/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15662935
The entire thing is wrong, start to finish. You should read up on the actual science rather than the idiotic gibbering of retards.

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

>>15662946
> Wikipedia
Nice joke

>>15662935

>>15662946
but where is he exactly wrong

>>15662957
The numbers regarding the so called green house effect are very sketchy.

>>15662957
This reads like ChatGPT trying to COPE

>>15662953
Wikipedia beats screenshots for /pol/ everytime.

>>15662959
Everything he says is wrong. Compare his post to the wikipedia article. The first line demonstrates that he has no understanding of the greenhouse effect whatsoever, and the next line confirms it.

>>15662935
Fine, I’ll bite.
The first point seems to assume that a greenhouse gas molecule would rise to the top of the atmosphere without transferring any heat to the surrounding air molecules, which isn’t true.
For the second point, the poster has a bad understanding of radiative heat transfer. Statistical, half of the longwave radiation from the atmosphere is directed toward the surface. If the atmosphere is warmer, then there will be more back radiation.
Third, the burden of proof lies with the anon who made the post. I’m not going to make a complicated heat transfer code to check this anon’s claim.

>>15662976
>screenshots for /pol/
*from /pol/

> However, the most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov and it is this compound on which his study focuses. According to Shaidurov, only small changes in the atmospheric levels of water, in the form of vapour and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes to the temperature of the earth's surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities. Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius.
> Water vapour levels are even less within our control than CO2 levels. According to Andrew E. Dessler of the Texas A & M University writing in 'The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change', "Human activities do not control all greenhouse gases, however. The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, he says, "Human activities have little direct control over its atmospheric abundance, which is controlled instead by the worldwide balance between evaporation from the oceans and precipitation."

>>15662964
What gave you that idea? We can directly measure these figures with satellites.

Just make a big mirror on the moon and reflect the sunbeams back to the sun haha

>>15662957
>supported by principles of climate change
wtf

>>15663109
Are you illiterate?

>>15662983
This is why Physicists should stick to their lane and stop trying to debunk climate change. You dumb fucks know so little about how the atmosphere works it's laughable.

Please explain residence time of water vapor and how it cannot force climate change. This is undergraduate level Climatology 201.

>>15662953
you act like a nigger, the average /pol/ user acts like a brown third worlder

>>15663129
Maybe you should study palaeontology instead. CO2 is a trailing indicator of climate change, not a leading indicator.

>>15663140
co2 leads to some greenhouse effect. that in turn causes evaporation of more water and there you go.

the sun is getting warmer.
run the math and this has a much larger effect than any bullshit with greenhouse gases or anything to do with our atmosphere.

this is the open secret you can't say out loud.

>>15663188
retard take

>>15663199
to think otherwise is retarded. the sun is emitting more heat. this is easily measurable.
You think some how the Earth is absorbing that increased radiation, but not increasing in temperature proportionally? Explain how that could possibly work.

>>15663204
> but not increasing in temperature proportionally
retard take(2)

>>15662935
Now this is a classic troll post. Kind of a lost art at this point really.

>>15663216
you spent 10 minutes furiously googling anything and everything and all you came up with is a historical temperature chart which supports my perspective
sorry lad you've been brainwashed

>>15662935
Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not a climate scientist.

>>15662946

>>15662935
The basic point seems to be that the atmosphere is cold but the ground is hotter therefore the atmosphere can't contribute to heating the ground, but this is incorrect. The atmosphere still radiates (approximately) black body radiation back to the ground and the energy in this radiation needs to go somewhere, so it contributes to the energy input of the ground which raises its temperature.

For an extremely idealized model with all of the atmosphere having the same temperature see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model

The entire model is mathematically spelled out in that page, so you don't have to trust anything as long as you understand the content of a first year physics course (I say that for the wikipedia deniers out there). The atmosphere is colder than the ground and the ground is at a higher temperature than it would be without the atmosphere being present. If you want a more realistic model just take more layers in the atmosphere.

>>15662976
>Wikipedia beats screenshots for /pol/ everytime.
exactly wrong, /pol/ outranks wikipedia by a wide margin in terms of being an accurate source of information

>>15663188
>>15663204
>>15663226
Retard take

>>15664397
>>15665121
Cope harder

>>15662935
>can you refute this anon's points?

>There's no trapping of heat.
>The top of the troposphere is cold, so no heat was trapped.

The insulating effects of atmosphere are self evident: The planet is warm and has a predictably (comparatively) consistent temperature. Space is cold and heated inconsistently. Simple as. If you don't believe me go and stick your hand in a vacuum and report back.

Everything else he said is conjecture.

>>15665129
>source: NASA
NASA is a ZOG propaganda agency, not a scientific organization

>>15662976
I bet you sad retard actually believe that.

>>15665129
thats fake data anon.
solar irradiance is going up rapidly

>>15662953
retard

>>15665184
>>15665655
>gets proven wrong
>THE DATA MUST BE FAKE

>>15665756
>picture supposedly drawn by someone working for a climate-hysteria-funding government
>"proof"
Normies are legit mentally ill...

>>15665129
>>15665756
it is quite literally fake data.

Total Solar Irradiation was first measured in 1978 with a satellite array.
Your chart has data predating that by 100 years. It is fake.

>>15665857
wow they made their prediction 3 years ago and it was only off by about 80% so far.
i totally trust these same geniuses to tell me what the weather is going to be like in 100 years

>>15665184
>>15665655
>>15665849
Retard take

>>15665857
>sunspots
Are you trolling, or just stupid?

>>15666874
Both.

Accept the sun or live in denial.
You can't change what's coming.

>>15666900
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
>Solar cycles last typically about eleven years, varying from just under 10 to just over 12 years. Over the solar cycle, sunspot populations increase quickly and then decrease more slowly. The point of highest sunspot activity during a cycle is known as solar maximum, and the point of lowest activity as solar minimum.

We are moving into a solar minimum, which means lower solar irradiance, and sunspots are not an adequate proxy for solar irradiance.

>>15665849
so show where solar irradiance increased since 1978 then

>>15665121
>exactly wrong, /pol/ outranks wikipedia by a wide margin in terms of being an accurate source of information
lmao

>>15665121
Anon, this is going to blow your mind, but anybody can just go on /pol/ and lie.

>>15667952

>>15668020
>Imagine being this retarded

>>15667952
>Anon, this is going to blow your mind, but anybody can just go on wkipedia and lie.

>>15662935
Anon doesn't understand how blackbody radiation works. Less radiation =/= colder

>>15662935
The greenhouse effect is real.
However, the reason it's getting warmer is also because of man made desertification, hydrological damage and lack of plants causes higher heat build up near the ground...
That's also why the peak temperatures are disproportionally stronger than the average increases...
Just take a look at Google Earth and scroll over Europe or the US. A huge amount of that goes to Africa and Asia, btw.
Endless fields that are empty for half the year. Completely unsustainable.
We are overproducing so they can over-reproduce and it only ends up in their ecology also becoming dysfunctional.
The Sahara? Until 6000 years ago it was green.
South America? Regreened in a hundred years after mankind was gone, uniquely having been terraformed by mankind for fertility with water management and terra preta.
The middle east, Petra, where they still find Jaguar bones, Israel, the land where milk and honey flow, it's a desert. The historical farmland in China, you guessed it, it's a desert.
Except the Chinese actually repaired a huge area by planting trees and grasses, repairing top soil and stopping hillside erosion. It's now a positive biomass environment that fulfils the needs of the people and grows more every year, as opposed to the desert that is exploited out of necessity, stopping all growth, before it could ever become a positive biomass environment.
Ecology regulates the planets function, destroy it and it deregulates.
There's a huge amount of degraded land around the world, that could be restored and we are just not doing it, because it hasn't been made profitable, because far away profits are uncertain.
The best thing is that politicians love to deflect their ecological destruction policies by blaming Co2 from cows. It's a retarded deflection meant to steal your money, while keeping the industrial lobby happy.

>>15669287
Try it and see what happens

>>15663132
the n word is racist

>>15669380
> by blaming Co2 from cows.
you might find it interesting. (about Dutch farmers' protests)

>>15663182
Water vapor increases cloud cover tho, which reduces earth's albedo through blocking the Sun

>>15669380
>Except the Chinese actually repaired a huge area by planting trees and grasses, repairing top soil and stopping hillside erosion. It's now a positive biomass environment that fulfils the needs of the people and grows more every year, as opposed to the desert that is exploited out of necessity, stopping all growth, before it could ever become a positive biomass environment.
Too bad they also build dikes along the Yellow River, and when that river pops off it's going to turn a lot of northern China into a swampland (to say nothing of killing millions)

>>15670364
>two weeks

>>15663182
>co2 leads to some greenhouse effect
it doesn't

>>15671347
This, water vapor causes the greenhouse effect on Earth thats why arid regions such as deserts cool off so much more rapidly at night than humid regions do

>>15671347
>>15672481
Both of you are retarded. Carbon dioxide undeniably has the properties that make it a greenhouse gas and water vapor cannot cause global warming because it's residence time in the atmosphere is so low that it precipitates out and forms an equilibrium based on the local temperature.

>>15662957
re: venus: just no. the temperature of gases increases when they are compressed, but this does not mean they stay hotter; they can cool down like everything else, given enough time (say a few billion years). so pressure/compression is not a direct factor of venus' temperature at all.

>>15662957
>no mention of the obvious logical fallacy of "they get hot, so they rise"
chatgpt is a fucking retard

>>15672508
>Carbon dioxide undeniably has the properties that make it a greenhouse gas
No it doesn't, if CO2 were a greenhouse gas then Mars would have massive greenhouse effect. Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect

>>15674525
Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
>The atmosphere of Mars is colder than Earth's. Owing to the larger distance from the Sun, Mars receives less solar energy and has a lower effective temperature, which is about 210 K (−63 °C; −82 °F).[2] The average surface emission temperature of Mars is just 215 K (−58 °C; −73 °F), which is comparable to inland Antarctica.[2][4] Although Mars' atmosphere consists primarily of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect in the Martian atmosphere is much weaker than Earth's: 5 °C (9.0 °F) on Mars, versus 33 °C (59 °F) on Earth. This is because the total atmosphere is so thin that the partial pressure of carbon dioxide is very weak, leading to less warming.[2][4]

>>15662976
>Everything he says is wrong.
Name one (1) thing he said wrong, and explain it. I don't think you can.

>>15662935
What's this Anon's goal? What is he trying to prove? What's his point?

>>15674991
Every thing in that screenshot is wrong. Even the first sentence is wrong. He claims that greenhouse gasses absorb heat and then rise and so there is no heating. That's not how any of that works. Greenhouse gasses absorb heat and reradiate some of it towards the Earth, resulting in a warming effect. It has nothing to do with convection and convection cannot move heat away from the Earth. I truly feel sorry for you if you're stupid enough not to realize the amount of bullshit that post contains.

>>15675212
you don't have any education in thermodynamics whatsoever

>>15676564
Lol. Sure, kid.

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

>>15676591
>wikipedia
thanks for confirming that you don't have any education in thermodynamics whatsoever

>>15675212
Watch how they cry out to wikipedia as they shill.

>>15678043
>>15678080
Your arguments are so inane that nobody is going to spend time refuting them. Read the page and prove it wrong. Otherwise your ignorance is your own problem.

>>15662935
nah but i agree co2 isnt enough to explain the temperature swings were seeing now

>>15678134
The water vapor excess in the atmosphere caused by the Hunga Tonga eruption last year, however ...

>>15674592
>wikipedia

>>15679804
See >>15678087

>>15679983
>wikipedia

>>15680741
I accept your concession.

>>15662935
If this was true, how come Venus is so hot

>cold atmosphere doesn't have the energy to put heat back into the warm ground
This sounds like bullshit. Any radiation will transfer heat to the ground, it doesn't have to be from a source hotter than the ground. It won't raise the temperature of the ground but it will slow the rate at which the ground cools at night
Same as wrapping something in a blanket slows conductive heat loss

>>15680787
How come Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect?

>>15682334
It does, retard.

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

>>15682334
>How come Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect?
If it has the same temperature rise as earth than it can't manmade.
But you can't get trusted data because of the political (aka money grabbing) overload. There simply is a natural warming effect, ice ages are undisputed. Me live on a big sandwall that ice age glaciers formed. There gone, explain why? Did "they" taxed Cro Magnon tribes?

>>15680802
>Any radiation will transfer heat to the ground
Not knowing where live, me on a planet with huge water vapor in atmosphere which is has high heat transportation abilities and form clouds. You know, these are the big white structures that shields surface from sun radiation

>>15680787
>how come Venus is so
Why Mercury hotter w/o atmosphere?

>>15682807
Mercury is not hotter. Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system.

>>15662946
>>15662953
what would be cool is if someone took the wikipedia and line by line or paragraph by paragraph just debunked everything that was wrong and explained why

And then everyone laughed!

>>15662935
no, i cannot

Radiation traps energy as a function of mean free path. The outer parts of the sun don't fuse atomic nuclei, that only happens in the core, but the outer regions of the sun are still hot because they dense, very opaque and the mean free path is very small so the energy created in the core doesn't escape easily.
So for Earth's atmosphere to trap more energy it would have to become more opaque and have a shorter mean free path, but that would only cool down the Earth because the heat source is outside and an opaque atmosphere would block solar radiation

>>15669380
>The Sahara? Until 6000 years ago it was green.
what does this have to do with anything? The Sahara being green or not depends on the African Monsoon's position - which was changed by the shifting of the Earth's tilt/wobble.

>>15686712
>which was changed by the shifting of the Earth's tilt/wobble.
correct the earth's location relative to the sun is what determines the climate, not cow farts

>>15686770

>>15672481
That chart overstates the impact of CO2 as a greenhouse gas because it puts it on even terms with water vapor on a by mass basis, but water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas while CO2 is an extremely weak one.

>>15662946
Fuck off you ignorant moron, and stop posting links to disinformation hubs.

>>15690334

>>15678134

>>15683595
no it isn't, jupiter is thousands of degrees hotter than venus

>>15662935
If there is no greenhouse, there is no greenhouse radiation.

Why do schizos hate wikipedia so much?

>>15662935
>can you refute this
yes, a greenhouse

I don't see any refutations

>>15662976
>Wikipedia beats screenshots for /pol/ everytime.

>>15662946
First post paid shill.

>>15674525
You know Mars has an extremely thin atmosphere, right?

>>15695293
not in terms of CO2 content

Science was fun when it was a way of describing and talking about mechanistic things in the world. Once it became a penis measurement contest I stopped liking it.

Temperature is a societal construct. A thermofluid planet may fluctuate among different thermal expressions over their lifetime, or express multiple aspec>ts of various thermal markers simultaneously.

>>15682754
The earth expanded

>>15682754
Milankovitch cycles

>>15662959
>they get hot, so they rise
This part. The statement that greenhouse gases get hot relative to the rest of the atmosphere is nonsensical. That's just not how the temperature of gasses works.

Everybody knows thermal energy flows from cold to hot. Therefore the increased concentration of cold co2 gas in the atmosphere will cause an increased transfer of heat from the colder upper, to the warmer, lower parts of the atmosphere.

>>15686770
this is going to blow your mind but two things can actually affect climate at the same time

>>15695733
do you think how thick the atmosphere is could possibly have an effect on the greenhouse effect?

>>15663182
anon is right, study paleontology, op's post seems stupid to me because its not necissary to debunk your shitty globohomo conspiracy with it. very basic paleontology or even just regular history shows global warming is not a crisis anywere close to being a problem.

>>15691858
he fucks kids

>>15669430
I tried it. A communist admin loved my lies and made it a featured article.

>>15662935
Meassurment is an Agument of distance

>>15698221
>That's just not how the temperature of gasses works.
it is how it works
absorb radiation
get hot
become low density
rise due to buoyancy
eventually cool convectively

greenhouses function because they have a physical barrier in place to prevent the last two steps

>>15698598
looks like he eats them

>>15664506
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model
Cool, but why do they claim the atmosphere doesn't absorb radiation from the sun? It obviously does given that morning and evening sun are different from midday, and people burn faster at higher altitudes.
And when a cloud moves in front of the sun, you clearly feel a difference as well.

>>15690334
>worried about disinfo
>browses 4ch

>>15662953
brainiac

>>15672481
That chart is gibberish.

>>15702303
it triggers you emotionally because you can't refute it

>>15703134
> natural 96.8 %
> man-made 3.2%
The retard who made this is mixing up rate with total amount. Our small contribution has built up over the last 200 years, such that the c02 in the atmosphere has nearly doubled. And before you rant on about how humans could not possibly effect the atmosphere, I have checked the numbers and the total amount of c02 we have released is compatible in magnitude to the amount that has built up in the atmosphere.

>>15703167

>>15701769
I browse 4chan so I can get disinformation from both sides
But seriously every other social media has the same amount of propaganda and disinformation

i swear /pol/ is getting dumber

>>15703180

>>15703167
CO2 is plant food

>>15704444
Irrelevant

>>15704505
wrong

>>15704444
salient

>>15704444
Not for the vast majority of wild plants. Learn what the law of the minimum is, retard

>>15704846
Wrong, CO2 is plant food

>>15704444
Based and relevant-pilled

>>15704444
>but I did have breakfast this morning

>>15703167
>the c02 in the atmosphere has nearly doubled.
Lol. Lmao even

>>15705547
>imagine being this retarded
Yep, you don't have to worry about nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, boron, zinc, molybdenum, nickel, copper, cobalt, chlorine, water, or soil conditions. All plants need to grow is carbon dioxide. That's why farms and greenhouses never spend any money on fertilizer, water, or amending and improving their soil. They simply don't need to.

>>15706245
lmao whataboutism the post.
Planet has been getting greener for a while now.

>>15706313
Say thank you to China. They know it takes more than carbon dioxide to grow plants.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/

>>15706245
CO2 is plant food

>>15662935
I believe it, all i know is that global warming is bullshit, yet we still have military bases and homes near the coast, and i know that the mathematical formulas in atmospheric science textbooks are inconclusive, short way of saying that they are probably wrong, otherwise we could perfectly predict weather change at all times.

>>15662953
>can you refute this heckin airtight /pol/ post??
>uhm wikipedia?! lol yeah right

>>15707392
You are certifiably retarded.

>>15707644
CO2 is plant food

>>15706245
plants have greater access to soil micronutrients when then have more CO2 available, plants can root deeper and more extensively with more CO2, since their body is made primarily out of CO2.

>>15707527
Yes?

>>15709139
>>15710332
That's only true when the plants growth is not being limited by other factors. Stop being useful idiots.

>>15711185
wrong, CO2 is plant food regardless other factors

>>15699668
Air as a whole does
Not specific parts of it

>>15711871
Nonsense. Having a surplus of one thing does not make up for a deficit or excess of another thing. Quit being a retard.

>>15662946
* Carbon doesn't accumulate more heat in the atmosphere from the sun than in the mantle from the core.
* Carbon doesn't just keep infrared radiation outgoing from Earth but also BLOCK incoming infrared radiation from the Sun.
* As the poles heats up more area will support snowfall reflecting the infrared radiation casuing the next glacial maximum.
* As the poles heats up the Gulf stream will lose strength allowing for quick cool down and snow fall, again reflecting sunlight causing the next glacial maximum.
* The cooling water will dissolve more CO2 absorbed by algea and cyanobacteria which will die and form pools of oil on the seabed.

>>15712788
wrong, CO2 is plant food regardless other factors.
you're ignorant of plant biology, dr. dunning kruger

>>15714395
>dr. dunning kruger
The irony. Maybe some day you'll learn the most basic facts about plant growth, but I doubt it.

>>15714439
>t. dr. dunning kruger

>>15712845
>ice age incoming
excellent, i'm moving to doggerland

>>15715404
>t. Retard who's never grown a plant in his life

>do you want to spend time deboonking this AI-generated schizobabble?
i'd rather not

>>15662935
no

>>15662946
>wikipedia

>>15670359
It does during the daytime. At night, clouds act as a blanket for the Earth. Surface temperature on cloudless nights is generally colder than on overcast nights for the same time of year.

>>15716820
>i can't

>>15665849
uranus is laughing at all of you
you can listen to the sounds of neptune as well
which is used in many tool songs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXfJG1gs3b4

>>15719437
>no argument

>>15670359
Water vapor is transparent, you're confusing liquid and solid water with water in a gaseous state

let this thread die

>>15723515
Not until you refute it.

>>15662977
>>15664506
>>15680802
already did

>>15723538

already did
>>15662977
>>15664506
>>15680802

>>15723548
This is sponsored cope. Try harder.

>>15662977
>half of the longwave radiation from the atmosphere is directed toward the surface
wrong, lrn2geometry

>>15721309
>wikipedia

>>15662946
Fpbp

>>15725550
>still no argument

>>15719437
>>/sci/thread/15726780

>>15662935
Let see some numbers and predictions instead of words words words

>>15726902

>>15662976
>>15662946
i read your two posts and i already hate your bullshit faggot, i dont need you to link wikipedia articles cunt, i have google aswell

>>15678087
>>15676591
>>15675212
if you actually understood it instead of memorizing wikipedia articles you could explain where he is wrong in single sentence

>>15727077
Then use it, retard.

>>15727086
Why would anyone waste their time with that? Those arguments are fundamentally wrong and only serve to demonstrate their ignorance. Their ignorance is their own problem.

>>15665121
>/pol/ outranks wikipedia by a wide margin in terms of being an accurate source of information
holy fuck what happened to this place

>>15727224
Why don't you just stay on Reddit if seeing information that isn't censored by the globohomo intelligence agencies upsets you so much? You already have a weak heart from the vax, its not safe for you to allow 4chan to further aggravate your condition, doing so could instigate death via apoplexy at any moment

>>15727248
Take your meds

>>15727248
>if seeing information that isn't censored by the globohomo intelligence agencies upsets you so much
It doesn't. What upsets me is that people somehow went from knowing /pol/ is a shithole full of schizos to thinking it's somehow a reliable source of information, using a post just making random shit up as proof.

>>15662946
Lel

>>15727224
What happened to wikipedia*

>>15662935
nobody can

>>15727742
The site's found says it was taken over by propagandists

>>15729467

>>15662935
>The frequencies are too low to be absorbed by the ground they are hot and therefore vibrating too much.
Anon never passed middle school physics. Opinion discarded.

>>15732047
can you elaborate?

>>15732051
It's fucking obvious. There is no limit to the range of frequencies for radiative heating, anon is conflating spectral absorption and photon scattering.

>>15727250
dilate

>>15716517
I've been harvest 2kg of tomatoes a day since july
AMA me anything

>>15734845
Do they need anything other than carbon dioxide? Maybe water or nutrients?

>>15734900
Plants growing in a CO2 enhanced environment require less water than plants growing in ambient conditions. This is because water evaporates via the stoma, which is also where CO2 is ingested by the plant, with a higher abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere, the stoma don't gape as wide, so less evaporation occurs.
Plants growing in the ground in a CO2 enhanced environment root deeper than plants in ambient conditions, so they have access to more soil nutrients with a CO2 enhanced environment than they would otherwise.
There are no downsides to increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, nature flourishes with more CO2 available for plants to eat.

>>15735871
While it's true that some studies have shown certain plants may use less water and grow larger in CO2 enriched environments, there are several other factors to consider. First, not all plants respond the same way to increased CO2. Some species may benefit more than others, which could disrupt entire ecosystems.

Moreover, while some individual plants might root deeper or grow larger in a CO2 enriched environment, research also shows that these effects often diminish over time as nutrient levels in the soil get depleted.

The downsides of increasing atmospheric CO2 are significant - the main one being global warming due to greenhouse effect. Rising temperatures can lead to melting ice caps and rising sea levels; changes in rainfall patterns leading to droughts and floods; and disruptions of plant and animal habitats.

Furthermore, even if elevated carbon dioxide could help plants grow faster under ideal conditions, this doesn't take into account other variables changing because of climate change like weather extremes and changes in pest populations.

Lastly, more isn’t always better. Too much carbon dioxide can be harmful for many crops because it can stimulate excessive growth at the expense of nutritional content resulting in poorer quality harvests with lower protein concentrations.

So while certain aspects of plant physiology might respond positively to higher atmospheric CO2 levels under controlled conditions (like reduced transpiration or potential increase in photosynthesis), that’s only a small part of a much larger picture when you look at ecosystems level response or combined impact on our planet as a whole.

The Earth will heal if we try to keep it healthy.

There. I refuted him(since his reply was mostly world hating depression)

>>15662946
WIKIPEDIA

I can shit me pants. does that count for anything?

>>15736700

>>15665129
>spot where the faked data begins

>>15737791
>spot where the faked data begins
fake data begins with "nasa.gov"
nasa is a political propaganda agency of the federal government, not a scientific organization

>>15665755
retard

>>15737791
everything from nasa is fake.

>>15726819
good thread, surprising it got so few replies

>>15740554
It was deleted according to the one of the other archives

>>15727256
>b-b-bbaaaawwwwwwwww!!!
>/pol/ is out to get me!!!
>its some sort of big conspiracy!!!

>>15740554
it was deleted by sjw political jannie

>>15690295
This is easily observed in the way that arid regions cool off rapidly at night as compared to humid regions. If CO2 were a substantial factor then that phenomenon wouldn't be observable

>>15740554
cia jannie deleted it

>>15746925
Zoggers gonna ZOG

Meds. Now.

>>15736171
>which could disrupt entire ecosystems
thats survival of the fittest, been happening that way a billion of years.
the idea that nature is perfect and needs to be preserved under glass as it currently is for eternity is absolute mental illness. its completely irrational, yet the people who appoint themselves to the office of "official defender and savior of mother nature" all seem to adhere to that idea.
further evidence that environmentalism is evidence of mental illness, NPD specifically.

>>15748993
Enjoy your ecosystem collapse, retard.

>>15748993
Those are also all the same people who will screech and reeeeeeee if you suggest that Darwinian evolution theory may have some flaws

>>15737791
It's literally fucking fake. Solar panels weren't a thing in 1880 you retard. Even the fucking wiki tells you it was a "reconstruction":
>The solar irradiance before 1978 is from a reconstruction (2007).

>>15701769
> retard can't tell the difference between fiction and reality

>>15670359
Albedo is whiteness? High clouds increase albedo? Low clouds increase thermal insulation. Global temperatures is caused by water vapor, not CO2?

>>15672481
I think this view has merit. Low Clouds have dramatic effect on surface temperatures overnight. High clouds are albedo that cools the Earth.

>>15672508
>it precipitates out
Retard.
Rain clouds do not empty like a bucket. They persist and grow at fronts and are blown by the wind.

>>15749853
You are dumb as hell. Where do you think the rain comes from, retard? I've never had to explain the concept of precipitation to anyone before but luckily there's a simple wiki page just for morons like you: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation

>>15664397
This is important for fentanyl and its analogues

>>15749767
Everything from NASA is fake.
NASA is a government political propaganda agency, not an independent scientific organization

>>15662953
You don't get to complain about sources when your source is a random /pol/tard. At least Wikipedia has citations - the /pol/tard doesn't.

>>15751001
Computahs

>>15748993
>needs to be preserved under glass as it currently is for eternity is absolute mental illness.
it's human-centric idea btw, no disrupting ecosystem, no humans dying excessively

>>15663224

>>15703167
>the c02 in the atmosphere has nearly doubled
If the greenhouse effect on earth is worth about 30ºC and CO2 has doubled, why hasn't the greenhouse effect increased at all?
Is it because CO2 isn't a meaningful greenhouse gas?

>>15753465
It has, retard.

>>15662935
There is no such thing as RADIATION or GREENHOUSE GASES

>>15753580
no it hasn't, interday temperature variations are the same as they ever were. still cools off at night as a function of relative humidity like always.

>>15754677
>interday temperature variations
that math is too complicated for global warming faggots to understand so they just ignore it

>>15662946
I don't get it, Why are you linking Wikipedia? Do you have autisim

>>15753465
Hi, actual Earth scientist here.

Earth's greenhouse effect is indeed about 30ºC, so you are correct. However, it's not all caused by CO2. CO2 is responsible for about 3 degrees of that 30ºC so a doubling of CO2 will raise the temperature to about 33ºC.

If you think that's not a problem, the ocean will expand because of that extra heat causing sea levels to rise, some ice which would have been frozen will melt instead causing sea level rise, storms will become more frequent and intense, animals which can only live in a narrow temperature will be threatened and may go extinct, communities which rely on glaciers for water will be forced to migrate, deserts will expand, some crops will fail forcing people to leave their homes, whole cities will become uninhabitable and some countries will literally be destroyed completely such as Tuvalu.

All so some rich assholes can drive SUVs.

>>15754677
Average humidity is driven by the global average temperature which is mediated by greenhouse gasses and solar intensity. A greater greenhouse effect does not imply a larger difference in the day and night temperatures.

>>15756691
>All so some rich assholes can drive SUVs.
Personal transportation in the US represents 15% of total energy usage. Try again.

Source: https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/mobility/personal-transportation-factsheet

>>15756691
>the ocean will expand because of that extra heat causing sea levels to rise

>>15758839
> From 1920 to 2020, the rate of sea level rise has increased due to several factors such as melting of glaciers and ice sheets, and the thermal expansion of seawater as it warms. Estimates suggest that the global mean sea level has risen by roughly 19 centimeters (7.5 inches) during the 20th century, and the rate of rise has been increasing in recent decades.

>>15759090
Sea level hasn't moved at all, your global warming false narrative is as transparently fake as your wikipedia quotation.

>>15662935
I stopped reading after the 2nd sentence, which is where the retarded nonsense begins.
The atmosphere is well mixed. Otherwise all the nitrogen would "rise", leaving heavier oxygen at the surface.

>>15759699
they have virtually the same density

>>15758839
you need to go back (to fb)

>>15756866
>A greater greenhouse effect does not imply a larger difference in the day and night temperatures.
yet is does, if the planet can't cool off as well as it used to then the rate of cooling at night will be reduced. thats why humid regions have warmer nights relative to daytime high temperatures than arid regions do.

>>15756321
Belief in global warming turns on Ignorance of thermodynamics

>>15761780
That doesn't mean that the difference will change. You are making general statements about a small aspect of a highly complex system that you don't understand.

>>15761252
No they don't. You can separate gasses with a centrifuge.

>>15762790
they have virtually the same density

>>15662935
posting /x/ screenshots outside of /x/ should earn you a perma ban

>>15765083
thread's consensus is that anon from screenshot is right though

>>15765185
>/x/ is right
back to that shithole you go

>>15764567
No, they don't.

>>15765261
they're close enough that they won't separate except under extremely controlled circumstances

>>15756691
>CO2 is responsible for about 3 degrees of that 30ºC
no it isn't, see >>15672481

>>15765185
No it's not. The consensus is that the whole thing is nonsense.

>>15766785
That graph has nothing to do with the degree of radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses. Would you like to try again, or do you want to acknowledge that you're making shit up?

>>15756691
>CO2 is responsible for about 3 degrees of that 30ºC
proof?
mars has 20x more CO2, how come mars doesn't have a 60º greenhouse effect?

>>15768899
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
>The atmosphere of Mars is colder than Earth's. Owing to the larger distance from the Sun, Mars receives less solar energy and has a lower effective temperature, which is about 210 K (−63 °C; −82 °F).[2] The average surface emission temperature of Mars is just 215 K (−58 °C; −73 °F), which is comparable to inland Antarctica.[2][4] Although Mars' atmosphere consists primarily of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect in the Martian atmosphere is much weaker than Earth's: 5 °C (9.0 °F) on Mars, versus 33 °C (59 °F) on Earth. This is because the total atmosphere is so thin that the partial pressure of carbon dioxide is very weak, leading to less warming.[2][4] The daily range of temperature in the lower atmosphere is huge due to the low thermal inertia; it can range from −75 °C (−103 °F) to near 0 °C (32 °F) near the surface in some regions.[2][4][10] The temperature of the upper part of the Martian atmosphere is also significantly lower than Earth's because of the absence of stratospheric ozone and the radiative cooling effect of carbon dioxide at higher altitudes.[4]

>>15769047
>the radiative cooling effect of carbon dioxide at higher altitudes.
Sounds like CO2 not only doesn't warm an atmosphere, but it actually cools it.

>>15769652
Sounds like you have poor reading comprehension

>>15768899
1. Earth has water vapour.
2. increasing the pressure of the surrounding gas broadens the emission and absorption lines of a molecule.

>>15770505
>1. Earth has water vapour.
which is responsible for over 99% of the greenhouse effect on earth

>>15768899
>proof?
The 10% number was picked arbitrarily to support the global warming narrative

>>15771486
Soience faggots always start with the conclusion they want and work backwards from there. They don't care about the facts, they only care about their ulterior motives, which in this case is justifying their global warming savior complex and it's associated demands for money and political power

>>15771486
The data in >>15672481 says that CO2 accounts for only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect which would mean that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to a temperature change of only 0.2º - 0.6º

>>15773060
>effect which would mean that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
we haven't even done that though

>>15773060
Its says the CO2 is 3.6% of greenhouse gasses by mass, its doesn't account for the relative strength of greenhouse gasses. H2O is far, far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, the net effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is negligible

>>15774701
>the net effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is negligible
Which is why Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect, CO2 isn't a significant greenhouse gas

>>15662946
LMAO, you don't know shit.

>>15774701
Atmospheric water vapor has a low atmospheric residence time. As such it is not well mixed and the local concentration is mediated by local temperature. That means water vapor cannot drive global warming. You should spend less time shitposting and more time studying.

>>15775463
Mars has a measurable greenhouse effect, retard.

>>15773060
That's not how that works, moron.

>>15662935
Yes. He's an illogical chud.

>>15775613
Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect

>>15662935
that anon doesn't have a point, it's just wip output from chatbot programmed to simulate current day agitprop

>>15775629
Are you a useful idiot or a shill? Are you aware that search engines exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
Although Mars' atmosphere consists primarily of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect in the Martian atmosphere is much weaker than Earth's: 5 °C (9.0 °F) on Mars, versus 33 °C (59 °F) on Earth. This is because the total atmosphere is so thin that the partial pressure of carbon dioxide is very weak, leading to less warming.[2][4]

>>15667952
People don't lie on the internet

>>15662935
>If you took a plate that block IR and put it over the ground and there really was back-radiation then the radiation itself would get trapped and form a hotspot
Yes, this is how a the lid on a pot works.

>>15776202
>search engines
>wikipedia
are you aware that physics and telescopes exist and that the temperate of mars can be measured directly and compared to it's calculated equilibrium temperature and that those measurements are different than whats said in your propaganda websites?
no, you're clearly not aware of that, you wouldn't need to rely on propaganda websites if you understood the relevant physics and could do math.

>>15777253
Prove it. You have offered no evidence for your claims. Wikipedia beats no source whatsoever.

>>15777299
>Wikipedia beats no source whatsoever.
no it doesn't, its pure propaganda so you know that everything in wikipedia is a lie. why don't you learn some real science if you want to pose as an expert? or are you too dumb to do that?

>>15778473
So you think the garbage you made up is a better source than Wikipedia? Do you want to test that? Show me literally any legitimate publication that backs your nonsensical assertion that Mars has no greenhouse effect. I know that there are dozens of sources that discuss the greenhouse effect on Mars so I'll give you three links for every one you offer. That applies only to legitimate sources. If you link to memes on your grandpa's Facebook then it obviously doesn't count.

>>15778683
you can't do the necessary calculations yourself because you're entirely uneducated. its not even complicated math, but its so far beyond your level that you have to rely on wikipedia like a jr high school kid

>>15779352
So you have no source? Sad. I can't believe you don't even have one legitimate source. Well, actually I can since your "facts" all come from /pol/ and Facebook memes.

>>15779363
>t. i can't do basic math
astronomy undergraduates learn the planetary equilibrium temperature calculation in the first month of the first semester of their first year of school.

>>15780581
And yet you have no source for any of your claims. Hmmm....

>>15780864
You can't do basic calculations, which is why you need to rely on third parties for all of your information

>>15781412
holy projecting

>>15781412
If undergraduates can do the calculations then it should be trivial for you to provide a source that states that there is no greenhouse effect on Mars. The fact that you cannot find such a source means that you're lying. Your deflection and unwillingness to provide a source means that you know you're lying.

Die mad, retard.

>>15781905
>SOURCE!?!?
you can't do science or math on your own, not even freshman level problems

>>15782920
You have failed to provide a source to back your claims even though you claim it's a "freshman level problem". You cannot substantiate the claim that Mars does not experience a greenhouse effect because it's not true. You refuse to provide a source because you know it's not true.

Die mad, retard.

>>15782944
Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect

>>15784013
its too bad about that, mars would be pretty comfy with a greenhouse effect proportional to the amount of CO2 in its atmosphere
kinda make you wish CO2 really was a greenhouse gas

>>15782944
u can't do math and you've never studied science
ur like greta, completely ignorant and posing as an expert
dunning krugerism

Hopefully this thread has finally and conclusively debunked the big global warming scam.

LMAO at the chumps who were gullible and ignorant enough to have fallen for it.

>>15786926
your wrong though

>>15786222
Lol the irony. You can't even tell me what data you think you would need to prove that there's no greenhouse effect on Mars. You have nothing, you have contributed nothing, and when you die that's what you'll be remembered for: nothing.

>>15787840
u can't do math and you've never studied science
ur like greta, completely ignorant and posing as an expert
dunning krugerism

>>15788155
Wow, still no data, huh? You're having a really hard time accomplishing something you assert is trivial. Could that be because you know it's bullshit? I predict that you will continue not to have any data to support your argument and that I will continue to shit on your unfounded statements and clear ignorance of the burden of proof. I can't wait for you to prove me right.

>>15727185
>Those arguments are fundamentally wrong
Then you should be able to concisely explain it.

>>15786926
The people who were tricked by the media will never admit that they were dumb enough to have been so easily tricked

>>15789935
>NOOOOO!!!
>I'M TOO SMART TO EVER BE WRONG!!!
>I CAN'T BE TRICKED CAUSE I'M SOOOOO SMART!!!!

>>15736171
>Moreover, while some individual plants might root deeper or grow larger in a CO2 enriched environment
they all root deeper, the roots are made out of atmospheric co2
co2 is plant food

>doesn't take into account other variables changing because of climate change like weather extremes
co2 doesn't cause global warming, thats a false narrative. people have been making predictions based on that narrative since the 1980s and those predictions have always been wrong

>>15791126
It's important to clarify that while it's accurate that plants use carbon dioxide for photosynthesis – the process through which they convert light energy into chemical energy to 'feed' themselves – the story around increased atmospheric CO2 and its impacts is complex.

Understandably, some would think that, because CO2 is essential to photosynthesis, more CO2 would simply result in more growth. However, plant growth and health also depend on a variety of other conditions, such as water availability, soil nutrients, sunlight, temperature, and much more. These factors can interact in complex ways, and more CO2 doesn't necessarily mean all plants will grow better or root deeper.

The narrative around CO2 and global warming is supported by an overwhelming degree of scientific consensus. It is true that climate modeling is complex and sometimes predictions may be not precisely accurate in terms of timing or extent, but the broad trends that increasing greenhouse gases will lead to increased global temperatures are rather robustly supported by data and modeling.

While it's correct that CO2 is a natural component of the Earth's atmosphere, and necessary for life as we know it, the concern arises from the rate at which human activity has been increasing its concentration. From the pre-industrial era (~1750) to today, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have gone up from around 280 parts per million to over 400 parts per million.

These extra greenhouse gases trap more heat in our atmosphere, which leads to a warming of the Earth's surface. This is the main driver behind the phenomenon of global warming, which in turn is leading to climate change, characterized by shifts in weather patterns and an increased frequency of extreme weather events.

>>15791126
>Global warming is fake because Lincoln, Virginia has experienced fewer days over 90 F
I'm amazed you don't injure yourself with all of the cherry picking and mental gymnastics you do.

>>15791458
>t. global warming is real because they weather is the same as it was in the 1980s when they global warming hysteria was kicked off by the united nations, a political rather than a scientific organization

>>15662957
>even though a colder object will emit lower frequency radiation, enough energy is transferred back to Earth to maintain a warmer temperature than if there was no atmosphere
my niggagpt softly implying that entropy just doesn't work because climate science works.

>>15662987
The satellites say that Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect regardless the titanic quantity of CO2 in it's atmosphere. Direct measurements on Earth show that water vapor is the only significant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere

>>15792773

>>15793091
nigger this is just laplace's equation, which sure works because the atmosphere is higher temperature than space, so the rate of cooling is slowed.
But if gases absorb and re-emit IR radiation from earth, then they also absorb and re-emit IR radiation from the sun, which should create a cooling effect since there's a lot more IR radiation coming from the sun than from the earth. your useless nigger language model just spews out whatever bullshit it's been provided with to learn. It's literally a climate shill because it's been trained to be a climate shill.
There's no greenhouse effect, it's simply not possible. If there's a warming effect from absorbing and re-emitting heat from the earth, then there's a stronger cooling effect from absorbing and re-emitting heat from the sun. There's only an atmospheric effect due to atmospheric pressure and this has nothing to do with CO2 but mostly to do with any and all gases in the atmosphere being heated up by the earth's surface.

>>15793136

>>15793139
> When it comes to radiation from the sun, it's important to remember that most of it arrives as shortwave radiation (primarily in the visible light, near infrared and some ultraviolet ranges), which greenhouse gases are largely transparent to.
> On the other hand, the earth re-emits energy as longwave radiation (mainly in the far infrared range), which greenhouse gases do absorb and then re-emit in all directions, including back toward the surface.
A few corrections, you don't have to thank me, gpt-kun!

>>15793278

>>15792758
>weather is the same as it was
You're legit a retard. Where is the weather the same? Virginia? Not global. Do you even understand the difference between climate and weather? Or the difference between weather and counting the days that are over an arbitrary temperature in an arbitrary place?

>>15793139
Nigger that literally does not follow from boltzmann radiation profile
the sun literally emits a tonne a literal fuckton of IR radiation. This should all be scattered and thus have a cooling effect
then to claim that muh short wave radiation is of bigger influence
complete bogus senpai
you can't prove this shit
incoming from the sun a fuckton of IR radiation from boltzmann radiation distribution, then some high frequency light
then you say that high frequency stuff is absorbed and emitted as ir radiation which should clearly be of lesser importance than the cooling effect of scattering incoming IR radiation literally because it is more
check boltzmann gradient
like 10 photons of IR radiation incoming for every high frequency UV incoming. Then to claim that those 10 photons being scattered and like 5 being send back to space is less impactful than that 1 UV particle being absorbed by earth and remitted as one IR particle. Bullshit. Prove it. Show me the boltzmann radiation law and prove mathematically that the level of incoming heat from IR radiation being scattered back to space is less than the absorbed UV and remitted IR being scattered back to earth. Your just a fake ass language model with no actual understanding. Kill yourself.

>>15793346
>You're legit a retard. Where is the weather the same? Virginia? Not global
>global weather
lmao kill yourself

>>15794034
>He doesn't know about weather patterns

>>15794033
depends on if you do your distributions as total photons per discrete energy range or total energy per range
>boltzmann radiation distribution
planck
but who cares, they were both bozos and both wrong about thermodynamics.

>>15794033
some approx percentage of influence on earth heating by wave type from the sun

Radio waves: trivial contribution, much less than 1%
Microwaves: trivial contribution, much less than 1%
Infrared light: ~50%. Infrared radiation has the right energy to excite molecules, making them vibrate or rotate more quickly – in other words, making them hotter. The infrared radiation that reaches the surface is absorbed and re-emitted, contributing to warming. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere also trap some of this re-emitted infrared radiation, contributing to the greenhouse effect.
Visible light: ~43%. Visible light from the Sun is absorbed by the Earth's surface, then re-emitted as heat (infrared radiation). Also, because visible light can penetrate water, it can warm the oceans.
Ultraviolet Light: ~7%. Ultraviolet radiation has more energy than visible light, so it can excite molecules to higher energy states. Most UV radiation, however, is absorbed by the ozone layer and doesn't reach the surface.

> the sun literally emits a tonne a literal fuckton of IR radiation. This should all be scattered and thus have a cooling effect
First, sun also emits a tonne a literal fuckton of visible light (but yeah a few percent less than IR, something like 49% IR, 43% visible), which is not very scattered by athmosphere.
Second, not all infrared are scattered, 50% of near infrared pass through, unimpeded by the atmosphere, most of mid and far infrared are blocked, but those who pass through and heat the earth, get re-emitted as far infrared and it's then when they're being cockblocked by greenhouse gases and can go back toward earth.

What part of that doesn't make sense to you?

>>15794271
oh also most of IR from is NIR

wtf i love industrials now

>>15793346
>Where is the weather the same?
everywhere

>>15737791
Thermometers are fake news. They all report back to NASA and feed you false information

>>15795247
Take your meds and spend more time outside.

>>15796150
lol

>>15795275
In Australia their scientists replaced all their mercury thermometers with digital devices that were calibrated to read 0.7ºC over the true measured temperature.
They wouldn't need to resort to trickery like that if global warming was a genuine problem

>>15794271
>Visible light from the Sun is absorbed by the Earth's surface, then re-emitted as heat
Not entirely true, the portion of light thats absorbed by plants is captured by the photosynthesis process and is not re-emitted at any frequency. With added CO2 in the atmosphere, the photosynthesis process becomes more efficient at capturing solar radiation.

>>15798819
>Not entirely true,
thats an understatement, virtually the entire surface of the planet is covered with photosynthetic material
in the oceans, which is most of the planet, the photosynthetic organisms occupy the upper 30m of the water, many forested locations have even thicker layers of photosynthetic organic matter, all of them eating photon and converting them to carbohydrates rather than to lower energy photons

>>15798819
>>15800144
he ocean and plants absorb much amount of the light, what does this insinuate about climate change?

>>15798819
>>15800144
>>15800454
All of you are retards. Any energy absorbed by plants is released later. That means that plants release as much energy as they absorb and the energy over time is exactly the same as if there has been no plants.

>>15798194
Take your meds.

>>15800874
>Any energy absorbed by plants is released later
are you saying that plants give off heat and therefore contribute to global warming? Explain yourself

>>15801246
Of course they do. Plants use energy and therefore generate waste heat equal to the energy they use. When you're old enough take physics in high school.

>>15798819
The majority of solar energy that reaches a plant isn't used for photosynthesis. The actual percentage may vary depending on a number of factors, such as the type of plant, weather conditions, and the part of the sunlight spectrum being considered, but here's a rough estimate:

First, the amount of sunlight that can be absorbed at all by plants is limited to the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) range, which is approximately 45% of the total solar radiation. The rest mostly consists of wavelengths that plants can't use for photosynthesis, either because they're too long (infrared) or too short (ultraviolet).

Next, the absorbed PAR is further reduced because not all of it is used for photosynthesis. For example, a lot of absorbed energy might be lost due to inefficiencies in the photosynthetic process (like errors in the many steps of transforming light energy into chemical energy), excess light beyond what the photosystems can handle, or redirection to other plant processes outside photosynthesis.

Studies suggest that, under optimal conditions, the general photosynthetic efficiency (the ratio of the energy stored to the total energy received) is about 3-6%. However, this figure is typically even lower in real-world conditions, partially due to factors such as non-ideal weather and variations in light intensity.

Therefore, if we start with 100% as the total incoming solar energy, only about 1.35-2.7% (45% of the 3-6%) may be converted into chemical energy via photosynthesis under optimal conditions. In less-than-ideal real-world conditions, this figure could be less than 1%.

>>15662935
Yes

>>15801246
Yes, plants cause global warming

>>15801450
ok but what happened to the old adage of plants consuming CO2 and producing O2? What happened to all the people saying that deforestation will increase climate change?
Was everyone wrong about that? Are you implying that removing all plants would slow down climate change?
Why was it called global cooling, then global warming, and now climate change? Why do the goal posts keep moving?

Debunked here:
https://skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist.htm

>>15801526
they consume CO2 but at night they expell it although, net change of CO2 in that case is negative, idk why are you such a retarded nigger who didn't this

>>15801575
so they do the opposite as contribute to global warming, got it.

another 300 posts and nobody can debunk the guy. Literally the post that destroyed the global warming hypothesis that guy is a fucking legend

>>15801612
Take your meds and reread the thread.

>>15801526
because its all just the same form of fake and gay media manipulation thats been used to control people since the dawn of civilization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology

>>15727224

>>15662935
nuh huh

>>15803277
nigger

>>15803495
the n word is racist

>>15662935
that -18ºC part is totally BS.
if you run the standard planetary equilibrium calculation yourself you'll find that the baseline temperature of the earth before considering atmospheric activity is about 6ºC, so the magnitude of the """"greenhouse effect"""" is a tiny 9ºC total, not the massive 33ºC effect thats claimed.
if """"greenhouse effect"""" was really as big as was claimed then it would be possible to have phenomena like hot overcast days or hot days at high latitudes during winter, but that doesn't happen, hot weather comes from the sun, not from any """"greenhouse effect""""

>>15788780
Nobody is gonna bother explaining it to you for the same reason nobody tries to explain newtonian mechanics to a ferret.

>>15801628
>projection
just because you're a drug addict doesn't mean that everyone else is also a drug addict

>>15791148
thanks chat gpt, can I talk to a human now?

>>15806298
Great. The issue here is that you are entirely unmedicated or your reading comprehension is shit. Do you prefer me to think of you as crazy or stupid?

>>15662946
Fpbp

>>15806405
just because you're a drug addict doesn't mean that everyone else is also a drug addict

>>15793065
>mars
>atmosphere
>no magnetosphere
Yeah, you are retarded

>>15683595
no it isn't, jupiter is thousands of degrees hotter than venus

>>15807595
Now I think you're crazy and stupid. See how flippancy can backfire? Take your meds.

>>15808433
just because you're a drug addict doesn't mean that everyone else is also a drug addict, stop projecting.

>>15809716
t. retard off his meds

>>15791148
>These extra greenhouse gases trap more heat in our atmosphere, which leads to a warming of the Earth's surface.
Greenhouses work because they have a solid physical barrier which prevents convective cooling. Gasses can't reproduce that effect because gasses are not solids, gases are free floating and subject to convection

How can CO2 cause "global warming" on Earth when it doesn't on Mars?
Mars has far more atmospheric CO2 and Mars has no measurable """"greenhouse effect""""".

>>15810998
>Greenhouses work because they have a solid physical barrier which prevents convective cooling. Gasses can't reproduce that effect because gasses are not solids, gases are free floating and subject to convection
Do you know what a metaphor is? Nobody thinks there's a glass shell over the Earth except the craziest flat earthers.

>How can CO2 cause "global warming" on Earth when it doesn't on Mars?
It does cause a greenhouse effect on Mars. The greenhouse effect on Mars accounts for 5 C of it's average temperature.

>Mars has far more atmospheric CO2 and Mars has no measurable """"greenhouse effect""""".
Wrong again. The weaker greenhouse effect on Mars is partly explained by it being farther from the sun than the Earth is, so it gets less sunlight. It also has no water which would form positive feedback loops with greenhouse gasses to increase the amount of warming.

You should get your information from better sources than Facebook.

>>15811392
>average temperature
Words used by conmen