/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10578614]

Explain for a dummie like me why is CO2 the cause rather than the consequence

[Anonymous No.10578632]

>>10578614
It's both. Warming -> CO2 evaporates out of oceans -> greenhouse effect increases -> warming.

So if something else causes warming, say an increase in solar radiation due to Earth's orbital eccentricity changing, then this will have the consequence of more CO2. And more CO2 will cause more warming. This feedback loop is necessary to explain why interglacial warming occurs so rapidly while glacial cooling occurs slowly.

[Anonymous No.10578637]

>>10578614
>Explain for a dummie

Do you really mean explain or prove?

[Anonymous No.10578642]

Carbon is something.

Over long periods of time Carbon from plants and animals get stuck in the ground.

Eventually this makes a good stored energy source because it's just a fuck ton of it over the time scales.

By pumping this shit out and burning it you get energy.

Because it used to be under the dirt, it's now in the atmosphere.

Over time Earth has experienced varying levels of carbon in the air due to this process. Some events can let out more carbon such as eruptions.

Our burning of what once was stored carbon means more is in the air, oceans, etc.

So we can
- put carbon back into the ground/storage
- deal with the changes caused by it
- use less carbon etc

Different groups have different viewpoints. Some like to be very alarmist about the consequences. Some like to be dismissive. It just depends on your individual prediction function.

What will technology look like in 2100 to deal with the situation?

What will happen if we stop using carbon so much?

What if we just adapt to the changes?

etc etc etc.

[Anonymous No.10578661]

The climate change debacle is proof that there is a rift among the ruling class, each trying to pull the populace in its direction. I don't see how this doesn't end in yet another bloody revolution.

[Anonymous No.10578668]

>>10578661
You've been reading too much /pol/

[Anonymous No.10578780]

>>10578661
Climate change is inevitable if considering that the equal opposite reaction is still in existence. Unless the opposite reaction can somehow be controlled and casted away from this planet.

[Anonymous No.10578787]

>>10578614
>cause rather than the consequence
Is this graph from the original ice core data or is this modified data that they shifted it a little?

[Anonymous No.10578795]

>>10578614
If it's not Carbon Dioxide, then what is causing warming?

[Anonymous No.10578927]

>>10578661
No, you're seeing what you want to see through a politicized lens. Global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it, exists independent from any political institutions, and should be dealt with in the same fashion.

[Anonymous No.10578944]

>>10578661
The actual ruling class only cares about their business interest, which is why they gently push misinformation in the direction of global warming not being an issue. However, they do this at the same time they are funding thousands of entrepreneurs through hundreds of private equity firms by proxy who will solve the problem. And then when capitalism solves the issue and the climate change discussion is not about how much we should fuck oil companies in the ass, the misinformation will stop.

On the other side is not the ruling class, it is the millionaire virtue signaling class that thinks that "saving" the planet will atone for their sin of regularly fucking underage sex slaves and then shooting them in the head in front of their little sister. It won't, but because this is so important to them they push. And for no reason. Capitalism will solve the issue in the end, kinda sad that the population is so stupid that we unironically need to lie about climate change not being real because if we don't they will unironically implement communism even though it's completely unrelated.

[Anonymous No.10578984]

>>10578614
We know that the effect of CO2 in the athmosphere is warming, and humans are taking up oil and coal from the ground and burning it, releasing CO2 to the atmosphere, thus causing this effect.

In previous times there were no humans around to do such things, and thus climate change was initiated by other factors, like changing solar activity (heating up the permafrost, releasing stores of methane etc) and volcanic activity.

We really can't predict solar activity or volcanic events yet, but we can both predict and change CO2 emissions and the effects they will have on climate.

That being said, those predictions can be WAY off, since we can't predict solar activity and volcanic activity. If those factors are pulling us towards an ice age, then massive CO2 emissions would be a great benefit. If the opposite, then Africans will starve to death even faster than they are now.

[Anonymous No.10578987]

>>10578787
It's a completely legitimate graph, but things you should know: It's a graph displaying Milankovitch cycles, basically during a glaciation most of the planet is cool and covered in ice. A small wobble in the earth's axis causes the amount of energy the planet gets from sunlight to increase a tiny amount. This melts a some Ice which releases greenhouse gasses trapped in permafrost, decreases the solubility of CO2 in water, increases water vapor in the atmosphere etc. These positive feedback loops keep increasing temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations until a new equilibrium point is reached. That's the peak of each graph, by this point the amount of sun the earth receives is back to normal and natural carbon sinks start slowly reducing greenhouse gas concentrations. Eventually the planet cools enough for glaciers to reform and the cycle is complete. Notice each glacial cycle takes about 50k to 100k years.

Now what would happen if during an interglacial cycle you just magically dumped a ton of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere practically overnight. Would any predictions made based on a typical cycle still be valid?

[Anonymous No.10578994]

>>10578661
seems likely

[Anonymous No.10579002]

>>10578632
>an increase in solar radiation due to Earth's orbital eccentricity changing
seriously? are you seriously trying to pretend you know what the fuck you're talking about?
>>10578987
>Milankovitch cycles
>google
it doesnt look like a graph of milankovitch cycles

[Anonymous No.10579006]

>>10578614
carbon isotopes
dinosaur carbon is heavier so we know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about climate change

[Anonymous No.10579019]

>>10579002
Google again.

[Anonymous No.10579023]

>>10579002
>https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
Is where the graph is from so go nuts

[Anonymous No.10579024]

>>10579019
>blurg blaggum huguptd urdumudumey
>Blapth

It doesnt look like a graph of milankovitch cycles even on the wikipedia site of milankovitch cycles with OPs graph posted on the bottom

It's called thinking objectively and not believing everything you hear from your "leader"

[Anonymous No.10579028]

>>10578614
its both, see at the start in the first valley? what shoots up first? Co2, then it relapses but the damage is done and pretty fast after that it shoots up, then slowly recovers as Co2 gets filtered out of the admosphere over time. Problem is this time its not rebounding as you can see, its increasing even more...

[Anonymous No.10580017]

>>10579002
>seriously? are you seriously trying to pretend you know what the fuck you're talking about?
Use your words like a big boy instead of having a tantrum.

[Anonymous No.10580020]

>>10578632
It‘s actually the opposite. Warmer water can absorb more CO2 leading to ocean acidification.

[Anonymous No.10580021]

>>10578614
because nobody knows what actually causes ice ages and milankovitch cycles also do not explain them

[Anonymous No.10580050]

>>10580020
>Warmer water can absorb more CO2 leading to ocean acidification.
All things being equal this is false. If you have two containers of water with the same CO2 concentration then warming one will lead to that one releasing more CO2 and being less acidic. However, we are rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which leads to the oceans absorbing more CO2 at the same time it is releasing more. So the ocean is both acidifying and releasing more CO2.

[Anonymous No.10580055]

>>10580021
Milankovich cycles explain glacial- interglacial cycles, not ice ages. Ice ages are explained by continental drift blocking the flow of warm water to the poles.

[Anonymous No.10580106]

>>10578614
Because we can approximately calculate how much fossil fuels we've burned in the last hundred years and how much CO2 levels have risen. Warming is happening too, but that's besides the point. CO2 concentration rose from 300PPM to 400PPM in a timescale that doesn't even register geologically. There were no giant volcanic eruptions, no (natural) mass burnings of forests. Only humanity can be responsible.

[Anonymous No.10580150]

>>10578614
As you can see on the graph the global warming happens cyclic every 100000 years.
This is beacuse the earth is spinning around the sun on different elipse.
The shape of the elipse has a 100000 year cycle.

The carbon dioxide is absorbed by the plants and is produced by the animals.
The animals needs to eat plants. The plants need sunshine and warm.
More sunshine is making more warm and more plants.
When there are more plants then ther will be more food for animals so will be more animals.
More animals will produce more carbon dioxide.

[Anonymous No.10580192]

>>10578614
it's both
https://youtu.be/WLjkLPnIPPw?t=4m44s

[Anonymous No.10580200]

>>10580150
>100k cycle
but wait, there's more
https://youtu.be/ztninkgZ0ws?t=10m