Climate change is not qualitatively valid

[Anonymous No.10526973]

What exactly makes CO2 such a molecule that it not only behaves exceptionally when it comes to contact with radiation in very small concentrations, and very exceptionally only with such radiation that has once bounced off Earth's surface? Nobody in any forum or my university can answer this. How the fuck is it possible that nobody has paid any attention that there is a massive field, entire industries spawning from it, and cornerstone is not there.

[Anonymous No.10526976]

>>10526973
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

[Anonymous No.10526987]

I too have very strong opinions about fields of science that I never studied, and probably don't have the time to ever study, nor the brainpower to do so.
I feel this way because of their association to certain kinds of people that I find quite distasteful, this being so due to the manner in which my all wise daddy, who is also may pastor, raised me.

[Anonymous No.10526991]

>>10526973
Different molecules have different absorption spectrums. Solar irradiance is absorbed (ex. by the oceans) by Earth and re-emitted as thermal radiation, which can then be absorbed by CO2. Thats the basics, picture related.

[Anonymous No.10526992]

>>10526991
For the pic related sorry. Look up greenhouse gases on Google if you are interested in all the mechanisms in detail.

[Anonymous No.10527008]

>>10526992
>interested in all the mechanisms
kek
a retard who can't even figure out that sitting in the sun makes you hot
can barely wipe his own ass

[Anonymous No.10527014]

>>10526991
>>10526992
That's cool, I've seen that and I'm just as brainwashed as anyone else to know ins and outs of what is a greenhouse gas, but I've not once heard proper qualitative explanation how and why CO2 behaves like they say it does.

[Anonymous No.10527015]

>>10526973
Think about this: Venus is covered in thick reflective clouds, less sunlight reaches the surface than on Earth. So why is it's surface temperature 200°C and Earth's surface temperature 15°C?

[Anonymous No.10527025]

>>10527015
>ask for qualitative proof concerning one molecule
>here look at this planet dude

[Anonymous No.10527029]

>>10527014
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-molecular-orbital-energy-diagram-of-CO

[Anonymous No.10527030]

>>10527014
What do you mean? Like how the actual molecule absorbs infrared but not visible light?

http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L15/web-L15.pdf

[Anonymous No.10527037]

>>10527029
That doesn't answer the question at all. I actually do know enough chemistry to understand that, and also that molecules can be ionized or break. Taking that into account greenhouse gas wavelength voodoo makes no sense at all, it's skipping the first step in proof.

[Anonymous No.10527042]

>>10527025
In order to understand your question I need to understand what it is you know.

What do you know about absorption spectrums and electron promotion?
What do you know about electron orbitals?
What do you know about molecular bonds?

[Anonymous No.10527052]

>>10527037
Molecules absorb energy either by increasing velocity or by increasing vibration. The structure of the molecule determines how it can vibrate. Each vibrational state corresponds to a certain amount of energy that is needed to reach that state. These amounts of energy in turn correspond to a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation.

[Anonymous No.10527057]

>>10526992
Holy shit, oxygen is a greenhouse gas.

[Anonymous No.10527060]

>>10527057
Ozone you mean.

[Anonymous No.10527075]

>>10527015
Yay, an other brainlet detected.

[Anonymous No.10527418]

>>10527025
>is incapable of using internet search engines

[Anonymous No.10527427]

>>10526973
>Climate change
not science or math

[Anonymous No.10528726]

>>10527057
>>10527060
it actually is, but warming is really only significant when it occurs in the troposphere.

[Anonymous No.10528914]

>>10526987
Indeed. Has anyone even seen this so called (((C O 2))) molecule people talk about???? Look up any articles in the 50s and before and nobody ever mentioned this (((C O 2))) hoax until some hippies in the 70s (((discovered))) it right around the time they started selling (((global warming))). Its obvious (((CO2))) is a jewish/communist/sjw buzz word globalists invented to bring the white man down and is not even real. I know this because i am very red pilled aryan alpha and have 1000+ /pol/ hours experience and over 360 IQs to my name.

[Anonymous No.10529209]

>>10528914
Margaret Thatcher started this global warming hoax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfwwzGKDU00

[Anonymous No.10531058]

The question that interests me more is:
Why should a total increase by 0.01 percent lead to these catastrophic changes?
I get we shouldn't pump the stuff out ad infinitum, but blaming all effects of climate change on this doesn't seem to make sense.
>inb4 It's because of positive feedback, more water will evaporate water which is also a greenhouse gas and all the methane in siberia and on the seafloor will get released and we're all gonna DIE!!!
Why hasn't this "runaway" effect not happened before (pic related)? Yes we need to take better care of earth, but there are more pressing matters (deforestation, plastic pollution, overfishing etc...) that are much more pressing.
Climate change activists have many characteristics of a religious cult if you ask me, complete with unquestionable dogma.

[Anonymous No.10531064]

>>10531058

[Anonymous No.10531603]

>>10531064
Why don't you actually post a graph that goes up to the modern day instead of ending over a 100 years ago, you fucking dishonest piece of shit?

[Anonymous No.10531607]

>>10531058
>Why should a total increase by 0.01 percent lead to these catastrophic changes?
Huh? Going from 280 ppm to 412 ppm is not a 0.01% increase. Where are you getting your numbers?

>I get we shouldn't pump the stuff out ad infinitum, but blaming all effects of climate change on this doesn't seem to make sense.
Which effects are scientists blaming on it without justification?

>Why hasn't this "runaway" effect not happened before (pic related)?
What you described is not a runaway effect and has happened before.

> Yes we need to take better care of earth, but there are more pressing matters (deforestation, plastic pollution, overfishing etc...) that are much more pressing.
How are these much more pressing?

>Climate change activists have many characteristics of a religious cult if you ask me, complete with unquestionable dogma.
Question whatever you want, if you just ignore the answers then the only one operating on dogma is you.

>>10531064
"Present" actually refers to 1950, not 2000. The graph ends before the warming even begins. Also, one place in Greenland isn't global.

[Anonymous No.10531645]

>>10527015
So?

Venus might be loaded with radioactive material from within keeping it hotter.

[Anonymous No.10531652]

>>10531645

[Anonymous No.10531669]

>>10531645
Yikes, is it even possible to be this ignorant?

[Anonymous No.10531687]

>>10528914
Lolwut? CO2 is one of the most common multi-element compounds that exists and had been studied for hundreds of years. Its also involved in a shit ton of biological processes.

[Anonymous No.10531695]

>>10531687
it's a joke post you autist

[Anonymous No.10531701]

>>10531695
It's actually more reasonable than some of the serious posts I've seen here.

[Anonymous No.10531883]

>>10526973
>Nobody in ... my university can answer this.

[Anonymous No.10531889]

>>10531645
from what we know about the formation of the solar system, Venus shouldn't have a considerably different composition to that of earth

[Anonymous No.10531949]

>>10526973
>>10527014
So carbon dioxide looks like this O=C=O in a line. So unlike O2, those O's can bounce up and down like o/c\c to o\c/o. They can bounce up and down at about the frequency of infrared light. So you know how if you take a tuning fork and apply sound at the frequency the tuning fork vibrates at the tuning fork will start vibrating? Well the same thing happens with CO2 and IR radiation. Other molecules in which the atoms can vibrate with respect to each other also tend to absorb IR, like methane. BRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!

[Anonymous No.10532037]

>>10531889
Even if it was different this wouldn't matter as surface temperatures have virtually nothing to do with sub lithosphere temperatures.

[Anonymous No.10532128]

>>10531064
>Years before present (2000AD)
Given how many times it's been pointed out, posting that graph can't have been a mistake.

You're lying, and hoping nobody will catch you. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10532151]

>>10531607
>Huh? Going from 280 ppm to 412 ppm is not a 0.01% increase. Where are you getting your numbers?
He gets the numbers by calculating the percentage of CO2 as part of the atmostphere and calculating the change in CO2 as a change vs all gasses.
i.e. it's more bullshit, pretty much the same standard fare you always get from lying science deniers

[Anonymous No.10532171]

>>10529209
LOL no, you're just a retard

[Anonymous No.10532186]

>>10529209
Imagine being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.10532215]

>>10529209
If you're going to cite "The Great Global Warming Swindle", then I may as well cite "The Day After Tomorrow". They're both equally based on science.