why are you mad about me shooting your dog last week if I haven't shot him this week?".

>>15667458
>>15667514

>>15665451
good morning sirs

>>15664571
Methane degrades into CO2, having a half-life of 7 years in the atmosphere
Also it's literally expelled by every single mammal, not just bovids

So is this board now just where /pol/tards come to be retarded when they get bored of doing it on their own board or something? Please go back. We don't want you here.

>>15667576
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
>Methane has GWP (over 20 years) of 81.2[4] meaning that, for example, a leak of a tonne of methane is equivalent to emitting 81.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide
>A gas which is quickly removed from the atmosphere may initially have a large effect, but for longer time periods, as it has been removed, it becomes less important. Thus methane has a potential of 25 over 100 years (GWP100 = 25) but 86 over 20 years (GWP20 = 86);

>>15667588
It's been this way since at least 2015

>>15667219
>CO2 is not the only factor in how warm a planet is. But it certainly is a factor
Its is not a factor, if is were a factor then Mars would have a measurable greenhouse effect, which is does not. Mars isn't warmer than it's calculated planetary equilibrium temperature, which is the temperature it would be at if it had no atmosphere whatsoever.
Mars has zero greenhouse effect, but has a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere surrounding it, which means that it is impossible that CO2 is a greenhouse gas

>>15667795
Did you not read my post? You’re just making the same claims again. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas due to its fundamental molecular physics. It lets visible light through while absorbing and reflecting infrared light. You could prove it for yourself, if you got two clear plastic or glass containers, filled one with co2 from a steel canister, and not the other, then placed thermometers in both and left them out in the sun, the box with the co2 would reach a higher temperature. You’re denying basic and easily observable facts.

>>15667795
Mars does have a measurable greenhouse effect, see >>15667264

>>15667795
>Imagine being this retarded

>>15668039
>Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas due to its fundamental molecular physics.
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, you can try and make that claim all you want, but if CO2 really was a greenhouse gas then Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect, however Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect of any magnitude, so CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

>>15668080
Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

>>15664343
>I there any conclusive evidence that CO2 modifies the climate at all
yes, just read the exxon internal report
they knew co2 caused climate change, and they funded misinformation so they could keep making profit
the misinformation worked too well, and now we have people who think climate change isn't real

>>15665031
>10 minutes of wildfire to drive a V12 car for 6 million years
Retarded take. There are millions of cars on the road everyday, not even counting other means of transport like ships.

>>15667265

You're an absolute brainlet. Dont ever @ me again until you've written a basic notebook to analyse the following data yourself:

https://www.weather.gov/tg/anonymous

>>15668080
Mars has a measurable greenhouse effect.

>>15668544
There's hundred of millions of cars in the US and more than a billion worldwide.

>>15664580
Beef should be more expensive anyway, farmers get absolutely scammed by supermarkets

>>15666842
>fortran is bad because it's old

>>15668501
>wikipedia

>carbon footprint
Fossil Fuel industry propaganda to avoid accountability and manufacture consent.

>>15666927
Also most people really deeply believe that bad things only happen to bad people, that there has to be a reason it's the bad person's fault somehow, and that they're obviously good people. They wouldn't say it so plainly, but look at how strenuously people work to find some behaviour to blame for people's situations and some excuse for why it'd never happen to them personally. Climate change is a global bad thing happening to them, which in their mind is fundamentally impossible.

>>15664427
vegans fart 7 times more than non vegans

>>15664343
> real food
Binds CO2 31 times better than tofu. So we just need more herds.

>>15669208
If the info on that article is so clearly false, what’s wrong with it?

Face it, you have no rebuttal

>>15669644

>>15670226
Criticizing the source means you have nothing against the source material. You have no good reason behind your claims just admit, you’re embarrassing yourself

>>15669286
Correct. It's all their fault and they should be put up against the wall and shot, but until then you can punish the fossil fuel industry by reducing your carbon footprint.

>>15664457
> It traps heat by letting visible light through and reflecting infrared light (heat).
most of the suns light is visible though.

>>15670447
Yes precisely. The visible light travels through the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then hits the ground and heats it up. The earth then radiates heat (releases infrared light). That infrared light is absorbed and reflected by carbon dioxide molecules, preventing heat from radiating into space.

>>15670447
Correct, and most of the Earth's light is infrared. What are you confused about?

>>15670882
>>15670939
>t. greta tier plebs who have never studied planck's blackbody law and can't even do basic math

>>15671236
>Look at all the words I learneded! I don't know what they mean, but I know the words so you're wrong!
Lol. Begone child.

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

>>15671236
We’re all here to learn and share information. Why don’t you explain how carbon dioxide wouldn’t reflect infrared radiation back to earth?

>>15671453
>wikipedia
so you're trying to tell us you never studied any science beyond high school

>>15664343
There's allegedly a strong correlation, although some argue that the measures are cherry picked, but causation hasn't been unequivocally proven.

>>15671819
No, but I can tell that you haven't and that page if fairly comprehensive. If it's too hard for you I can see if there's a page for it on simple wikipedia.

>>15671819
You can’t explain why CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas

>>15671873
>if fairly
is*

>greenhouse
>more CO2
>more rain
>more yield
Plants are so back this year, you just mow.

>>15671857
The interactions of CO2 with infrared light were discovered in the 1800s

>>15664571
I don't believe the methane has a higher impact than co2. This is a chart of the wavelengths each greenhouse gas absorbs. Each gas can only absorb specific wavelengths, and the more gas is absorbing that specific wavelength the more saturated it becomes and you would have to keep doubling the amount of gas to get the same warming effect. This is well known. But Look at methane and water vapor, notice how methane overlaps with water? So the extremely minimal amount of radiation being absorbed by methane (which was already absorbed by water) has a 20-80x bigger impact than co2? I just don't buy it.

>>15672341
It does. The magnitude of warming caused by methane is less than carbon dioxide because of how much more carbon dioxide there is. Learn how to use google.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
>Methane has GWP (over 20 years) of 81.2[4] meaning that, for example, a leak of a tonne of methane is equivalent to emitting 81.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Similarly a tonne of nitrous oxide, from manure or paddy fields for example, is equivalent to 273 tonnes of carbon dioxide.[4]:7SM-24

>>15672351
I already explained why it doesn't make sense, quoting wikipedia isn't an agument.

>>15664571
adding a bit of seaweed eliminates that problem almost entirely

>>15664571
the extinction of wild bison and declining populations of elephants probably offsets methane emissions from methane completely. Also termites are the biggest emitters of methane of the animal kingdom

>>15672357
Facts don't care about your feelings. Methane doesn't stop being a powerful gas because you had some vapid thoughts.

>>15672361
Good point. We'd better shut down all the termite farms and exterminate them whenever we find them in our yards. I think we can really make an impact. Big Termite won't see us coming

>>15666211
/thread

>>15672521
But methane does stop being a powerful gas when all the wavelengths it absorbs was already absorbed by water vapor, which is something like 10,000x more abundant in the atmosphere than methane. You're not even making an argument here, you just peddling dogma without thinking about it.

>>15673315
How does that logic work? Water doesn’t absorb and reflect all of the infrared light that earth radiates, so by increasing the amount of a gas that absorbs and reflects infrared light- even if it’s the same wavelength- won’t it still act as a greenhouse gas? There’s plenty of infrared to go around.

You’d be right if water absorbed and reflected 100% of infrared light, leaving none for methane to reflect.

Like if you a had a department of cops that shot black, brown, and yellow people on sight, there’s still more people than cops. Say a new department comes in, different cops and they only shoot black people on sight, the number of black people getting shot will still increase, even though they overlap in what they do.

>>15664343
Is there any conclusive evidence that magnifying glass modifies the ant at all or is the magnifying glass a made up excuse developed to justify fried ants?

>>15673315
The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is highly variable and determined by local evaporation. Why don't you get a freshman textbook on climate change instead of looking at random graphs and saying "well, I reckon..."?

>>15673406
see the chart I posted. Water vapor absorbs exactly the same wavelengths of radiation that methane does, meaning the the bands that methane can absorb are already saturated by the presence of water vapor. When the bands of radiation get saturated you need a doubling of green house gas to get the same effect. The minuscule amount of methane is essentially made irrelevant by the amount of water vapor.

>>15673420
How many areas on earth is water vapor less abundant than methane? Not many. How many areas is water vapor 10,000x more common than methane? That's most of earth.

>>15664343
Large enough concentration of CO2 can cause greenhouse effect like venus
There is as far as I can tell no evidence for CO2 greenhouse effect under earthlike concentrations

>>15673504
Are you stupid or just trolling?

>>15673900
Address argument

>>15673567
The reason venus is hot is because the atmosphere is 100x more dense than ours.

>>15673996
Ah, stupid. The concentrations of greenhouse gasses relative to each other doesn't matter because the spectrum is not saturated. Your musings are idiotic.

>>15664343
nah, 0,04% of the atmosphere is extremely important and warrants a world encompassing mass hysteria worthy of lots of continuous discussions reaching every single nook and cranny of the world wide web including this, an anonymous image posting forum for korean knitting autists.

>>15674017
The specific bands at which methane can absorb radiation are saturated because water vapor absorbs the exact same wavelengths while being 10,000x more abundant in the atmosphere. Adding a few drops of methane in the mix will be negligible, the claim that methane is 80x more power than co2 (used to be 20x btw) only makes sense if you do not factor in water vapor.

>>15674036
It's clear you don't understand what "saturated" means. If you genuinely want to understand this topic why don't you start over and get a freshman text on climate science? I'm sure you can find one on libgen.

>>15674046
get one on gender inequality science too, since you'd be required to do so while learning "climate science" anyway.

>>15674046
It's clear that you are incapable of making a coherent argument other than "nu uh" The graph I posted shows which bands of radiation are being absorbed and which ones are being thrown out. The bands that methane can absorb are nearly 100% due to the presence of water vapor in the atmosphere. You can actually see co2's effect because it absorbs wavelengths that water vapor does not, but you cannot see methane's effect at all.

>>15674089
Unless you're reading that graph wrong you just don't understand enough to understand why you're wrong. Water vapor is not saturating methane's band. You need to start at the beginning to avoid getting stuck in misconceptions.

>>15674214
Unless I'm reading the graph wrong? You read and explain what the graph means then mr I looked at wikipedia

>>15674257
Like I said, it's clear you don't understand enough to understand why you're wrong. Are you a visual learner? Do you have Photoshop or GIMP? Try this. Set the opacity to 50%, then cut out methane's spectrum, flip it so it's upside down, then overlay it onto water's spectrum. Any part that does not overlap is an unsaturated part of the spectrum. Make sense?

>>15674278
retard

>>15674308
You're just proving to me that you don't understand enough about this topic to understand why you're wrong. And this is why I keep telling you that you should start at the beginning and work your way up. Do you understand that the spectrums are additive? That's why I told you to flip and overlay the spectrums.

>>15674342
>Do you understand that the spectrums are additive?
They are not additive, and even if they were 10,000 and 10,001 is not a practical difference

>>15674349
They are additive. You really need to study this from the beginning instead of jumping in the middle. See the part in the middle that says "total absorption and scattering"? That's the result of adding those spectrums together. Each gas on that list is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.

>>15674386
The relationship is logarithmic not linear. Everyone knows this except you.

>>15674440
Again, you're wrong. Just get a freshman text.

>>15674608
No you are wrong. The equation used for green house gasses is a logarithmic equation, and if you read a freshman text you would know that they don't get the total absorption by "adding" the greenhouse gasses together. Tip, how do they know how much radiation should be coming out of earth if there was no greenhouse gas vs how much radiation is leaving? It's simple subtraction really. Stop pretending like you know anything when you clearly don't. That is why all of your retorts are "lul go read a textbook I know nothing about"

>>15664457
i don’t believe CC’s impacts will be significant enough to care about. Commies just use it (like everything else) to justify more tyranny.

>>15666643
Yes. Now fuck off with your death cult.

>>15674000
There's evidence for CO2 greenhouse effect in high concentrations. See studies from 1800s made by the woman that cited often

>>15674966
women can't do science

>>15674777
You are mired in misconceptions and conflation. You need to start from the beginning to get a coherent understanding of the science. You cannot jump into the middle without understanding what you're reading and hope to fill in the gaps with random wikipedia pages. At this point I don't really care anymore, so you can choose to continue being an uneducated retard, or you can choose to educate yourself. Either way I'm out.

>>15670372
Source: my ass.

If you criticize my ass as a source, you have nothing against the shit my ass is spewing. Just admit, you're embarrassing yourself.

>>15675224
I accept your concession.

>>15675250
If you interpret that as a concession then you are delusional on top of being ignorant and uneducated.

>>15665123
Correct. At concentrations greater than 100 ppm, there is very little marginal IR absorption by CO2.

>>15675252
You gave up, i.e. condeded, and now you are just throwing ad hominems. Either bring something to the discussion or permanently see yourself out.

>>15675262
I explained all of your misconceptions and.you were unable to understand what I was telling you because of your ignorance. The retard doesn't win because his teacher couldn't get him to understand addition. And in case that analogy is unclear, you are the retard who refuses to learn.

>>15675282
No, you were just spouting misconceptions and displaying a general lack of understanding, while accusing the other party of the same, i.e. projecting. All you were doing was 'no u' and 'red a buk'. The retard is you, but not only the one who refuses to learn, but also one who is way too sure of his garbage and patently wrong 'knowledge'.

>>15664343
This is using global numbers that include Indian and Chinese cows that are very inefficient.

>America’s cattle producers, who between the 1960s and 2018, reduced the carbon footprint of the industry by 40 percent while producing 66 percent more beef
https://www.drovers.com/news/beef-production/us-beef-industry-most-sustainable
Looking at these numbers and seeing that the US's 1960s value is the global norm if the global beef industry used the US's methods beef production would only do a quarter of the CO2 emissions.

>>15675224
I accept your concession that you are incapable of having a coherent argument.

>>15675250
You’re not me faggot

>>15675282
For fucks sake you cannot add the effect of greenhouse gasses together with simple addition.

>>15675326
>>15676153
>>15676166
>chesswithapidgeon.png

>>15676169
LAWL it is just that :3

>>15676169
So says the guy whose only rebuttal was “go re a buk!!!”

>>15676304
I know that's the only part you understood and I'm not going to waste anymore time explaining it to you. Why don't you try to synthesize the total spectrum in the middle from the rest of the spectrums? You'll find that you have to add them together and set any value over 100% to 100% because those values are saturated. That will be the easiest way for you to understand that you're wrong and ignorant on the topic, and for that same reason I'm sure you won't even try.

>>15674966
>There's evidence for CO2 greenhouse effect in high concentrations
Mars has over 2000% more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth does and Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, if it was then Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect due to CO2

>>15676737
>Mars
Retard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars

>>15674966
That has nothing to do with venus being hotter due to the atmosphere being 100x more dense

>>15676584
You're still here assuming that you add greenhouses gasses here together lol. But regardless the extremely small amount of methane will never come remotely close to the effect of water because water absorbs the same wavelegnths, yet we have to pretend it's 200x more impactful than co2

>>15665422
>>15665381
Completely retarded pseudoscience backed by no evidence. Just neck.

>>15676915
Synthesize the spectrum. It should be trivial for you with any art program and some high school math.

>>15676918
Go be a retard somewhere else.

>>15676947
If you opened a textbook you would probably see an equation like this
ΔF=5.35×log(CC0)Wm−2

>>15677462
That is high school math. Try to synthesize the spectrum using it. This should be trivial.

>>15677532
u first

>>15664457
Got something that might interest you.

>>15668080
Mars' atmosphere is incredibly thin, but more to the point that Venus has an atmosphere that's around 92% CO2 and it's the hottest planet in the solar system, hotter than Mercury which is the closest planet to the Sun.

>>15677695
It has more to do with atmospheric density.

>>15677713
The ocean is technically a high density atmosphere and yet it's fucking freezing down at the bottom. Why is that different anon?

>>15677560
No, you aren't going to accept anything I present to you. You have to do this for yourself.

>>15677715
water can't easily be compressed so it's not the same as comparing it to a gas. The bottom of the grand canyon is hotter than the top due to higher pressure.

>>15677773
>im too scientifically illiterate to do what i proclaim as basic math

>>15677829
Logarithms are literally basic math and addition is even more basic math. Are you trying to tell me that you are scientifically illiterate? Why don't you start with the easier one and see if adding the components yields the total spectrum?

>>15677850
u do it mr expert

>>15677859
You won't accept anything I present you. You have to do it for yourself. It really should be trivial for you to do. GIMP is free btw

>>15677865
I accept your concession

>>15677867
You refuse to try because you know that you're wrong.

>>15677874
Let me list all of the arguments you've made real quick

>>15677882
Alright, I can't wait to see how your lack of understanding twists my arguments

>>15664343
>I there any conclusive evidence that CO2 modifies the climate at all or is CO2 just a made up excuse developed to justify forced modifications to human behavior, such as forcing people to eat estrogen beans instead of real food?
Nah little sheeple it's a psyops, the hecking globalists are tryring to make you eat "ze bugs" as youth says, just remember to change your car/phone/home appliances every year, buy premium gas, drive everywhere instead of walking and consome as much irrelevant shit as possible, don't let those globalists win!

>>15677906
Take your meds

>>15677908
dilate

>>15664427
Ok this is proof that /sci/ is double digit IQ.
There are BILLIONS of cows, pigs, hen and sheep, they've been bred to be far bigger, they are given tonnes of food filled with antibiotics/pesticides and they require a ridiculous amount of space and water compared to breeding say bugs. This plce is just filled with NPC cretins who parrot their favourite blue check twitter accounts. My post will recieve some "zogslop eat ze bugs" replies without any doubt. Humans are so doomed

>>15677829
>water can't easily be compressed so it's not the same as comparing it to a gas.

Really fucking irrelevant when all you have to do is raise the temperature above 100 degrees Celsius to turn water into a gas.

>>15678314
Humans aren't doomed, the human population just needs to come down in size. Alternatively we just need to build carbon capture plants and turn carbon dioxide into calcium carbonate by injecting it underground into basalt rich areas.

>>15664427
This. Cows are carbon neutral.
>>15667640
So the cows will cause a bump in the greenhouse effect but it will be capped, because the total of carbon in the atmosphere won't change, it will only become more potent because more of it will be methane.
>>15664580
I don't mind eating the same amount of meat my grandfather did in his youth, which is much less than we do now. Same with dairy products. However, giving up beef and dairy completely is indeed retarded.

>>15679281
The best form of carbon sequestration is incorporating biochar into your compost.

>>15664457
>nobody answers the question except for the poltard coping with a schizographic
kek

>>15667353
>i-it doesn't matter tranny stop questioning the agitprop

>>15679251
U realize that the water near underwater volcanoes is above 800 degrees?

>>15679426
You realize that the Sun is eight light minutes from the Earth and is hotter on the Sun facing side than the other?

That's how irrelevant your point is.

>>15679452
Retard doesn’t understand gas laws

>>15679633
Yep. You're the retard.

>>15664343
its just a made up excuse developed to justify forced modifications to human behavior, such as forcing people to eat estrogen beans instead of real food

>>15664343
so pork is more climate friendly than fucking rice?

>>15681639
Trust the science chud

>>15681639
It just shows how much in total. Not CO2 per benefit.

>>15681639
In terms of total emissions, yes, but globally we produce 780 million metric tons of rice and 100 million metric tons of pork (carcass weight). We produce more than three times the calories from rice than from pork.

The reason rice has such a high impact is because it's grown in flooded paddies and the anaerobic decomposition in the submerged mud creates methane and nitrous oxide. Rice doesn't need to be grown in flooded paddies, but doing so helps prevent pest infestation and plant disease, and often the paddy is used for some type of aquaculture as well to grow rice.

>>15682003
>780 million metric tons
thats about 100 kilos of rice per person annually
or about 0.25kg per person per day
rice is about 1.5calories per gram
so the rice crop alone is enough to provide about 20% of the world's caloric needs.
wheat and corn crops are both substantially larger than the rice crop

>>15665035
We’re not even close to reaching the saturation of the greenhouse effect though.

>>15677689
You’re not correctly interpreting the data in this graph if you think it disproves CO2 forcing

>>15666095
>>/sci/image/yTR786xBXFC2+2TSuNoPQg
stop spamming that government propaganda image over and over

>>15664343
Climate alarmists should be concentrated into camps, so to speak.

>>15684010
Cope harder, shill.

>>15682461
Who cares? What point did you think you were making?

>>15682488
You’re not correctly interpreting the data in this graph if you think it doesn't disprove CO2 forcing

>>15665274
>we hope this retarded scenario that we don't claim has any connection to reality will change people's behavior
What an odd thing for scientists to say.

>>15685484
Amazing argument

>>15685875
You’re not correctly interpreting the data in this graph if you think it doesn't disprove CO2 forcing

>>15664343
No, there’s no evidence.
Put two greenhouses next to each other, completely sealed.
Same nitrogen and oxygen mixture, except one greenhouse has 400 parts per million of CO2 (0.04%) and one has 2,000 or 3,000 ppm (2% or 3%) and their will be no difference in how they heat up throughout the day.

>>15664580
You’re a dumb bootlicker, holy shit lmao

>>15682471
Lmao, do these retards not understand that we have CO2 data that goes back millions of years?

>>15679281
>Humans aren't doomed, the human population just needs to come down in size.
I agree. We should start with the ones that have the highest CO2 footprints (i. e. Westerners).

>>15687446
>highest CO2 footprints
the jews who own all the big businesses are the ones with the largest carbon footprints. they're all flying to the climate conference in epstein's 727

>>15664343
No.

There is but one simple question I'd like to see answered: what is the source of those major carbon dioxide spikes which occurred before modern civilization existed and which nobody historically denies? These spikes happened before human industrialization could be blamed. I do not wish to discuss what causes the current spike. Let's completely put aside the question of what is causing the current spike, let's do a funny different thing and focus entirely on the past. What caused those previous spikes? If I was utterly deranged I would look at this graph and get the psychotic idea that it might have to do with orbital mechanics due to the suspiciously cyclic pattern, but we all know that can't be right so let's explore the more rational alternatives.

Is the Earth cyclically being hit by meteors carrying gigantic amount of carbon dioxide? Is the Earth cyclically developing unknown lifeforms that dump mass amount of carbon dioxide and leave no fossils? Are people from the future using time travel to dump pollution in the past? Please no trolling I'm 100% serious. Surely there must be a satisfying explanation with meteors/mystery lifeforms/time travel which explains why all these spikes are unique disconnected events of fantastic origins each, which are also set to never repeat again, as such that any current of future spikes can only be human-driven.

>>15689687
It's mostly stored in the ocean. As the sun's activity increases the ocean gets warmer and carbon dioxide that was dissolved returns to the atmosphere until the sun cools down again. That's why carbon dioxide has historically lagged behind increases in temperature. Modern warming is caused by humans releasing the huge store of carbon that fossil fuels represent back into the atmosphere. We know that we are the source of this carbon dioxide because of the ratio of isotopes of that carbon dioxide. Pic related.

>>15689896
>As the sun's activity increases...
I don't want to seem rude but I think you posted the wrong picture. I asked what is causing these spikes of CO2. Your answer was the sun. This is the part of the conversation where you show a graph showing that the sun goes in periods of increased activity which historically coincides with the bursts of CO2/Temperature that we are discussing. Can you post the correct picture?

>>15664343
How about we get rid of the rice, and global air travel and keep the beef?

>>15666923
>Lots of people don’t understand models so lots of people don’t trust them
This is key aspect of it, long term models haven't *predicted* anything (yet), pretending models are somehow settled science and not extremly sensitive to input bias is disingenous. Geologic data is fine, but there's a difference between "the earth is warming" which I wouldn't dispute and "my model is accurate™ proof that rising CO2 will increase GMT by 2°C by 2040" which is the key point of the current climate strategy. Providing non falsifiable model caculations of the earths climate over and over and over again as the "evidence based" foundation for global CO2 management is a little ridicouless, no other serious field (except economics which is a complete disaster) works like that, but here it's used to effect massive changes in the social and economic structure of the modern world

test

>>15690503
Nope that's the one I meant to post. It shows the fraction of C13 decreasing at the same rate that the concentration of carbon dioxide has been increasing since the industrial revolution. That's proof that modern increases to carbon dioxide, and hence the modern warming, have come from fossil fuels rather than from the ocean.

>This is the part of the conversation where you
Don't tell me how to lecture. Google is free.

>>15690901
>Imagine being this retarded

>>15690988
No other field could get away with half the shit climate scientist pull, even pharmaceutical companies have to offer a little more than model calculations and cherry picked proxy studies to get their shit to the man

>>15691052
Post degree

>>15690901
There was actually a study led by nobel price winning economists that showed that the earth would have to warm by over 2 degrees for climate intervention to be cost effective

>>15691052
Debatable if pharma needs more than that sometimes

>>15689687
It's stored and cycled in the ocean/deep ocean.
>>15689896
You are wrong on some aspects. The release and storage of CO2 in the ocean aren't controlled by solar activity output, It's triggered by insolation changes controlled by orbital parameters (Milankovich Cycles).

>>15690983
>Don't tell me how to lecture, google is free
But I wrote "There is but one simple question I'd like to see answered" and you clicked on that post. You clicked on that post, which asks to discuss but one thing, and then you replied to it with a short and vague statement which blames the sun and then immediately changed subject without providing any explanation or evidence for your claim. What am I missing? Indeed google is free but I didn't ask what google costed either. I asked one thing. Why did you click on that post in the first place? You clicked on that post, which asks to discuss one thing, and then you didn't. There is nothing you can possibly say that can change the reality of the conversation and make it look like something else. I implore you to reconsider the path you are taking, and consider the alternative of simply posting the data which has convinced you that the sun goes in periods of increased activity which historically coincides with the bursts of CO2/Temperature that we are discussing. Please, my friend, can you post the correct picture?

>>15691589
>It's stored and cycled in the ocean/deep ocean.
Interesting. And what next?

>>15691615
What about it? The cause of the glacial-interglacial periods due to the uptake and release of CO2 from the ocean is well known. This cyclicity changed the atmospheric CO2 concentration by at most 100ppm, which took tens of thousands of years to increase, same with temperature. We have added 160ppm in just 100 years which has driven the extremely rapid temperature increase.

>>15691611
>short and vague statement which blames the sun and then immediately changed subject without providing any explanation or evidence for your claim. What am I missing?
You're missing high school chemistry if you don't understand thermal equilibrium, and you're missing solar cycles if you don't understand that the sun's activity is not constant.

>There is nothing you can possibly say that can change the reality of the conversation and make it look like something else.
Take your meds.

>Please, my friend, can you post the correct picture?
I posted the picture I intended to. You can easily look up atmospheric carbon dioxide compared to the global average temperature and you can even read the studies that discuss their relationship. As for my part, you asked a specific question to which I gave a specific answer. You can use that answer to find all the data and evidence you want. I don't owe you anything and if you want me to give a dissertation to answer a post on a Korean hotdog forum then you're delusional.

>>15691755
>As for my part, you asked a specific question to which I gave a specific answer.
Ah, I see, this was just a misunderstanding on my part. You clicked on my post with the full intent of answering the one thing which the post asks, I just didn't see your answer. In fact this is a bit embarrassing, because I'm still not seeing it. Please, can you show me where you posted the data which has convinced you that the sun goes in periods of increased activity which historically coincides with the bursts of CO2/Temperature that we are discussing? If you can't then you clicked on my post with no intent to answer it, and we both know that's not true. Thank you for being patient and understanding with me.

>>15691661
>What about it?
Ah, my bad. You said where CO2 was stored. I didn't ask where CO2 was stored. I asked what causes the CO2 spikes and that means discussing the mechanics which produces it and releases it. You talk about what releases it and therefore I ask: and what else? I would like to keep this conversation nice and tidy. Am I to understand that you believe the Earth is experience cyclics increase in temperature and CO2 as a result of orbital parameters? Your correction toward the other anon is worded strangely to me. Here's what I mean:

>the release and storage of CO2 in the ocean aren't controlled by solar activity output, It's triggered by insolation changes controlled by orbital parameters (Milankovich Cycles).
>the release and storage of CO2 [...] is triggered by orbital parameters.
>the storage of CO2 [...] is triggered by orbital parameters
How does a planet's orbit causes CO2 storage? The releases, certainly that makes sense to talk about, but you wrote storage and release. I can only read that sentence and interpret that you believe the planet's orbit causes CO2 to spontaneously start existing in the oceans. That does not seem right so I must be off. So where does it comes from? I can see an argument that orbital parameters cause temperature changes which increases something which is the ocean's natural production of CO2 but that isn't quite what you wrote. It would be disrespectful for me to assume that it's what you mean, so I can only ask if you could clarify some more. I recognize that my knowledge is incomplete, so I would like to know your full answer. Thank you in advance. This is such a nice board.

>>15691788
>>15691856
Learn high school science and come back.

>>15691902
My high school science didn't explain how a planet's orbit spontaneously causes CO2 to start existing in the Earth's oceans. I apologize for my inadequate education.

>>15691914
Are you illiterate, stupid, or just trolling? Atmospheric carbon dioxide is in thermal equilibrium with carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean. It isn't spontaneously created by anything. You should have learned about thermal equilibrium in high school chemistry.

>>15691914
I think if you were genuinely curious you’d seek answers outside of 4chan, instead it seems you’re trying to find a “gotcha”

>>15691947
Is your post genuine? You're posting on 4chan. I think if you were genuinely sharing your opinion on what's genuine then you would be seeking discussion outside of 4chan. Instead it seems you're trying to find a "gotcha".

>>15674342
> the spectrums are additive
lol
lmao
he thinks it's an emission graph lmfao

>>15691914
>>15691856
This has all been extensively measured and quantified btw

while an entertaining read, i don't think "the only claims i actually make related to the discussion are pants-on-head retarded so i'll retreat to calling everyone who responds stupid" anon is qualified for the schizo collection.

granted, it's stiff competition these days - the timesand spammer, the chitin schizo, the "normal people have lead deficiency" autist/narcissist, etc. is this, perhaps, a new schizo golden age?

>>15666643
You leave the brainlets alone and they multiply in their echo chamber.

You reply with the logical explanation they asked for and they abandon logic.

"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway."

>>15692036
>>15691856
>>15691788
>Cold water can hold more dissolved CO2
>in Greenland, cold water sinks taking CO2 to the deep ocean
>CO2 is stored in the deep ocean

>>15692036
>fig.1: column water inventory of anthropogenic CO2
I'm not asking about anthropogenic CO2.
>>15692053
What is the source of the concentration of CO2 in the ocean which contributed to the cyclic emission of carbon dioxide that the planet has historically experienced? There's only so many ways I can re-phrase the concept that talking about what releases storages of CO2 does not answers a question about where it comes from. This is the equivalent of repeatedly inquiring where an agricultural food produce is locally grown and be repeatedly answered that it comes from the kitchen. Yes, and before that?

I do not want to be the guy who bogs down a thread with reiterations so it would be convenient if someone could click on a post which contains a question and then answer that question. If any further person wants to click on a post in this discussion thread and bring up the subject of CO2 storage in water, I ask that you refrain from doing so. Just resist the urge. Don't post at all. Not because I disagree with it, not because I don't believe it, not because I erroneously wish to discard it as irrelevant. No, I say this simply because it was already done, the concept of CO2 storage and release in oceans was mentioned, that's great, repeating it will add nothing. Now all that's left is to answer the question of where the CO2 comes from. The combined knowledge of what cyclically contributes to the production, storage and release of CO2 forms the answer to my simple question. Thank you in advance for your patience and understanding.

>>15692148
Are you stupid? The carbon has been on Earth since the formation of the planet. Are you confused about the carbon cycle? Read this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

>>15692169
>The carbon has been on Earth since the formation of the planet.
Then cyclical conditions would release it once and that's it. The Earth's oceans would contain X amount of CO2 as per the formation of the planet, then X orbital conditions would occur and release X amount, and this would be set to never happen again. This certainly doesn't seems right. Something cannot be cyclically released over and over without a sister theory about that which stores it. I am asking about that which stores it. You are right that it was always there on the planet generally speaking, I am asking about that which pertains to the increasing concentration in the water, or any other storage hypothesis that might come up and cause the cyclical patterns I wish to discuss. Again, the combined knowledge of what cyclically contributes to the production, storage and release of CO2 forms the answer to my simple question. Please refrain from posting anything else and thank you in advance for your patience and understanding.

>>15692198
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is in thermal equilibrium with the carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean. Learn what thermal equilibrium means, retard.

>>15692214
What modifies the thermal equilibrium of that which you speak? That which modifies the thermal equilibrium is the answer to what causes the cyclic emission of carbon dioxides that we are discussing. I have no way of knowing your opinion if you won't speak it. For example an earlier anon blamed the sun. They talked about carbon dioxide stored in the ocean and vaguely said something about the sun cyclically undergoing periods of increased activity. They refused to provide evidence or elaborate. They could have taken refuge by parroting the exact thing you said, "carbon dioxide is in thermal equilibrium, retard". I don't see how that statement is a valid alternative to providing actual data about cyclic solar activity. They acted as if they held an answer which relates to a thermal equilibrium, but refused to explain what they are thinking about. The same applies here, I respectfully concede that I truly have no idea what your opinion is. You never spoke it. I have no way of knowing whether you happen to personally believe that the sun cyclically undergoes periods of increased activity. It might be what you are thinking off, it might not be. Which is it?

>>15691589
>>15692198
>>15692148
Refer to this figure.

>>15692284
>If any further person wants to click on a post in this discussion thread and bring up the subject of CO2 storage in water, I ask that you refrain from doing so. Just resist the urge. Don't post at all. Not because I disagree with it, not because I don't believe it, not because I erroneously wish to discard it as irrelevant. No, I say this simply because it was already done, the concept of CO2 storage and release in oceans was mentioned, that's great, repeating it will add nothing. Now all that's left is to answer the question of where the CO2 comes from. The combined knowledge of what cyclically contributes to the production, storage and release of CO2 forms the answer to my simple question. Thank you in advance for your patience and understanding.

>>15692291
I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about the contributions and fluxes of carbon from the terrestrial biosphere and the oceanic phytoplankton

>>15664457
... and you're the authority. well, you and a host of other authoritarians.
you'll be eating wagyu and filet-mignon just fine, it's the "chuds" on 4chan you're up for taxing out of existence.
general distrust of scum like you is natural.

>>15679342
the kek of the smug.
nobody listen to this guy; nobody comply with anything.

>>15692303
>I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about the contributions and fluxes of carbon from the terrestrial biosphere and the oceanic phytoplankton
CTRL-F: "phytoplankton"
Results: none.

This word was never spoken once in this thread nor is it contained in the picture you quoted. Did you post in the wrong thread? If not then what are you even talking about, who are you talking to, what are you replying to? I might understand your opinion better if you will speak it. Don't worry, we have all the time in the world. Take it easy. I have to say, it's good to have a science board where everyone is friendly, concise and communicative in their replies.

>>15674028
You're stupid as all fuck. If 0.04% of the atmosphere was hydrogen cyanide, you'd be dead. If it was CFCs we'd be baked alive etc. 0.04% of something with a strong effect, like the effect of CO2, is important you utter fucking moron. Also:

>Commas

>>15692280
The average temperature of the oceans and the atmosphere is what modifies the equilibrium. You would know this if you bothered to look up what a thermal equilibrium is. The variations in solar activity are what has historically influenced those temperatures, but modern warming is dominated by the forcings caused by our emissions. Are you being retarded on purpose?

>>15692324
You are legit a retard.

>>15664343
Little did you know, it's not the average person causing the most climate change, it's the companies who are dumping shit in the ocean and polluting the environment; and at one point, they are going to try to blame the average person instead of fixing their act.
It has nothing to do with food, it's all companies releasing shit into the ocean and the atmosphere so they can get a quick buck.

>>15692346
a. Those aren't stable chemicals
b. Life would have evolved around it
Any more dentheaded shitposts from you?

>>15692447
>The variations in solar activity
Alright. Looks like we're doing this again. Can you post the data which has convinced you that the sun goes in periods of increased activity which historically coincides with the bursts of CO2/Temperature that we are discussing?
>>15692449
I try my best.

>>15692979
If you're not just retarded, you're very good at trolling. Both of those points are complete non-sequiturs and do not address the point I made.

>>15693337
Here, retard. You do know how to use a search engine, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_phenomena
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate

>>15693676
No thanks that's okay, just skip that process and post the data itself. Much better this way. I heartily recommend that simple course of action because wikipedia is a collection of reference links, just post the references themselves. Posting the exact data you are thinking about would allow ourselves to discuss the data. I still have little idea about what opinion you actually possess and what data you specifically want to refer to.

Here. I yanked some data from one of your own link. The study is massively outdated and extremely limited. I don't see much mention of support from the scientific community. Lastly, I can look at the picture myself and with my own two eyes and say that I don't find it particularly satisfying. There is one vaguely matching curve and many divergent peaks, seems pretty random. It also mentions a number of sunspots whereas I'd like to see more profound data about exact levels of solar radiation. But perhaps this isn't the data you've seen and that you want to discuss? It's in those links, but those links contain main things and you don't necessarily agree with all of them. Maybe it's relevant data to you, maybe it's not. I won't disrespect you with baseless assumptions.

I have to say, I am slightly puzzled by the fact that another anon posted in this thread to correct the solar activity and call it wrong, while all I am doing is cautiously asking you to show the data, but you appear solely dedicated to replying to me over and over, ignoring the other person altogether. I am only asking to see the data, there is another person straight up calling you wrong. What am I missing? I'm happy to learn more about divergent opinions. We're all friends here.