/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12664615]

Wow, climate change sure is confusing.

[Anonymous No.12664647]

>climate change?

[Anonymous No.12664670]

>>12664615
Pollution is bad, more CO2 in the atmosphere is bad. These are facts.

Don't worry too much about whatever dumb shit the news runs articles on. Just worry about the facts. Its 2021, news isn't supposed to be taken seriously at all in a direct objective manner without unilateral consideration of all perspectives. News that most people see is only written for what sells or spreads, any dumb correlation can make headlines. But its objective fact that we are dumping shitloads of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and smog is a very very real problem.

[Anonymous No.12664681]

>>12664670
>more CO2 in the atmosphere is bad. These are facts.

[Anonymous No.12664689]

>>12664670
we are at 2021 already, and nothing bad really happens.

at what point we can say global warming is falsified?

[Anonymous No.12664693]

>>12664681
jump off a bridge

[Anonymous No.12664695]

>>12664615
> 'Nobody knew climate change could be so complicated'
kys

[Anonymous No.12664710]

>>12664615
Are you being facetious or are you really surprised that something as complex as the atmosphere isn't a simple A/B problem?
>greenhouse gases increase heat retention
>but also some greenhouse gases reflect away incoming heat
>some do the former better and some do the latter better
Big surprise.

[Anonymous No.12664725]

>>12664710
so what you're saying is we should increase greenhouse gases to the point so that as much as reflected as possible and the remainder has high retention. with increases CO2 plant life will flourish and the more temperate whether will be a boon for all life.
in stark contrast to the idea that we should gimp industry to reduce CO2 thereby increasing direct heat exposure and reducing heat retention increasing the fluctuation of temperature creating various natural disasters
wow really activates those almonds.

[Anonymous No.12664746]

>>12664670
>>12664710
So what you're saying is, we should increase greenhouse gases to the point where as much sun is reflected as possible and the remaining heat generated by the sun is retained creating a more temperate weather increasing the Earths habitable zones. The increase in CO2 will also create high yields for plant life, combined with the increased arable lands, we will solve world hunger.
This is in stark contrast to what is currently being peddled. That we should gimp out industry, increasing poverty and reducing the innovation needed to propel humanity forward, so that greenhouse gases are reduced, thereby increasing direct sunlight exposure. The reduced CO2 will also cripple plant life which relies on high CO2 concentrations to flourish. Additionally, with low heat retention the Earth will become more polarized towards hot and cold waves creating more natural disasters and reducing the habitable and arable areas further exacerbating world hunger.
Really makes you think.

[Anonymous No.12664771]

>>12664615
This is probably because the sulphites from aeroplane exhausts in particular dropped and they have a cooling effect. But you shouldn't want them in your air anyway, and large carbon emissions are still not a great thing for us.
It's not a particularly confusing idea. And we should be cleaning up our pollution regardless of climate change anyway.

[Anonymous No.12664807]

>>12664746
again with this retarded argument

co2 that se pump out is different than natural co2
plants have an upper limit for co2 so no that does not mean that we will solve world hunger, the results will be small on the plant life and too much co2 actually gives negative results for plant life.
And we would just further damage evrything
watch potholers videos on the subject he destroyed this stupid argument on several occasions
ofc you would beliveve that stupid shit when industrial shills have infinetly more power and influence kn the public than actual scientists
dont be a brainlet for once understand how much we humans are impacting the enviroment, realise that coal burning releases more radioactive supstances than nuclear poweplants does
how much of the worlds forests did we cut down
we are turning the whole world in a big pasture thats innefective at recycling co2, unlike the forests that use to cover so much ground
and we dump everything in the sea, ruining ecosystems, increasing acidity. once the plankton start dying out its adios for us
not to mention the melting permafrost releasing even more shit in the atmosfere
there is a natural balance and today we tipped it too much with polution and industry

[Anonymous No.12664813]

>>12664807
>coal burning releases more radioactive supstances than nuclear poweplants
That's racist

[Anonymous No.12664821]

>>12664693
After you.

[Anonymous No.12664822]

>>12664807
>CO2 is different than CO2
stopped reading there.
your retardation knows no bounds

[Anonymous No.12664944]

>>12664689
The doom is near! And it's your fault, goyim. You must pay for your sins. All forms of currency accepted.

[Anonymous No.12665157]

>>12664746
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
#43
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

[Anonymous No.12665160]

>>12664615
Faggot, don't just transplant a thread directly from /pol/

[Anonymous No.12665171]

>>12665157
>Fact Check: False
>While CO2 is increases growth of plants, it isn't good for plants because high CO2 will increase temperature which is bad.
Nice snopes article you fucking retard. CO2 is categorically food for plants. Unrelated shit like temperature is unrelated. As mentioned in >>12664807 you can increase CO2 while keeping temperature constant.

[Anonymous No.12665175]

>>12665160
faggot, there isn't any thread on climate change on /pol/ you FUCKING NIGGER

[Anonymous No.12665193]

>>12665157
I mean >>12664746. If greenhouse gases reflect enough light then the terrestrial temperature will be stabilized even better than it is now. Bill Gates plans to literally spray aerosol into the atmosphere to reduce the temperature.

[Anonymous No.12665213]

>>12665171
>keeping temperature constant.
sure bud

[Anonymous No.12665220]

>>12665193
light =/= heat
retard

[Anonymous No.12665234]

>>12665213
>>12665220
>temperature changed in the past that means it will change in this hypothetical situation
literally kill yourself you copy pasting fucking NPC. Try using your brain for 5 seconds and you might realize that smarter people than you are actually seriously discussing this while you're posting shitty infographics from over a decade ago.

[Anonymous No.12665238]

>>12665234
>i have no argument

[Anonymous No.12665245]

>>12665238
>>i have no argument

[Anonymous No.12665286]

>>12664615
it's like miniature nuclear winter type of thing
>visible sunlight hits ground
>light is partially reflected like mirror back, partially transforms it into IR
>smog (which is not greenhouse gas by the way) reflects more than ground without transforming as much to IR
>CO2 absorbs IR and heats itself up

Global warming is not total end of the world scenario, but it will very likely cost more money to mitigate things than it would to prevent it

[Anonymous No.12665299]

>>12665245

[Anonymous No.12665309]

>>12665171
>Unrelated shit like temperature is unrelated.
you obviosly never even tried growing a plant outside, otherwise you wouldn't be spouting such nonsense
please stop

[Anonymous No.12665318]

>>12665299

[Anonymous No.12665319]

>>12665309
they're called greenhouse gases for a reason nerd

[Anonymous No.12665325]

>>12665213
this presupposes man made climate change is true to start with in order to divide out things it thinks humans are causing and calculating backwards what it would be with out it.

I happen to think we have an effect, but 'evidence' like this just weakens the argument.

[Anonymous No.12665326]

>>12664615
I'm never sure if you people are just being intentionally obtuse or if you're actually so dumb that you're incapable of understanding that aerosols and CO2 are both released by combustion but affect the climate in different ways and on different time scales.

[Anonymous No.12665337]

>>12665319
I refuse to believe anyone is this dumb for real

[Anonymous No.12665339]

>>12664681
Put a plastic bag around your head then, dipshit.

[Anonymous No.12665350]

>>12665171
Can you describe the process of photosynthesis for me without linking anywhere as best you are capable? Just so we know you aren't full of shit.

[Anonymous No.12665369]

>>12665350
Carbon go in.
Oxygen go out.

[Anonymous No.12665376]

>>12665369
Thanks. You are full of shit.

[Anonymous No.12665379]

>>12665325
lol retard

[Anonymous No.12665381]

>>12665376
whoa whoa whoa bud, who are you to say I'm full of shit? Explain the all the processes by which CO2 is going to destroy the Earth without linking anywhere so we know you aren't full of shit and can accurately described someone else's capacity of shit.

[Anonymous No.12665384]

>>12664647
underrated

[Anonymous No.12665391]

>>12664670

[Anonymous No.12665399]

>>12665381
>without linking anywhere
red flag
you're full of shit

[Anonymous No.12665400]

Greenhouse gasses increase the temperature
Aerosols decrease the temperature

Greenhouse gasses stay in the atmosphere for a long time and are still going up
Aerosols drop out from the atmosphere pretty fast and are down thanks to near halt to plane travel and decrease in energy use.
Result hotter climate.

[Anonymous No.12665401]

>>12665381
You can't even describe a process taught in HS. Kill yourself, fucking waste of space.

[Anonymous No.12665405]

>>12664670
I don't know if I should call this a good post.

[Anonymous No.12665417]

>>12664681
What a retard.

[Anonymous No.12665487]

>>12664681
retard

[Anonymous No.12665490]

Embarrassing thread.

[Anonymous No.12665500]

>>12665326
It doesn't matter, this propaganda covers both groups.

[Anonymous No.12665518]

>>12664746
Your post is schizo ramblings but on the point of intentionally pumping out greenhouse gasses which would reduce the incoming energy that's actually one of the geoengineering ideas that people are looking at (and probably won't go anywhere because it's a logistical nightmare and would have it's own damaging effects).

[Anonymous No.12665528]

>>12665518
Nobody's seriously looking at that. They're looking at sulphur based aerosols since greenhouse gases obviously contribute to heating via the greenhouse effect.

[Anonymous No.12665536]

>>12664615
I dont care if global warming is real or not, i have AC.

[Anonymous No.12665539]

>>12664615
MSM pushed fearmongering, that should tell you all about the credibility of these clowns.

[Anonymous No.12665544]

>>12664807
I dont believe you, simple as.

[Anonymous No.12665545]

>>12665536
based

[Anonymous No.12665548]

>>12665536
that's what they used to say in syria too

[Anonymous No.12665572]

>>12665548
Droughts and war have existed since ever.

[Anonymous No.12665587]

>>12665175
there was like an hour before this thread posted and it had the exact same screencap in the OP you fucking double nigger

[Anonymous No.12665592]

>>12665587
how would I know that, not being a crossboarding faggot like you?

[Anonymous No.12665594]

>>12665528
Sulphur based aerosels have a greenhouse effect too Anon, they're what I was talking about. And nobody serious is seriously looking at them since the logistics don't work.

[Anonymous No.12665600]

>>12665594
>serious people
All these climate scientists are just fanatical teenage groupies following some corrupt celebrity researcher. People go into that field because its hip just like Indiana Jones lead to mass production of archeologists.

[Anonymous No.12665601]

>>12664689
> scientists say that if we don't work to stop climate change then we'll have big problems
>Legislation to ban use CFCs was passed globally 1990
>several other pieces of legislation to decrease climate change go into place
>retards see the original prediction, without knowing those predictions are out dated
>HEHE GUESS CLIMATE CHANGE IS WRONG HAHAHAA

[Anonymous No.12665604]

>>12665594

[Anonymous No.12665606]

>>12665601
Weak shilling. CFCs? You can do better

[Anonymous No.12665613]

>>12665606
not a shill.
not a climate scientist.
Sorry it's coming from some random anon, rather than coming from the divinely inspired Q-anon. Doesn't mean I'm wrong

[Anonymous No.12665629]

>>12665604
'Course this chart would be a lot simpler if you just changed out the "big baddie" to oil tycoons.

[Anonymous No.12665640]

>>12665613
>ozone layer is global warming because atmosphere

[Anonymous No.12665661]

So, have they narrowed down the value of climate sensitivity, or is it still an order of magnitude spread between literally nothing and hellfire?

[Anonymous No.12665735]

>>12664615
Hi /pol/
Bye /pol/

[Anonymous No.12665760]

>>12665572
and idiots, so you're no mystery

[Anonymous No.12665761]

>>12665400
Earth is a stupid planet.

[Anonymous No.12665763]

>>12664615
Scientists are corrupt to the core, what a surprise!

[Anonymous No.12665775]

So let me get this straight
>Toxic smog full of aerosols clears up
>As a result, these very specific areas warm up a bit
>Therefore, global warming big hoax
Did I get it right?

[Anonymous No.12665795]

>>12664689
It is already there and happening. Leave your basement.

[Anonymous No.12665810]

>>12664615
It's almost like all those recent papers saying that cloud cover has significantly bigger cooling effect than previously thought were right.

>since 1900s co2 has risen faster than before, lets blame co2
>what do you mean earth's magnetic field has weakened faster than in the last 10 000 years, also since 1900s, that has nothing to do with temperature, just trust me bro