/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15755614
Good posts = Some sentences and no replies.
Easy indicator on this retarded site of glowniggerism and ignorance. Why most people here do not just consume presstitution is a mistery.

>>15755665
No one is replying because neither OP not anyone here has an airtight greenhouse to conduct OP's experiment that he claims is correct without even performing it.

>>15755676
No one has a globe to prove climate frauds either. But in different they do not have the chance.

>>15755614
That is why they are now blaming cow farts. Globohomo warming is a scam. Is simple as that.

>>15755769
>Globohomo warming is a scam. Is simple as that.
They know and switched to climate change. Just to signal to be absolute retarded by using that idiotic babble.

>>15755769
>>15755792
You could do the same experiment with methane too, it wouldn’t make a difference.
The planet warms and cools when we get more or less energy from the Sun.
CO2 has nothing to do with it.
Besides, when dinosaurs roamed the planets the CO2 concentration was 1,300ppm, and the planet had the most biodiversity it ever had.
But it wasn’t because of CO2, it was because there was more energy from the sun.
More energy ALLOWS the atmosphere to hold more CO2 and be warmer, not the other way around.

>>15755676
You could make two out of a Tupperware container and seal them good, with small port holes for a thermometer and gas gauge.
The difference between 0.03% and 0.04% CO2 is negligible.
I’m willing to bet it wouldn’t matter even if you got the CO2 concentration up to 1% or even 4% (i.e. 4,000ppm), 10x what is currently in the atmosphere.

>>15755676
Also, this would be an easy experiment for a college to do. They could easily afford the resources to have an experiment like this.
But they’ll never do it because it will prove their theories wrong.

>>15755614
>The greenhouse effect means a literal greenhouse
>Adding greenhouse gases on a tiny scale along with a literal greenhouse makes the experiment valid
Wow, Science & Math, how many times did you fall on your head?

>>15756117
What’s the difference?
Do you really think 0.03% vs. 0.04% CO2 concentration is due to human cause climate change?
And it’s enough to warm the planet enough to kill everything on the planet?

that sounds like a 25% increase to me

>>15756166
>1% means nothing in an idealized system with very few variables, so 1% must also mean nothing on an extremely complex global scale of which we don't even understand all of the interactions and interrelationships

>>15755676
You mean an airtight greenhouse in a vacuum thermally isolated from the ground that can only lose heat via radiation

Still waiting for OP to actually conduct his experiment, make actual measurements, and write up actual results instead of whining that no one will do it for him to confirm his guess at what would happen.

>>15756181
Kek
>>15756203
I’m going to start a Kickstarter for it soon.

>>15756181
Also, it’s not a 1% difference, it’s a 0.01% difference in CO2 concentration.
0.03% vs. 0.04%.
That’s what climate change alarmists have convinced you is a problem.
And you’re not even intelligent enough to have a discussion about it.
Lmfao

>>15756396
>Pee pee poo poo a literal greenhouse is the same thing as the entire planet

>>15756396
Even as a climate change skeptic, I can admit that tipping points exist, especially in complex systems. Sounds like you're trapped in linear thinking.

>>15756543
I’m going by facts.
During the Cretaceous period CO2 was up to 1,300ppm.
Humanity is still in the last Ice Age.
Having ice at the poles is abnormal; palm trees and alligators used to be present in the Antarctic.

>>15756585
So you've accounted for every variable in this complex system?

>>15756203
Everyone else is still waiting for any climate "scientists" to conduct any experiment that would support their theory. It's just models and assumptions unfortunately.

>>15756585
>Having ice at the poles is abnormal

>>15755760
>No one has a globe
*looks at the globe outside*

>>15755821
>The planet warms and cools when we get more or less energy from the Sun.
Explain this

>>15756585
>palm trees and alligators used to be present in the Antarctic.
And humans used to not be present at all. Is this what you want? Then keep emitting CO2 until we reach 1,300 ppm.

>>15755614
>1850: CO2 was 0.03% in air
>2023: CO2 is 0.04%
>And that is after burning BILLIONS of gallons of fossil fuels.
OH FUCK! We increased CO2 by 75%!?!? That's fucking extreme! That would explain all the extreme changes we've been seeing. You're a genius!

>Go outside, and set up two identical glass greenhouses which are airtight, with the different compositions.
And with the average garden green-house being ~1000 cubic feet, or about 0.000000000056% of the 177.5 trillion cubic feet of Earth's atmosphere volume, if you see 0.000000000056% of the current global warming of ~1 degree celcius, that'll be pretty equivalent. Nice thermometer you've got there.

But of course, if it's not CO2 which is transparent to visible light coming in from the sun while opaque to the resulting radiant heat after it impacts earth.... how do you explain the global temperatures increasing?

>>15757027
>And with the average garden green-house being ~1000 cubic feet, or about 0.000000000056% of the 177.5 trillion cubic feet of Earth's atmosphere volume, if you see 0.000000000056% of the current global warming of ~1 degree
Using denier's logic against them. Genius. Let's use images of their level and maybe they will do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

>>15755614
Not only is CO2 not a greenhouse gas, but it is effectively an atmospheric coolant because it increases the rate of photosynthesis and photosynthesis takes energy out of the system by converting it to mass

>>15757079
>takes energy out of the system by converting it to mass
This is your brain on popsci

>>15757079
but photosynthesis also removes CO2 from the atmosphere, so plants cause global warming

>>15757185
3000 yearer followed by complete extinction

Blgcxamh .

>>15756783
That graph is wrong.
It was warmer during the Middle Ages than it is today.

>>15757215
That's only true locally. This graph shows the global temperatures.

The most influential greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water vapor.

>>15757238
Mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell.

>>15755614
Create a post with a thumbnail again and I'll dock your wages

>>15757185
Based retards not understanding sequestration

>>15755614
>More CO2 doesn’t “trap heat” or cause the greenhouse to warm or cool any faster than the other one.
It would in way higher concentrations

>>15755614
1856
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Newton_Foote#%22Circumstances_Affecting_the_Heat_of_the_Sun's_Rays%22

>>15757274
Why not in lower concentrations?

>>15757294
Because of vibrations

>>15757343
Makes no sense at all.

>>15755614
CO2 IS NOT EVEN A GAS RETARDS
IT'S A MOLECULE!!!!
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

>>15757221
Kek, that’s because we only have temperature records for Europe.
If people in South America and Africa had kept written records, they would’ve captured data about the warmer climate too.

>>15757238
I agree with this.
That’s why it’s warmer on a humid day compared to a day of the same temperature that has zero humidity.
If the planet is warming, it’s because of increased water vapor caused by more farming.
But the solution to that isn’t less farming.

>>15757285
Excellent.
Climate scientists could replicate this experiment with a cylinder of 0.03% and one of 0.04% CO2, but they choose not to.
Very telling as far as I’m concerned, they know the experiment wouldn’t show any difference, and thus the entire “climate change narrative” would crumble.

>>15757466
>If people in South America and Africa had kept written records
Nignogs and Indios so dumb they didn't even make corals, tree rings, speleothems and sediments. There's literally no way of knowing the climate of South America and Africa now because of their stupidity.

>>15757468
>increased water vapor caused by more farming.
Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer et al. 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

>>15757374
ITS NOT A MOLECULE YOU GLOWNIGGER CO2 MEANS KTS ONE C AND TWO O SO ITS THREE DIFFERENT ATOMS

>>15757486
Possibly, but that doesn’t fit with reality since the 1930s were warmer than today.
Let alone the climate during the Cretaceous period when there were no humans but a much warmer climate.
If these models were correct, then the 1930s would’ve been much colder, and the climate today would be much warmer.

>>15758711
>If these models were correct, then the 1930s would’ve been much colder, and the climate today would be much warmer.
Did you actually run those models or did you make up a new model which is worse than every single real one and now you're surprised that the "model" in your head gives wrong predictions about the past?

>>15758711
Nonsense

>>15758724

>>15758758
>Net Zero Watch
>literally funded by the Koch brothers
You could've saved the upload and just said that you're an oil shill.

>>15758774
>ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!!

>>15757470
Why lie? It's an observable phenomena and has been extensively quantified for decades

>>15758711
>the 1930s were warmer than today
Objectively incorrect. That only maybe applies to the contiguous US in pre 2015 temperatures.
>the Cretaceous period when there were no humans but a much warmer climate
Irrelevant to the current oceanic and continental configuration of the planet, where glacial/interglacial periods have been a thing for more than a million years. Not to mention that the rate of temperature change before the cretaceous max was slow and the biosphere had plenty of time to evolve in a warm climate

>>15758784
It's not really. It's just oil industry workers doing their jobs.

>>15758834
The spike in the 1940 was caused by an unusually strong El Niño. Fun fact: it was so strong that it even had effects in Europe where the winters were extremely cold. Without it the nazis might have won against the Soviet Union. Thanks, El Niño.

>>15758878
>ITS A CONSPIRACY!!!!

>>15758834
Wrong.
>Irrelevant to the current oceanic and continental configuration of the planet, where glacial/interglacial periods have been a thing for more than a million years.
Agreed, especially because humanity is STILL in an Ice Age, and we won’t be out of one until all the ice at the poles is melted. We also don’t know what causes Ice Ages. In other words, humanity isn’t causing the climate to warm, we simply exist during the end of an Ice Age.
>Not to mention that the rate of temperature change before the cretaceous max was slow and the biosphere had plenty of time to evolve in a warm climate.
Untrue, we have no idea how fast or slow the climate warmed, and as far as we can tell animals do move/evolve quickly based on climate trends. Mammals, birds, fish, etc. all migrate based on temperatures.

>>15755614
>greenhouse gas
If they bounce back outgoing heat, won't they also bounce back incoming heat form sun?
t. retard

>>15759973
Incoming heat is different wavelength than outgoing, it's opaque to sunlight but not to infra red.

Bump for truth. Behead eco-fascists.

>>15759976
>Incoming heat is different wavelength than outgoing, it's opaque
But at current level 100% opaque so no more rising poss. Further it is only not fraudulent when the sun don not emit at that wavelengths, which will be filter out the same amount in higher atmosphere and re-emitted at night into space

>>15758878

If CO2 was genuinely an greenhouse gas then Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect, because Mars has over 2000% more CO2 per unit surface area in it's atmosphere than Earth does.
However Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect whatsoever, the average surface temperature on Mars is several degrees below the calculated planetary equilibrium temperature, so there is no way the CO2 could possibly be an greenhouse gas.

>>15761684
>However Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect whatsoever
Why make false statements that are readily verifiable?

>>15756198
They've done this test, right?

>>15761859
the calculated equilibrium temperature of mars is 226

>>15761684
>CO2 was genuinely an greenhouse gas
You cannot compare to earth. Neither Venus wich has a CO2 atmosphere and is way hotter than earth. There are many more factors such as sun distance albedo or gas pressure.

The whole discussion is bullshit and the fraudsters know. An "average" (temperature
or sea level the same) is always modeled and it is simply impossible to gain an answer when you have a dynamic system of more than 100°C span and artificial heat source all around. But that all is useless because this site made out of bots, glowniggers and ignorants will start tomorrow the next thread with exactly the same bullshit as today. 4chan has Alzheimer. Where are all the good people gone to?

>>15761684
The atmosphere of Mars is about 99% less dense than the Earth’s.
Elon Musk’s entire plan for fuel creation on Mars has no way of working, same reason why they don’t make rocket fuel on Earth using a process like that.

>>15762155
It's not. At least you tried.

>>15761866
OP hasn't, despite claiming to know the results that would arise from such an experiment.

>>15762783
Wrong.
It’s my hypothesis that the difference between 0.03% CO2 and 0.04% CO2 is completely negligible or non-existent.
And I would like to test that hypothesis, or have someone else do it for me.

If it was true —that such a minor change in CO2 can result in a large increase in temperature— then surely climate scientists would have no reason NOT to conduct such an experiment, right?

>>15755614
I did not know they made 100 mile tall greenhouses.

>>15755614
this tread is brought to you by Exxon - Energy lives here

>>15762617
shut up TRANNY do you really think you're smarter than Elon Chungus? Ijbol the man's middle name is BASED on the other hand ywnbaw

>>15762806
You realize that everyone can see the exact words you posted in the OP, right? Maybe you should go back and read your own words again and set about actually conducting the experiment to prove (well, you ESLed provide in place of prove but we'll give you the benefit of the doubt) your assertion.

>>15757027
>That would explain all the extreme changes we've been seeing. You're a genius!
Post any evidence of extreme changes lmao. Forest fires are down by an order of magnitude, deaths from floods are down, there hasn't been a major drought in Europe or North America since the 30s.
>how do you explain the global temperatures increasing?
By the obvious fact that there has been no heating, people that claim to observe significant heating are either retarded or shills

>>15758834
Are you the retard that was trying to argue a 2 degree change in surface temperature of the oceans would raise the sea level by dozens of feet lmao? Fuck off retard

>>15762334
>i never learned basic thermodynamics
thanks for letting us all know that you're so low iq that basic geometry and simple algebra are beyond your understanding

>>15755614
The difference between the container-in-air system and the Earth-in-space system is CONVECTION, dipshit. The temperature inside the container is being mediated by the fact that it's surrounded by ambient-temperature air, and Earth is not.

If CO2 caused global warming then there would some evidence of that by now, instead all we have is lying an manipulation from the global warming shills, so its pretty much a proved fact that CO2 does not cause global warming.
The science is settled

>>15766684
>If CO2 caused global warming then there would some evidence of that by now
Like what?

>>15764348
Why wouldn't it? During the last ice age it was 6°C colder than pre-industrial temperatures and the sea level was over 100m lower than today/pre-industrial. Extrapolating linearly, 2°C would correspond to more than 30 metres, which is "dozens of feet" in retarded units. Sure, there are a few nonlinearities, but there are still lots of glaciers which can melt and thermal expansion isn't limited.

>>15762806
>such a minor change
I think your problem is that you believe an increase of a third is a minor change.

>>15766693
Certified retard

>>15766696
>0.01% = 1/3
0.9999 is closer to equaling 1 than 0.01% is to 1/3
0.01 pretty much equals zero

>>15768794
nta
how retarded are you?
0.04/0.03 = 1 + 1/3
aka an increase of 1/3
aka kill yourself you subhuman brainlet

>>15764339
Why are you such a liar?

>>15768967
>source: the global warming institute
really objective source, people who profit from shilling the global warming meme and would be unemployed an impoverished if they admitted it was fake.

>>15769687
Wrong. That's just the people who made the graph. The data is not from the global warming institute. Try again, chud.

>>15757483
This is your brain on lacquer thinner

>>15769687
>was dat you're showing proof I'm wrong? da jooz made it up
these people vote

>>15769687
Please explain why any of the factors imply that the measured temperature is increasing. Maybe it's not representative, but what's the reason we're measuring a global warming trend?

>>15757221
Why would temperature and solar irradiance be necessarily correlated on a global level if their interactions are local? local geography makes most of the difference.

>>15756784
How would palm trees and gators make us go extinct. We eat gators.

>>15757027
>And with the average garden green-house being ~1000 cubic feet, or about 0.000000000056% of the 177.5 trillion cubic feet of Earth's atmosphere volume, if you see 0.000000000056% of the current global warming of ~1 degree celcius, that'll be pretty equivalent.
This is what climate crazies actually believe. lmao. Volume literally doesn't matter nigger. concentration does.

>we're measuring a global warming trend?
nobody is measuring that

>>15757486
>Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models)
none of those models has ever made an accurate prediction. They're literally magic.

>The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
>Statistical magic to blame CO2
Linear regressions are gay.
Literally haven't proven a thing.

>>15757486
>Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere.
Which is completely irrelevant to the co2. Just because there's a statistical correlation between co2 and water vapour and between temperature and water vapor doesn't mean there's a causal fucking link between CO2 and temperature.
Fucking shills.
Name a SINGLE PREDICTION NY A SINGLE CLIMATE MODEL THAT HAS EVER COME TRUE
EVER.
Your field is fake.

>>15763393
climate researcher shill who needs another grant to prove he's useful.

>>15768967
there's literally nothing wrong with this. A single outlier doesn't prove shit

>>15769692
No it's from a totally objective source who just freely distributes data :^) out of the goodness of their hearts!

>>15769760
People who need welfare gibes to survive are only proving that they're useless

>>15769755
>AII MN WI IL IN OH PA NY MI USHC Stations
Wow, that's surely representative for the global temperature

>>15769759
t. Moron

>>15769741
Nonsense

>>15769759
You sound very angry.

>>15770194
>>15770196
>>15770233
not a single counter argument
suck dicks you disgusting tranny homos. ywnbw. kys.

>>15770526
Your argument is that you're ignorant and that's everyone else's fault. Take some personal responsibility and educate yourself.

>>15770559
No counterargument so you are just pretending I'm wrong hoping I'll concede. kill yourself loser. prove me wrong or I'm right.

>>15769759

>>15755614
take a molecular spectroscopy class you retard lol

>>15757466
You think that accurate written temperature records were kept before the invention of the thermometer? What kind of grade of special are you?

>>15755614
If your instruments are sufficiently sensitive you will detect a difference.

>>15770614
>prove me wrong or I'm right.
That's not how the burden of proof works. You have made an assertion without evidence and so it can be dismissed without evidence. Seethe and cope, moron.

When will climatechangefags off themselves to reduce the loads used on the power grid?

>>15771124
>climate change is real!!!
>you just can't detect it!!!
its like the dark matter argument all over again, a bunch of liars trying to convince everyone phantoms exist as a means of justifying demands for enormous amounts of money

>>15771865
the sandals

>>15771870
!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>15771865
>dark matter
>enormous amounts of money
Oh yeah, when I think enormous amounts of money I think cosmology.

>>15771117
You think that you can only measure stuff which was written down by humans at the time it happens?
>We can't determine the time of death, since neither the deceased, nor anyone else left a written note.

>>15771873
>JWST
>10,000,000,000 dollaroos
>not expensive

>>15771885
JWST has nothing to do with dark matter, brainlet.

>>15771917
>mentions cosmology
>gets mad when I bring up JWST

>>15769687
>im showing sea surface temperatures derived from satellite and he responds with Heritage Foundation PDF about in land stations
Amazing arguments going on here

>>15772647
Be nice to him, the heritage foundation didn't give him a pdf to attack your point. He's using what he has. That's like shouting at a waitress who nahes minimum wage for not having your favourite food on the menu.

>>15766690
Exactly, theres no evidence that global warming is real and theres tons of evidence that its fake

>>15755614
Does anyone have spectral absorption and reflection charts for co2?

>>15773641
What would evidence that it's real look like?

>>15773658
Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

>>15773695
kek forgot picrel

>>15755614
It's a cover-up for the pole shift. The ancient ice caps that covered north America makes no fucking sense unless NYC was roughly at the same position as Greenland is now over 10,000 years ago.

>>15771879
You really are fucking dumb aren't you.

Claim is made that there are written records of temperature predating the invention of the thermometer.

Anon points out this is stupid, knowing full well that it's actually proxy data that is used, and this applies world wide.

>Hur de Dur written time it happens

Dude. What the shit. Seriously.

>>15771865
>>/sci/?task=search2&search_filename=stonetoss%20zings%20soyence.jpg

>>15774135
lmao he deleted it

>>15774046
So, you're saying that the
>It was warmer during the Middle Ages than it is today.
guy is a retard? I agree.

>>15773668
convincing.
given that so much of the evidence in the past has turned out to have been fraudulent, producing convincing evidence has become that much more difficult.
the scientists who have been lying have discredited their entire field of investigation, getting rid of the bad apples would be a good start towards restoring credibility.

>>15761859
If Mars has a measurable greenhouse effect, then what is the magnitude of that greenhouse effect?
If you think those charts quantify a greenhouse effect then you don't understand what you're looking at.

>>15756396
That's 33% more co2 than before.

>>15775189
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.

Retard.

>>15774954
If you dismiss all evidence out of hand then none of it will be convincing. Try reading a textbook on climate science.

>>15775524
Either way its still minuscule compared to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and water vapor is far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Water vapor is accounts for over 99% of the greenhouse effect on Earth, CO2 is a non factor.

>>15775631
>Water vapor is accounts for over 99% of the greenhouse effect on Earth,
Can oil shills make a single point without lying? There are so many irrelevant but factual statements you could bring up. Is it mental illness that makes you do nothing but lie?

>gross brown people OPEC shill thread
yikes.

>>15775631
That's logically inconclusive. If water vapor is 99%, we still haven't stated how large the total greenhouse effect is. Maybe increasing the effect of water vapor by 33% will turn the planet into venus? Then 33% of co2s 1% still has the possibility of being undesirable

>>15775635
If CO2 accounts for nearly a quarter of the greenhouse effect on Earth, about 7º worth why doesn't Mars have a massive greenhouse effect since Mars has over 2000% more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth does?
Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect whatsoever. Does basic physics magically work different on Mars or are your climate scientists a bunch of paid liars who know that they'll lose their jobs if the don't lie and exaggerate about global warming?

>>15775781
It does, retard. Why don't you pick a lie that's harder to disprove than typing it into a google search?

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

>>15776182
I think it's some kind of humiliation fetish. They could come up with things that are much harder to disprove. They could spam true but irrelevant things which are impossible to disprove and when organic people tell them that it's irrelevant they could claim that it's goalpost shifting or some shit. But no, they constantly lie in the most blatant way imaginable. He could have stopped before saying "Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect whatsoever." and it would have been irrelevant but sort of true. Full of non sequiturs but not ridiculously incorrect

>>15776197
Addendum: the same is true for his "99% is water vapour". Water vapour really is a significant greenhouse gas. That doesn't mean anything he claims, but it would be a factual statement. Everyone who traveled a bit would even understand. Humid South-East Asia doesn't cool down at night the way dry Israel does. But it's not 99%. I see only one possible explanation of such claims: he wants to be called out. It's either some elaborate environmentalist scheme to discredit global warming deniers, or some sicko who gets off on being called a retard.

>>15776204
I think it's more a case of oil shills trying to muddy the water and control the narrative. I say, "Mars has no greenhouse effect" which is easily refutable so you link me to an easily searchable resource to which I respond:
>Jewtube
>Wikipedia is controlled by globalists
>All scientists lie for money
And now some casual observers to our conversation may think that there's a genuine conspiracy in climate science while others are inclined to ignore or leave the conversation since they've seen it a million times. Either way, more convincing arguments are tabled to explain to some retard that Mars does in fact experience the greenhouse effect. It's demoralization tactics.

>>15776215
I don't want to give them any ideas but I'd be more demoralised if I had the impression I'd be talking to a serious sentient being.

>>15776235
It's mostly not about you, but I empathize. The huge increase in propaganda over the last decade or so combined with the poor informational literacy of the average person is disheartening.

>>15776182
>my source of info is wikipedia
its like admitting that you have no education whatsoever in this field of science. wikipedia is 100% politically motivated lies, even the website's founder admits that its not a valid source of information.
of course wikipedia supports the globohomo lies, you only believe it because you're too ignorant of the topic to run the numbers for yourself.

>>15757027
>We increased CO2 by 75%!?!
what kind of math could you possibly be doing to get 75% from an increase of 0.03% to 0.04%?
>if you see 0.000000000056% of the current global warming of ~1 degree celcius, that'll be pretty equivalent.
a smaller system would require proportionally lower energy to effect a change in temperature. You are completely wrong

>>15777109
>no! Spectral measurement from the Martian atmosphere and temperature readings from Martian landers are fake :(

>>15755614
https://www.google.com/search?q=nox%20greenhouse%20gas

The real thing we should be worried about is the dropping nitrogen level. No nitrogen= no ozone= ded. As anons have said oxides of carbon haven’t moved the needle much. If there is an argument for carbon oxides it’s in the idea it can maybe pull nitrogen out of the atmosphere. I don’t know data on nitrogen vs ozone. Drive a diesel. Save the ozone, save the planet.

>>15777109
So what is your source for Mars not having a greenhouse effect? Is it /pol/ memes?

>>15777284
Nitrous oxide is not the only form of atmospheric nitrogen.

>>15777177
>what kind of math could you possibly be doing to get 75% from an increase of 0.03% to 0.04%?
The one that doesn't round this much and doesn't express a ppm value in as percent to make it look smaller. But also the kind of math that's wrong. It's ~280ppm to 420ppm, so an increase of 140ppm, which is half of the preindustrial level. The truth is that we've increased the concentration by 50%.

>a smaller system would require proportionally lower energy to effect a change in temperature. You are completely wrong
You are not 100% correct, but that anon was indeed pulling your leg and your gut feeling is sort of right.

>>15777109
>>my source of info is wikipedia
>its like admitting that you have no education whatsoever in this field of science
The only people who think that Wikipedia is a bad source are middle school teachers lmao.
>complains about Wikipedia as a source
>uses the Daily Mail as a source in the very same post
Satire couldn't beat this.

>>15777375
>increased the concentration by 50%.
>with no measurable change in anything
must be a total non issue

>>15778437
It must hurt to be this retarded.

>>15755614
skill issue
you need to take your own advice and go outside. Touch grass. Denounce pol.

>>15777294
Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect regardless the presence of enormous amounts of CO2 in it's atmosphere, far, far more than the amount in Earth's atmosphere. If CO2 was a greenhouse gas then Mars would have an enormous greenhouse effect, instead it has none

>>15779324
Are you illiterate? What is your source for this information? I don't care whether or not you think it's true, I want to know who told you it was true.

What is the unit of greenhouse effect

>>15769745
We put most of our critical infrastructure in places where shorelines and drinking water are accessible. If this accessibility changes, we lose trillions worth of infrastructure that was built over centuries and can't be replaced anytime soon
We won't go extinct, but life would be much much shittier than it is now

>>15759970
>Only US surface temps
>Only during summer
Cherry-picking data isn't helping your case
>and as far as we can tell animals do move/evolve quickly based on climate trends
Our infrastructure doesn't. We can't do this migration trick without reverting back to hunter-gatherers

>>15779333
>SOURCE!?!?!?
you think every need a source of Information because you presume that everyone is as ignorant as yourself and can't run the numbers on their own and needs to rely on greta and bill nye to tell them
whats what. the small minority of people who've studied the relevant thermodynamics themselves can do the calculations on their own and when they do they come to the inevitable conclusion that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas of any importance. the vanishingly small greenhouse effect on mars rules out CO2 being a significant greenhouse gas. you can also compare interday temperature variation between arid and humid regions here on earth and prove that earth's greenhouse effect is almost entirely due to the effect of atmospheric water vapor. but you can only do that if you've studied thermodynamics, if you haven't then you're too ignorant to form your own opinions and greta will have to do your thinking for you.

>>15779649
That's a lot of text just to say that it came to you in a dream.

>>15779649
So you have no source and you're completely making shit up. Do you get paid to post here?

>people who've studied the relevant thermodynamics themselves can do the calculations on their own
Can you do the calculations on your own? Using what data? What is the source for your data?

>>15755769
heard this today "61%(may be different number) of americans answered that they believe major weather events are caused by climate change"
Like literally, what else could it be caused by? Climate has never been not changing

>>15779849
fake stat, only low iq countries have that many people who think that global warming is real

>>15766684

>>15780830
>countries have that many people who think that global warming is real
Your picrel shows something completely different.

>>15781409
Please explain why any of the factors imply that the measured temperature is increasing. Maybe it's not representative, but what's the reason we're measuring a global warming trend?

>>15781438
Explain why you're unwilling to learn how to do the relevant calculations if you're so interested in this topic?
Why do you insist on relying on Greta and Bill Nye as your sole sources of information and chimp out on the people who have actual understanding and education in thermodynamics and astronomy when they contradict Greta & Bill? Greta & Bill never studied the relevant topics.

>>15755614
CO2 is what allows plants to absorb solar radiation without reemitting it. When this process occurs in the upper levels of the oceans it prevents the sea from warming during the day leading to colder seas and eventually instigating ice ages.

>>15782956
Lol no.

>>15782956
CO2 is a coolant in organic systems because it helps to sequester radiation via the photosynthesis process

>>15755614
I'm not very knowledgeable in this field. By what metric are increased levels of C02 and higher average temperatures on earth considered to create an undesirable future? How do they know it won't make things better? Genuinely curious.

>>15784312
How come there isn't anyone predicting that rising CO2 levels might have some benefit? Especially since increased CO2 in the air makes plants grow faster

>>15784312
>increased levels of C02
Legit question, are you just one shill who always "asks questions" while misspelling CO2 as C02 or are there several of you?

>>15782475
Why do you digress so much? I could place a thermometer in a sauna, a deep underground mine and on top of hot springs. They would all show "warm", but none of the sensors would show warming.

>>15784953
Because the vast majority of plants on the Earth are not limited by CO2. The rate of plant growth is dependent on dozens of factors and for CO2 to enhance plant growth you need to have all of these factors optimized so that the plant can actually use the CO2. When you insist that every random plant will benefit from CO2 you are making the assertion that you can drop a seed on any piece of land and walk away without watering it or applying any kind of nutrients, and it will grow as well as it does in a greenhouse or on a farm.

>CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

Interesting new angle the shills are trying

>>15785628
Next:
>CO2 is not a gas
>picture of Martian pole caps

>>15785618
>plants don't benefit from increased CO2
the greta shills will lie about anything

>>15784953
>in a controlled environment
How are deniers so stupid?

>>15786543
They aren't at that is the worst part about them. They're just liars.

>>15786581
>They aren't at that is the worst part about them
wtf

>>15787077
at = and

Sniff my gassy assy you homos

>>15787166
>I misspelled "and"
How low does your IQ need to be to achieve this mistake?

>>15787281
>he doesn't own a telephone

>>15786345
So you believe that if you toss out some seeds in any random location you can expect them to grow and flourish? You don't believe that there's a chance that they won't have adequate water or nutrients, or that the soil type is suboptimal?

You have never grown a plant in your life.

>>15757285

2 trillion tons of coal makes
7 trillion tons of CO2?

even though MOST of the coal is NOT CO2, but other material like ashes, other gases, solids....

-- I call BULLSHTTT !

>>15788190

Even if the coal was 100% Carbon
and every atom combined with 2 Oxygen there would only be 6 trillion tons.

Which is absolutely absurd.

>>15788206
Everything about the global warming narrative is a lie

>>15788190
>>15788206
>>15788414
You three failed highschool chemistry. That's okay. Carbon has a molar mass of 12.01 g/mol while carbon dioxide has a molar mass of 43.99 g/mol because it has one molecule of carbon and two molecules of oxygen which have a molar mass of 15.99g/mol. That means that carbon dioxide has 3.66 times the molar mass. 2 tons times 3.66 is 7.33 tons.

You should consider looking into Khan Academy. It's not your fault the American educational system failed you.

>>15787833
>You don't believe that there's a chance that they won't have adequate water or nutrients
Plants require less water in a higher CO2 environment. Plants root deeper in a a higher CO2 environment, so they have access to increased micronutrients. They're called "micronutrients" in soil chemistry because plants require vanishingly tiny amounts of them. The whole idea of nutrient poor soil is practically a myth. There is virtually nowhere like that anywhere. The plants will find what they need in practically every environment.

>>15788190
>>15788206
>>15789038
This has to be bait.

>>15755828
this

>>15789038
>The whole idea of nutrient poor soil is practically a myth. There is virtually nowhere like that anywhere.
>Imagine being this retarded
Go outside and touch compost, moron.

>>15789545
you have never grown a plant

>>15790470
Lol. You're going with textbook projection, huh? I've been studying soil science for years and I've been growing plants for longer, from container gardens, to backyard gardens, to acre plantations, from yard care to maximizing crop yield. Plants need nutrients in specific ranges and you are unhinged if you believe these nutrients exist in the proper range in all soil.

>>15783442
prove it

I believe the climate change narrative is a religious superstition arising from anxieties about human industrial output and manifesting as a belief that powerful god-like forces are punishing humanity by sending heatwaves and extreme weather events, and the only way to stave off their anger is through sacrificial blood letting of our economic output. (in the past these sacrifices would be cattle etc. to stave off Poseidon's wrath). Any supposed scientific backing is just humans seeing what they want to see from the randomness, in order to make things fit this ultimately emotional narrative.

>>15790622
Prove the claim, retard. Do you understand how the burden of proof works?

>>15790621
Take your meds.

>>15755614
I think their response would be something like: radiative forcing happens up in the troposphere and it doesn't work down on surface level. But I do like this very empirical approach to falsify the claim.

>>15790632
I take it that means you don't agree and that you think IPCC are the ultimate authority on this subject.

Is CO2 is SOOOOOOOO BAAAAAAAAAD just take the carbon out and leave us our oxygen
Why do I have to do all the thinking for you retards

>>15790638
There is no ultimate authority in science, moron. That is why you mythologize science into a religion. Take your meds and schedule more sessions with your therapist.

>>15790645
Why are you being so hostile, friend

>>15779448
delta T?

>>15790638
It’s a simple observed phenomenon

>>15790669
This isn't the raw data though is it? This is the "adjusted" data that NOAA have made some small changes to on the basis of things they believe, that in the hands of other people would produce wildly different results.

>>15790645
That's what they say in theory, but in practice it's all "we're cutting off your funding" and "this man is not an Official Climate Scientist", and "you are a dangerous Denier, Denying our sacred truths and misleading our youth".

>>15790666
Never heard of it mr satan

>>15790679
>>15790693
Take your meds.

>>15790939
Huh?

>>15790941
You are clearly off your meds because you are spouting nonsense. Take your meds.

>>15790944
What part is nonsense?

>>15790945
All of it, retard. Take your meds.

>>15790947
Nice argument, you finally convinced me that AGW is real with your superior wisdom, my friend.

>>15790948
I'm trying to convince you to take your meds since you're clearly off them, retard. We'll deal with facts later.

>>15755821
It's actually far more complicated than that. Heat source and atmospheric absorption are only two parts of it, there's also albedo.

>>15790952
You do not appear to be in possession of any facts, or any arguments.

>>15790954
Nonsense doesn't deserve an argument, only medication. You might as well be talking about how pretty the fairies are.

>>15790956
>HE has no arguments
>HE has no facts
>This anon is a fucking disgrace

>>15790957
>the irony
Take your meds. I know everyone including your mother and your doctor tell you too, but it's very important that you actually take the meds.

>>15790960
Did you not know about the adjustments? Is that why you're mad? Wanting to drug people for coming to a different conclusion as you isn't real science, bro. It's wrong.

>>15790963
You aren't coming to any conclusion. You are absorbed in a fantasy which is exactly why you need to take your meds.

>>15790969
What fantasy? Please just make a fucking argument for once in your life.

>>15790972
The fantasy you live in where facts are negotiable and everything you've seen on Facebook is gospel. It's tiring. You could at least pretend to learn something instead of parroting propaganda.

>>15790973
What facts? Be specific. I don't use Facebook.

>>15790974
Uh huh, sure you don't.

>Did you not know about the adjustments?
Tell me what you think is the problem with the adjustments. You know that they decrease the overall warming trend, right?

Take your meds.

>>15790977
I think they're creating warming trends where none previously existed before based entirely on those adjustments. I think we saw that when the satellite data was wrangled away from Christie and Spencer, and almost overnight adjustments were made in order to bring them in line with the instrumental record.

>>15790978
Take your meds.

>>15790980
It is clear that you are not in possession of a mind capable of reasoning.

>>15790982
Nonsense. You have no data to back up your conclusions which all come from Facebook memes. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I know you're incapable of feeling shame because if your were you would have learned something by now.

>>15790983
Your reliance on mantras like "take your meds" and now this turn into religious-style attempts at shaming should tell you something important about your fixation on this set of ideas. It is not a dispassionate response, something stirs deeply in you to defend this, something pre-rational.

>>15790989
Take your meds. It's not just a slogan recited by your therapist. You really do need to take your meds.

>>15790991
Okay you're back to the first statement again. Looks like I've exhausted this NPC's entire dialogue tree. Let's move on.

>>15790996
>still no data
If you aren't going to take your meds then fuck off back to Facebook.

>>15791002
>he thinks you need """data""" for epistemic conclusions derived from deductive reasoning
Serious question: do you have any other catch phrases? Are you capable of independent thought? Have you ever questioned any aspect of anything you have ever been told about anything before? Are you of the zoomer generation? What is your favorite type of cereal?

>>15791002
NASA and NOAA don't need 'data' when they decide what parts of the temperature record to adjust and what not to adjust, and by how much to adjust it. They do this on the basis of their own reasoning, which others are free to agree or disagree with.

>>15791010
What parts did they adjust without data?

>>15791020
All of it. They used their human minds capable of powerful reasoning and argumentation in order to construct important reasons for why the need to adjust various parts of the data in various ways. Sometimes these reasons can be convincing, sometimes not.

>>15791023
>All of it
That's most certainly untrue. You're claiming that not a single bit of the data is based on actual measurements and all of the data are based on "reasoning", i.e. fabrication. Is that a correct summary of your claim?

>>15791033
I'm not talking about the data, I'm talking about the adjustments to the data, which are made on an ad hoc and arbitrary basis. If you don't believe me you can web search "NOAA adjustments" and observe all the damage control they have put out to explain why their reasons for doing this are actually okay and scientific.

>>15791035
>I'm talking about the adjustments to the data
By all means, please do. What are the adjustments? What do you consider an adjustment? Is rounding to the second decimal an adjustment that bothers you? Probably not. So, what did they adjust? "All of it" is not a valid answer if you want to be taken seriously.

>>15791044
Stuff like this?

>>15791049
Stuff like a blinky gif supports the guy accusing you of parroting what you saw on Facebook. There's virtually no context to judge if the apparent differences are a smoking gun for malicious manipulation or if they're an understandable feature.

>>15791059
I am telling you the context is not there and it is malicious manipulation.
NASA/NOAA and all journalism will tell you that it is perfectly reasonable adjustment for whatever reason.
Make your choice about who to believe, anon.

>>15791062
>the context is not there
I mean context like where this was published, if nasa uses the same data (allegedly) etc. Of course that context is there, you just weren't given any context when you saved that gif from Facebook.
>Make your choice about who to believe, anon.
The people who provide context, usually. "There is no context" with a picture of Morpheus really makes me want to tell you to take your meds. I'm giving you another chance to tell me what we see there.

>>15791074
I've never encountered a wild "argument ad filetype" before. This is cool. What are the correct filetypes to present data in? Sure, it's a webm, not a GIF. But maybe these two are not scientific enough?

These are temperature graphs published by NASA. The first graph used to be here, but has since been taken down: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
The second graph is still up here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif

The comparison between the two graphs illustrates that in the later graph, the temperature record has been adjusted in order to slightly cool the past, and slightly warm the present. I hope this helps you understand.

>>15791084
To further add to my post, this is from NASA's website on their analysis and adjustments made to the GHCN data: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/
You can see how they use human reasoning to eliminate lots of things they think simply look wrong or "suspicious" etc. there also is much wiggle room for editing/adjusting in their homogenization procedure. Basically at any step along the way of recording data and analyzing it means the data goes through multiple rounds of tweaks and adjustments. I believe it is possible to cool the past and warm the present as a result of these adjustments.

>>15791084
>argument ad filetype
Not what I'm doing and you know it, faggot. You eventually providing context shows that you understood what I said.

The context (provided by the web archive) also shows that no manipulation is necessary for a "global warming narrative". The whole article is about how North American temperatures aren't representative for the worldwide trend. It's right next to the figure. In fact, it's the same image file, so you or someone else must have cropped that inconvenient right half away.

But okay, let's give some more context for your gif. Frame 1 is from a 1999 publication by Hansen et al. about the GISS surface temperature analysis. The analysis has undergone numerous updates since then, as you realised.

Instead of crudely overlaying two plots from 20 years apart, I'd be more interested in which of the updates you disagree with. I would assume that these updates are improvements, but I'm choosing a neutral language to indicate openness to your criticism.

"Things are different" is not sufficient. If anything, an ongoing analysis resulting in the exact same results despite new data being fed into it would indicate manipulation.

I don't understand your criticism of their "suspicion". For example, they write
>The station report for January 2018 from Fada N'Gourma, Burkina Faso, seems too high compared to the reports of neighboring stations and other weather reports; it is added to our list of suspicious reports and currently not used in our analysis.
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. If anything, it shows due diligence. Which updates do you disagree with?

>>15791097
Deniers:
>NASA doesn't remove suspicious measurements and therefore they're frauds
Also, deniers:
>NASA removes suspicious measurements and therefore they're frauds

I wish my life was this easy.

>>15791008
>>15791010
>>15791023
>>15791035
>>15791049
>>15791062
>>15791084
>>15791097
Take your meds and stop getting your science from Facebook.

>>15791254
>I would assume that these updates are improvements
Changing data so it shows you trends that you want to see might seem like an improvement to your chimp-brain, but it doesn't mean those trends are real.

>>15791684
>Changing data so it shows you trends that you want to see
I looked at the list of updates and didn't find that. Where did you read this?

Debunked here:

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

>>15791687
It was in reference to the two graphs I posted which show data adjustment to cool the past and warm the present. You consider these manipulations to be improvements.
I could also refer you to Keith Briffa's infamous tree ring proxy data, from the climategate emails, in which they attempted to use Michael Mann's "Nature trick" in order to "hide the decline". Perhaps you also think hiding present day declines in temperature reconstructions is an improvement also.

>>15791698
Ah so we're back at "I only look at the outcome and not at the input therefore the creators of these datasets only looked at the outcome and not at the input". There's an extensive list of changes. You haven't even named one you disagree with.
>You consider these manipulations to be improvements.
I made it very clear that I don't generally. The ones I read sounds extremely reasonable.
>This one sensor always shows a hotter value than every other one around it. Might be an issue, so we remove it
>We got access to data from other sources, so we incorporated the data
You're the one claiming manipulation so you should show what and why you consider manipulation.

>>15791710
Do believe that the journalistic reporting regarding the Ukraine war has been mostly truthful?

>>15791269
Heat island effect posters are mere entry level deniers, I am a league above them.

>>15791720
Is this why "They changed the narrative" is such a popular conspiracy theory? Because it happens to conspiracy theorists all the time?

>>15791726
But I never posted anything about the heat island effect itt. You're attributing to me basic bitch positions I do not hold and have not argued for. But yeah, our information regime would never change a narrative on anything for any reason, they only put out pure truth 100% of the time.

>>15755614
Insulin does NOT lower blood sugar

>>15791807
Could you please highlight the important sections of this 40-word screenshot?

>>15791728
>our information regime would never change a narrative on anything for any reason, they only put out pure truth 100% of the time.
That's how you spot the true brainlets. The "we don't do mistakes" people make the worst mistakes. And it fits your narrative, because you're bitching that NASA apparently changes their analysis. They appear to have made mistakes in the past and they fix them and make them public.

>>15755614
correct, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
the next experiment after the one you suggested
put plants in one greenhouse and none in the other, maintain consistent CO2 & humidity concentrations in both greenhouses. the one with plants will be substantially cooler, because in the presence of organic, carbon based life, CO2 becomes a coolant by enabling photosynthetic radiation to be absorbed by the plants without reemission at any wavelength

>>15791720
Heat island effect deniers are science deniers.

>>15791097
>>15791084
>raw data overestimates warming but I’ll just ignore that ;)

>>15791698
You’re still either malicious or ignorantly confusing global temperature and US temperature. The only point of contention with US temperatures is whether in the region, it was warmer in the 40s or in the year 2000. That’s irrelevant as with more recent data it’s now evident it’s warmer post 2000.

>>15793363
The same applies to the NOAA dataset

>>15793367
NOAA IS MANIPULATING THE DATA SO THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS LESS WARMING THAN THERE ACTUALLY IS, THE US GOVERNMENT IS IN BED WITH FORD AND EXXONMOBIL

>>15793384
>THE US GOVERNMENT IS IN BED WITH FORD AND EXXONMOBIL
They are, but that doesn't have anything to do with the NOAA. "Political donations" should be illegal.

>>15793388
The secret to a good /pol/ post (and therefore parody) is to state true or reasonable things and then come up with retarded, conspiratorial conclusions.
NOAA “changed” their raw data (calibrated it), this “change” makes global warming look less severe, the US government will jump through insane hoops for the oil industry. They shot, bombed and droned hundreds of thousands innocent civilians for oil. Does that mean that the “change” done by NOAA was done with malicious intent? Of course not. But /pol/tards will always believe so if something results in the opposite, for example the eternally misquoted “hide the decline” story.

>>15793366
>source: the global warming institute
cherrypicking information from biased activist groups isn't science

>>15793475
I cry for the death of informational literacy.

More CO2 makes just plants absorb it more. Its their growth food.

>>15794210
Lol no.

>>15794126
No. The source is "NOAA-CIRES-DOE 20CR3". Nice try though.

Heads up OP is using percentages inorder to make the increase seem small. .03 was at 280 ppm, the current .04 was 417.43 ppm in may 2022, this may it was 419.51ppm. Anyone who does not think think such changes will have negtive effects is either a lead poisoned boomer or someone who just does not want to accept the truth.

Tldr OP stick candles up his ass for fun

wtf I love industrials now

>>15794935
exaggerating the percentage change like you want to only makes it more readily apparent that CO2 doesn't cause global warming.
>50% increase in CO2
>no noticeable change in the weather

>>15755614
the problem with greenhouse gasses (such as CO2) displace our nitrogenated atmosphere disrupting the nitrogen cycle and make people just that much stupider. there has been research done on the affect of CO2.

alright numb nuts here's an experiment
get in ur garage and seal up all the cracks (this is liek da earf)
git in ur car, and turn it on!
me thinks that even if u had an airfilter, enough running and something would happen (idk what)

>>15795701
Try going outside once in a while.

>>15794935
>Tldr OP stick candles up his ass for fun
Nothing wrong with that

>>15795730
>there has been (((research))) done on the affect of CO2.
>muh replication crisis (((research)))
all fake

>>15796176
>I heard a big word on /pol/ so I can use it to dismiss literally anything

>>15796176
Climate science is replicated all the time. All the models are in close agreement despite using different data and having a different team. Take your meds.

>>15796643
>computer models
not real experiments, just exercises in confirmation bias, and thats if they're done honestly. most of the time the models are constructed so that the desired politically correct outcome is the guaranteed result.
see neil furgeson for more on that

>>15797213
That's complete nonsense.