/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16114738
To explain picrel.
As back-radiation happens to be absorbed by the surface medium, there is a proportional amount of high energy that cannot attenuate within the medium to the back-radiated portion.
This leads to a proportional increase in the high-energy radiation.
Thus back-radiation doesn't alter the rate of energy loss from a hotter object.

The reason why the proportionally more high-energy radiation doesn't get absorbed by the GHG medium is because of Kirchoff's law.
The GHG absorption capacity is "occupied" by the low-energy channel it's blocking.

Low energy media cannot "block" or "trap" heat, or "slow the rate of cooling" from high energy media in an open system.

Warmists use Q = sigma(T1^4 - T2^4) but it's used inappropriately.
You CAN use it to describe the rate of heat gain by T2 from T1, the colder object.
However, it does not modify the absolute rate of heat loss from T1.

It's called fucking thermodynamics.

>>16114738
>How did this garbage theory ever gain traction.
The global warming scam, like more environmentalist ideas, appeals very strongly to the narcissistic savior complex: "i am the protector of mother nature, i am the savior of planet earth" which translates to "you can't do that on MY planet, I am god", the former thought being the savior complex angle and the later one being the narcissistic part.
They can believe in the idea via Dunning Krugerism, since none of them have any in depth education in the relevant physics (mainly thermodynamics) they will accept the idea on an emotional basis because it appeals to their narcissistic savior complex. There is only a tiny tiny fraction of a percentage of the population that is well educated enough in physics to approach the issue on a rational basis.

>>16114746
I can tell that you are experiencing emotional distress by your use of profanity, but unfortunately for you, nobody cares how angry you are because we're not in physical proximity to you so you can't escalate your angry profane language to the logic next step of a violent physical outburst.
picrel is what you look like, your use of language is exactly inline with how reddititers communicate.

>>16114754
Yet you somehow still find the cowards way out of this non-life threatening sich. I guess that makes you the bottom.

>>16114754
Your post is like the cringe tumblr version of that gay gif of the girl from boardwalk empire.

Imagine you discussing the science. I can't.

>>16114738
Can you write this again in English?

Reader

>>16114738
I don't get it, what is "pressure lapse"? Also, people who say this is real don't talk about "height of emissions rising against density", what does that even mean?

>>16114738
In the rare case that this is not a troll post, I will knowingly take the bait and answer you as if you were legitimate:

The thermosphere makes up 0.01% of the matter in the gaseous atmosphere. PV=nRT.

Greenhouse gases cause escaping infrared light to be absorbed by stretching in molecules 3-atoms or more in composition (usually symmetrical stretching doesn't matter).

For your sake, imagine a bonfire, with a metal reflective plate near the bonfire with holes in it. Then also imagine a second reflective metal plate further from the bonfire. What your pseudo science is suggesting is that the interior plate is irrelevant to the total heat in the system, since that heat exists within the boundary of the second metal plate. What I'm saying to you, is that the bonfire will reach higher temperatures if the holes in the interior metal plate are smaller.

The effect of increased ppm of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere in heat retention is felt in greater ratio on the surface than above the Karman line where there is basically no atmosphere anyway. You can't increase the size of the layers underneath the thermosphere either, because any meaningful increase in V must exactly me mirrored by an increase in T.

And try not to use phrases like DEI in public, it announces a massive gap in awareness and you're at risk of tricking people into thinking you're retarded when you're not.

>>16114738
Also, side note, your entire
>Greenhouse effect contradicts science
Is wrong. You're arguing against ghosts that someone invented for you for the purpose of stealing your attention/concern by making you upset.

>>16115133
The pressure lapse rate. JFC you're dumb
>people who believe in global warming don't talk about the height of emissions
It's literally their main thing right now

>>16115129
Learn science.

All the way up with reading in mind. Perhaps let go of my hands.

>>16115142
>For your sake, imagine a bonfire, with a metal reflective plate near the bonfire with holes in it. Then also imagine a second reflective metal plate further from the bonfire. What your pseudo science is suggesting is that the interior plate is irrelevant to the total heat in the system, since that heat exists within the boundary of the second metal plate. What I'm saying to you, is that the bonfire will reach higher temperatures if the holes in the interior metal plate are smaller.

Then you're an idiot. This will not happen. Heat will not exceed the source.

Greenhouse gases do not "retain" heat in the atmosphere, they cool it faster. You've been badly maleducated.

>>16115142
Seriously though.
Air is not a metal plate. It moves. Hot air rises.
Heat isn't being trapped.

Also, your holes analogy creates a block on convection and is not describing a purely radiative exchange.

There have been experiments which have tried to model a purely radiative greenhouse. One with plates and holes in fact. Greene for one. Arrhenius was discredited over 100 years ago, but more recent experiments continue to do so.

The greenhouse effect of radiation has never been demonstrated experimentally.

My diagram shows why it doesn't work.
Now if you add air, then convection completely negates any radiative greenhouse effect from manifesting.

>>16115164
Height as in altitude? Or are you talking about the rate of emissions?

>>16115142
Imagine putting the DEI comment in there when making such a stupid argument about bonfires, which isn't even relevant to the topic at hand. There is no bonfire and metal grate climate model. Energy from the sun is transferred by a completely different mechanism, the behaviors of gases are nothing like solids, and your analogy is completely wrong. Combustion requires air and if you shrink holes, the fire is going to burn slower. And all of this is unrelated to the initial claims of ideal gas law.
Claimed effects of CO2 and methane(why put this here anyway, your explanation is trash and now you complicate it) have not been measured.

>>16115180
Height of emissions is also the "top of the atmosphere" they also call it the "photosphere". In reality it's where the air is -18C, the expected temperature based on the blackbody model of Earth's radiative energy budget.

However, the concept is essential to warmists since they claim greenhouse gases block energy from escaping the atmosphere and the "height of emissions" is where it all finally escapes.
It's essential to how they frame greenhouse theory today.

They say that if the height of emissions rises because more greenhouse gas is added, so more energy is "blocked", because air up higher is less density, it will have more trouble radiating. Thus, the Earth will have to heat up.

It's an extremely retarded view of atmospheric dynamics, but that's literally the most modern explanation for how CO2 and greenhouse gas forced global warming occurs.

>>16114738
You can demonstrate the greenhouse effect in your home cheaply. All you need is a small piece of dry ice, two balloons, and a way to record the temperature over time for each balloon. You can use two digital thermometers if you know how to set them up, or you can watch in real time if your camcorder has an infrared mode.

1. Place the dry ice in a bottle and put one of the balloons over the opening. When the balloon is full, tie off the end.

2. Fill the other balloon using your mouth or an air pump. Try to eliminate experimental inconsistencies by using the same color balloon and inflating the balloons to the same size. If you live in a humid area consider wetting the inside of both balloons or using a dehumidifier to control for differences in the humidity inside the balloons.

3. Place both balloons under a radiative heat source like a heat lamp or a window and place the thermometers underneath the balloons or set up your camcorder perpendicular to the heat source.

4. Observe which balloon heats up faster. Record your results. Post them in this thread for discussion.

Do some real science, OP. Determine if pure CO2 behaves the same way as our atmosphere or if it displays the properties of a greenhouse gas.

>>16115248
No idiot, that does not demonstrate the greenhouse effect.

1) The lamp is heating the balloon itself and heat is conducting into the gas, so it's not a purely radiative exchange of energy
2) CO2 is denser than nitrogen gas, so it has a higher heat capacity this has nothing to do with a greenhouse effect
3) A balloon is a closed system with uniform internal temperature, this has nothing to do with atmospheric thermodynamics

4) You got the experiment wrong dumbass, it's not about which balloon heats up faster, it's about which balloon cools slower.

Jesus what a retard.

>>16115165
Learn English

>>16115308
>The lamp is heating the balloon itself and heat is conducting into the gas, so it's not a purely radiative exchange of energy
Just like the sun heating the Earth.

>2) CO2 is denser than nitrogen gas
Negligible.

>so it has a higher heat capacity this has nothing to do with a greenhouse effect
Non sequitur and wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_specific_heat_capacities

>3) A balloon is a closed system with uniform internal temperature, this has nothing to do with atmospheric thermodynamics
Peak retard and wrong.

Stop coping and do some real science, OP. Determine if pure CO2 behaves the same way as our atmosphere or if it displays the properties of a greenhouse gas.

>>16115593
>Just like the sun heating the Earth.
YES because heat transfers from the surface to the air via conduction.
NOT radiation as warmists claim.

The hot bottle experiment's density difference is not negligible. It's a pathetic middle school experiment that does not model a greenhouse effect at all.

>Closed system
Highly relevant to heat flow between two objects. Greenhouse effect requires that cold objects can warm hot objects. That's not possible. The balloon experiment doesn't model that. The effect is not showing a radiative process, but a chemical process.

And you got the fucking experiment wrong anyway, dumbass.

>Pure CO2
CO2 is not a magic heat molecule, you scum sucking shithead. It absorbs IR. That doesn't mean it heats things up. It depends on the environmental parameters.

But it's pointless to talk to warming tards

>>16115248
Hotters give flerfs a run for their money in stupidity. At least flerfs believe the dome is invisible space daddy magic. The hotters think the dome is
>balloon rubber
fuck off ey

>>16115248
Anon, concave Earth is pseudo science.

>>16114751
>you can't do that on MY planet, I am god
Ernest Jones, in 1913, was the first to construe extreme narcissism, which he called the "God-complex", as a character flaw. He described people with God-complex as being aloof, self-important, overconfident, auto-erotic, inaccessible, self-admiring, and exhibitionistic, with fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience. He observed that these people had a high need for uniqueness.

>>16115722
>YES because heat transfers from the surface to the air via conduction.
Negligible

>NOT radiation as warmists claim.
Prove it.

>It's a pathetic middle school experiment that does not model a greenhouse effect at all.
Nonsense. What makes it invalid?

>Greenhouse effect requires that cold objects can warm hot objects.
No it doesn't.

>The balloon experiment doesn't model that. The effect is not showing a radiative process, but a chemical process.
Wrong again.

>It absorbs IR.
Hence the heat lamps or the sun. Regardless, you have just admitted with that statement that you know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so why are you being intellectually dishonest?

>>16115783
The "dome" is Earth's gravity well. Have you graduated high school?

>>16115963
1) You're just wrong
2) Pilpul
3) Pilpul; I already explained you're doubling down on the same argument
4) 2d law of thermodynamics see OP pic
5)Pilpul
6)Major pilpul "you just admitted" along with mischaracterizing me explaining otherwise

Fuck off kike, we're done.

>>16116056
Congratulations! You have demonstrated repeatedly that you don't even understand what a greenhouse gas is. That means you've won the Pseud Award for excellence in trying to bullshit your way through subjects you have never studied! You didn't give us as good of a performance as the Bogdanoffs, but hey, who can?

>>16116135
Everyone notice how Jewish climate shills are. Willing to fuck with your head and play word games and vomit talking points. They're all like this.
There's no serious people who believe in climate change.

>>16114738
>>16114746
>>16114751
Not reading any of that shit. You have a trash ms paint drawing, your post format is atrocious, the thread topic is obvious bait, and I glanced a few buzzwords in your blog post. There is a 0% chance you said anything that made any sense.

>>16116427
You climate shills really get around. Give it up.

>>16114738
Write a paper and get this submitted. I'm sure you'll get a Nobel for rewriting earth science.

>>16116135
>rubber balloon model of the earth
lmao

>>16117119
Lol same shill seething.
That's pilpul again.
>Take control of "official" approval channels
>"Your ideas wouldn't even be officially approved"
NOT -clap- AN -clap- ARGUMENT

>>16114738
We need pollution to enter into a tier 1 type civilisation

>>16116340
Cope harder. You will never be a scientist.

>>16117158
Take your meds

>>16114738
>another global warming thread
who gives a shit atp

>>16115142
>And if you make the interior plate completely sealed, the bonfire will choke itself because the CO2 from the exhaust will squelch it out.

>>16115963
>carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
Carbon dioxide is an inert gas. There are many fancy descriptions for it. "Greenhouse effect" is just a fancy description for the observed hysteresis of light that passes through the atmosphere. None of that proves anything, in fact it doesn't even prove light is traveling through said atmosphere in the first place.

>>16114738
>DA JOOZ

>>16115142
guys like this lurk /sci/

>>16116135
>you don't even understand what a greenhouse gas is
A gas in a greenhouse what the earth is not.

>>16118279
>>16119230
Excellent job demonstrating that you don't understand what a greenhouse gas is. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

>>16117232
CO2 isn't a pollutant, its plant food

>>16120167
tmst this

>>16120167
>CO2 isn't a pollutant, its plant food
Source?

>>16119294
Their job is to just spam this endlessly on the internet until people start doubting official sources of information, it doesn't matter how ridiculous it is, people will believe stuff just because they see other "people" believing it.

>>16118279
>in fact it doesn't even prove light is traveling through said atmosphere in the first place.
How the fuck else does the light reach the surface of the planet?

>>16120563
Greenhouses increase CO2 levels for better yields.
>but muh soil limited
stfu kike.

>>16120729
And you don't think there's any difference between a pot of fertilized soil in a greenhouse and a random plot of land somewhere on Earth?

>>16120566
That's why mockery and distain are the only proper responses.

>>16120729
Most plants are limited by water

>>16120955
Plants require less water under higher CO2 conditions.

>>16120969
Everything about enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is good. With a CO2 enhanced atmosphere life on Earth will thrive in ways that no primate has witnessed in over 25 million years

>>16120969
>>16121866
Retard takes

>>16121876
Its not a "take" to state the FACT that plants require less water in a higher CO2 environment.

>>16114738
>>16114746
>>16114751

You can shit and piss and make up all the imaginary numbers you fucking want, but if I stuffed a towel underneath your bedroom door and piped in car exhaust while you slept I highly doubt your opinion on "greenhouse gases" would remain consistent. Fuck off, booger-eater.

>>16122076
Retard take

>>16121866

>>16122096
Imagine getting confused between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide lmfao
>>16122308
Whatever dude, get rid of all the carbon kill the planet I guess

>>16122468
>get rid of all the carbon
No one has made this claim you lying worm

>>16122468
Retard take

>>16120955
plants in CO2 enhanced atmospheres root deeper and as a result have access to more water.

>>16123316
Retard take.

>>16123511
Deal with it

>>16123691
>All plants were 14 d of age and were grown under similar water, light, and nutrient conditions.
If you go outside you'll find that most plants aren't grown in greenhouses with similar water, light, and nutrient conditions.

>>16124531
Why are you prevaricating? Of course different conditions exist in nature.
The point is to demonstrate that, all other factors being equal, higher CO2 leads to more growth. If any of the other variables were altered, you would have claimed that that was the reason for the differences in growth.

>>16124650
>The point is to demonstrate that, all other factors being equal, higher CO2 leads to more growth.
The law if the maximum does not govern plant growth. It's the law of the minimum that governs plant growth. You are building a stave taller then the rest and insisting that it will make the barrel hold more water. It won't.

>>16124650
Plants grown in CO2 enhanced atmospheres require less water than ones in normal atmospheres, the plant on far right in >>16123691 would've been even larger if all other conditions hadn't been kept equal. A finely tuned in greenhouse or artificial light grow with a controlled atmosphere can be extraordinarily productive.

>>16125212
You are talking out of your ass

>>16114738
Your post raises some interesting points, but it seems to misinterpret some fundamental aspects of atmospheric physics. Let's break it down:

Density Gradient and Gravity: The existence of a density gradient in the atmosphere is not disputed; it's a well-established fact observed through various scientific measurements. This gradient is indeed influenced by gravity, which pulls the denser air molecules towards the Earth's surface. This is not a claim made by "idiots" but a fundamental concept in physics.

Role of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs): While it's true that the atmosphere would not be as warm without greenhouse gases, it's not solely due to a density lapse creating a temperature lapse. GHGs absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, which traps heat in the atmosphere, contributing to its warming effect.

Pressure Lapse Rate and Gas Laws: The pressure lapse rate is indeed governed by gas laws, but adding energy to the system (such as through solar radiation) does not solely result in a temperature increase. The distribution of this energy and its interaction with greenhouse gases play crucial roles in determining atmospheric temperatures.

Kinetic Work Against Gravity: The increase in temperature along a pressure lapse does lead to kinetic work against gravity, but it's not as simple as stating that temperature and mass climb up the pressure gradient. The dynamics of atmospheric circulation involve complex interactions between temperature, pressure, and other variables.

Radiative Greenhouse Effect: The concept of the radiative greenhouse effect is well-supported by scientific evidence and is not invalidated by the points you've raised. Greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, which warms the atmosphere. This process is essential for maintaining Earth's habitable temperatures.

>>16125612
Thanks ChatGPT.

>>16124809
Meanwhile, commercial greenhouses around the world spend a lot of money to keep their CO2 levels high.
Until you specify where and when things other than carbon are the limiting factor of growth, your shit posting is just shit posting.

>>16125612
Hey, let's break this down in a simple way, especially for y'all in the hood. So, here's the deal:

Density Gradient and Gravity: Alright, let me tell you somethin', the atmosphere has this thing called a density gradient. It means that the air gets thinner as you go higher up. Now, some people might not get this, but it's basic physics. Gravity is what pulls down the denser air towards the Earth's surface. So, please don't listen to them idiots who say otherwise.

Role of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs): Now, let me break it down for ya. The atmosphere wouldn't be as warm as it is without greenhouse gases, it's a fact. It's not just about a density lapse creating a temperature lapse. These greenhouse gases, like CO2, they soak up and spit out infrared radiation, keepin' that heat trapped up in the atmosphere. That's why it gets warmer.

Pressure Lapse Rate and Gas Laws: Alright, listen up! This thing called the pressure lapse rate is governed by gas laws. But, here's the thing, when energy, like that from the sun, gets added to the mix, it's not just gonna make the temperature rise all by itself, okay? It's about how that energy gets distributed and how it interacts with the greenhouse gases. It's a whole complicated situation, my friend.

Kinetic Work Against Gravity: Uh yeah, so when the temperature increases along a pressure lapse, it does make some kinetic work against gravity. But don't think it's just as simple as the mass and temperature climbing up the pressure gradient, you feel me? The way our atmosphere moves and circulates is a whole crazy interaction between temperature, pressure, and other things.

Radiative Greenhouse Effect: Alright, check it out! The whole idea of the radiative greenhouse effect is all backed up by scientific evidence, no doubt about it. These greenhouse gases, they absorb and spit out infrared radiation, keepin' us warm. It's what helps us maintain these livable temperatures on Earth, you know?

>>16126154
Are you retarded? Greenhouses use fertilizers and provide plenty of water. All of the limiting factors are tended to which means that the plant can utilize the extra CO2. Random plots of land do not have a perfect nutrient profile or optimal water availability. That's why adding phosphorus to a body of water causes an algae bloom. In fact, the Amazon is also limited by phosphorus which washes out of the soil each year and is dependent on phosphorus rich dust blowing across the ocean from the Sahara. Why would you expect every plant on Earth to have everything they need except carbon dioxide?

>>16126470
>Why would you expect every plant on Earth to have everything they need except carbon dioxide?
Never claimed this, just that it's common enough for plants to have everything they need except more carbon.
It should be really easy to prove that CO2 is never the limiting factor. Just do an experiment that imitates common natural conditions but with varying CO2 levels

>>16127075
No it isn't. Provide evidence for your claims or fuck off.

>>16127178
>Provide evidence for your claims or fuck off.

>>16127249
That doesn't prove your claims. Are you logically deficient or just trolling?

>>16127271
It proves that, for those particular trees, carbon was a limiting factor of growth.

>>16127626
Because they were in highly controlled conditions with every other limiting factor tended to. That does not prove that is the case for the majority of plants on Earth. Were your parents siblings?

>>16127662
Were they? You sound pretty certain. Did you check?

>>16127662
>That does not prove that is the case for the majority of plants on Earth
Never said it was limiting factor for the MAJORITY of plants on earth.

>>16114738
obviously it doesn't work, if it would then you'd have a maxwell demon.

>>16127743
That is exactly your claim. You say that the Earth will green as a result of carbon dioxide. That necessitates the majority of plants having carbon dioxide as their limiting factor which you have not been able to prove is the case. Are you stupid or trolling?

>>16127893
>You say that the Earth will green as a result of carbon dioxide
Yes
>That necessitates the majority of plants having carbon dioxide as their limiting factor
No. Consider,
For most of the planet, the limiting resource on plant growth is water.
Plants inhale carbon via pores on their leaves called stomata. They lose water through the stomata similarly to how animals lose moisture in their breath. During droughts, plants will actually stop or slow their carbon intake by closing their stomata, in order to decrease water loss, at the expense of growing more slowly or not at all.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0212-7
>Increased water-use efficiency and reduced CO2 uptake by plants during droughts at a continental scale
The corollary of this is that in higher CO2 levels, plants don't need to keep their stomata open for as long to inhale a given quantity of CO2, so they can keep them closed for more of the time, meaning they lose less water. All of this means that in the many, many places around the world where water is a limiting factor on plant growth, plants are much more easily able to survive.

>>16128374
How often were you dropped on your head? It doesn't matter how much CO2 a plant can take if if it doesn't have the resources to utilize that CO2. You have repeatedly failed to prove your claims while refusing to accept the proof you've been given. You are acting emotionally and not rationally because you are invested in the idea that climate change isn't real. You are a useful idiot and you should be upset that your entire ideology is just the manipulation from the people who use you as livestock.

>>16128636
Did you even read the post? It's not that higher CO2 helps plant growth by supplying extra carbon per se, it's that higher CO2 allows plants to thrive with less water.
Read the whole post again, start to finish.

>>16128661
That's how I know you failed to prove your assertions. The limiting factor here is water, not carbon dioxide. It says it right in the abstract. Did you want to accept that you are ignorant, or keep arguing against facts?

>>16128664
>The limiting factor here is water, not carbon dioxide.
Yes. And higher CO2 levels mean plants lose less water. Thus, higher CO2 levels lead to increased plant growth in arid regions, even though carbon wasn't the limiting factor. I know you're intelligent enough to understand this.

>>16128374
More CO2 also means more droughts/evaporative losses?

>>16128679
Less evaporative losses. More CO2 means plants can keep their breathing pores closed for more of the time, reducing water loss.

>>16128678
>>16128681
You are wildly exaggerating this effect and it does not mean that higher CO2 will lead to increased growth. At best it means that in cases of very mild drought plants will continue to grow. The desertification of the western US demonstrates how foolish your claim is.

>>16128788
Arid regions around the world havent become greener in the last 30 years?

>>16128799
Not anywhere that isn't managed by humans. Irrigating drought land is evidence of carbon dioxide greening the Earth.

>>16128817
>is evidence
is not evidence

>>16128817
>Not anywhere that isn't managed by humans
Define "managed by humans", because every satellite study shows that the effect is widespread.

>>16128848
Every study has shown that any greening is the result of humans.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/144540/china-and-india-lead-the-way-in-greening

>>16128950
You're intelligent enough to know the difference between
>India and China make up a large proportion of the Earth's greening
And
>there has been no greening outside of India and China
Picrel is from your own link. Does it show greening is occurring only in India and China?
Or does it show greening occurring on every continent?

>>16128950
>Every study has shown that any greening is the result of humans
The extra CO2 that is contributing to the greening comes from humans so, yes, you're right.

>>16129028
>Picrel is from your own link. Does it show greening is occurring only in India and China?
That was never the claim, moron.

>>16129036
It's not CO2, it's fertilizer and water we use to grow our crops.

>>16129158
>It's not CO2, it's fertilizer and water we use to grow our crops
Who is spreading fertiliser in the western deserts of the USA? Or in the Canadian arctic? How about all the greening in Siberia. Was that Chinese farmers too?

>>16129177
Yes. It's all farmers. Farmers in the western deserts draining aquifers to grow fodder to export to other states and countries, gardeners all over Canada growing more vegetables as the climate changes, and Chinese megaprojects in remote places as a part of their Great Green Wall to push back the deserts and reclaim farmland. All of those places were sparsely vegetated beforehand and require less vegetation to display the same percent change as areas that were more heavily vegetated.

>>16129218
>Farmers in the western deserts draining aquifers to grow fodder to export to other states and countries, gardeners all over Canada growing more vegetables as the climate changes, and Chinese megaprojects in remote places as a part of their Great Green Wall to push back the deserts and reclaim farmland
Man I sure love that climate change has made it possible for Canadians and Russians to grow food in the arctic circle

Global warming is fake and fucking gay. So is climate change. I also don't care and will continue to burn diesel until I die. Electric cars are for trannies.

>>16128950
>nasa.gov
fake and gay
nasa is a government propaganda agency, not a scientific organization

>>16129683
That map doesn't show any growth in the Arctic circle. Did you fail geography?

>>16129218
>oy vey muh precious aquifers
western agriculture is pretty much entirely watered with snowmelt runoff. precipitation accumulates all winter as snow and ice and then it conveniently melts and runs off in summer when you need it for watering your farm.

>>16130791
Do me a favour and open your pic from >>16129028 in MS paint and draw a line where you think the arctic circle begins.

>>16131223
Alright, now let me see. There was essentially nothing growing there, so take nothing, multiply 12% by nothing, carry the nothing... Yeah, I get nothing. Did you fail geography?

>>16131162
No it isn't, moron.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/resources/trends/2022/farmers-depleting-ogallala-aquifer-because-government-pays-them-do-it/

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019483661/without-enough-water-to-go-around-farmers-in-california-are-exhausting-aquifers

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/28/climate/groundwater-drying-climate-change.html

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2020/05/01/nifa-impacts-saving-ogallala-aquifer-supporting-farmers

Why do you feel the need to make shit up about things you clearly know nothing about?

>>16130621
Take your meds.

>>16131241
>There was essentially nothing growing there
"Was" being the operative word.
https://www.indefenseofplants.com/blog/2018/10/1/arctic-vegetation-is-growing-taller-amp-why-that-matters

>>16131255
Very life. Much green.

>>16131243
NTA but two of your links are about the high plains aquifer in Kansas, that's not the western deserts.
Your other link is about Californian farmers west of the Rockies, also not the western deserts.

>>16131264
No it isn't, moron.

>>16131263
>Very life. Much green.
Yes, you condescending transsexual. The arctic is incredibly green in summer time, and increasingly so. Snide jokes and wilful ignorance doesn't change reality.
>The Jewish religious leaders thought they saw (understood) but were blind. Their minds were made up and they refused to accept new evidence or information that might change their minds. They quizzed the blind man twice and his parents once, at first refusing to believe that the man had actually been blind. When they couldn’t deny the miracle, they questioned its source: Jesus could not be from God since He healed on the Sabbath. He must be a sinner. No amount of evidence or simple logic would convince them otherwise. They were obstinate in their unbelief—blind, though they thought they saw.

>>16131271
>The arctic is incredibly green
>in summer time
So, take nothing, multiply 12% by nothing, carry the nothing... Yeah, I still get nothing.

>>16131278
Yes, in summer time, because there is virtually no sunlight for half of the year.
>An old English expression says, ‘There is none so blind as those who will not see.’ It means that although there is nothing wrong with their eyesight, they ignore the truth they already know;

>>16131290
There's virtually no sunlight for the other half of the year either. You understand how angle of solar incidence works, right? That's why the artic is so cold and lifeless.

>>16131300
>That's why the artic is so cold and lifeless.

>>16131300
>That's why the artic is so cold and lifeless

>>16131300
>You understand how angle of solar incidence works, right?
Do you?

>>16131300
>There's virtually no sunlight for the other half of the year either
Do you ever get tired of telling lies and half-truths?

>>16131376
Do you know how to read that graph? It says there basically no light at the poles.

>>16131379
See
>>16131376

>>16131369
>>16131372
Correct.

>>16131741
>It says there basically no light at the poles
How come there is so much flora then?
Your bad faith non-arguments and condescending rhetoric are amusing, but I don't think you're going to convince nyone that might happen to read our exchange that you're either honest or correct.

>>16131243
>npr.org
>nytimes.com
>.gov
>I come to 4chan.org to spam it with fake news from ZOG propaganda outlets
reddit spacing

>>16131770
>How come there is so much flora then?
There's really not. If you integrate that light over the year you'll see that they get fuck all for light, even if you ignore when the light is too bright for plants to effectively use it all. Less than 800 kWh/m^2 each year.

I have come to the conclusion that there are no good faith rational discussions on /sci/ so I just entertain myself by picking random arguments with people whose posts I dont even bother reading, just by saying they are wrong and retarded. Then I chuckle when I see they have replied and so I make some other insulting remark which again contributes nothing to the discussion. If I get them to waste their time replying at least three times I count it as a win and award myself 15 points. If not I deduct 10 points. Its a fun little game. So far my score stands at 2,124 points

>>16132463
>There's really not
>>16131372
>>16131369
>>16131271
Someone should tell all those plants that they're not supposed to be growing there.
>>16132472
You're not fooling anyone.

>>16132749
>Muh pictures!
You will never be a scientist. Look up the biomass estimates.

>>16132749
The only fool here is you, turd breath. I am already up to 2219 points just by idly posting random insults and nonsensical bullshit on other threads. I believe I have successfully derailed three other /sci/ threads.

You know what I do sometimes? I look to see if two other anons are engaging in an argument, then I reply to BOTH of them in turn, ignoring facts, being unreasonable, and generally talking shit with a good heaping of retard, idiot, dumbass and motherfucker thrown in with my comments. They usually both think its the other dude sperging out and they respond in kind, degenerating the whole thread into pointless drivel and name calling.
Its fun, you should try it. Sure beats any expectation of real discussion here.

>>16132957
>let me confess how sociopathic I am as some kind of weird edgy humblebrag
>it's cool and fun to contribute to the shittiness of an experience because it already didn't live up to my expectations
Dont reproduce.

>>16132982
+15 points
Haha, cope and seethe all you like shithead. If you honestly think there are any good faith discussions on this board then you are indeed very stupid.
Just look at you, replying to be my shit posts. Lol, dumbass.

>>16117232
CO2 isn't a pollutant, its plant food

>>16134249
Retard take

>>16117119

>>16135501
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion

>>16132749
>Someone should tell all those plants that they're not supposed to be growing there.
lol

>>16131369
>>16131372
soiyence soiyboys will happily deny and ignore reality in favor of their ridiculous narcissistic grandiose delusion of being omniscient, god-like geniuses

>>16136506
>>16137919
See
>>16132925

>>16137960

>>16138654
That's not a biomass estimate, that is a percent change in leaf area. What is a 50% increase over 1? Is it as large as a 50% increase over 10?

You will never be a scientist.

>>16138827
why does it upset you so much that adding co2 to the atmosphere is improving the environment? do you hate the environment or something?

>>16139661
Why do you have to lie and deflect instead of backing up your claims with data and evidence? Do you get paid to post here or something?

>>16140081
https://www.psycom.net/paranoid-schizophrenia