Explain CO2 to me

[Anonymous No.15019903]

So I’m of the opinion that the climate is indeed changing and that there is a correlation with CO2 presence in the atmosphere, but thermodynamically I really don’t understand how a trace gas that is present 0,03 percent in the atmosphere with very low infrared heat trapping capabilities. A while ago I did some basic calculations and it appeared to me that the amount of energy needed to increase the temperature by even 1 degree is far greater than wat a fractional increase in CO2 could ever store.

So please, explain it to me.

[Anonymous No.15019931]

show calculations and we have starting point where you could be shown right or wrong

[Anonymous No.15019938]

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

[Anonymous No.15020012]

>>15019931
So CO2 is heavier than air so I assume it will be primarily found in the troposphere, like 80 percent of gasses, which also makes calculations easier.

Troposphere has a height of 12 km and encloses the earth.

Earth has a surface area of 510 x 10^6 km2, so troposphere has a volume of 6120 x 10^6 km3 or 6120 x 10^15 m3. Air is 1,2 kg / m3 so air in troposphere has a weight of 7344 x 10^15 kg.

Heat needed

Heat capacity of air is 1000 joules per kg so to heat air on earth by one degree 6,12 x 10^21 J are needed.

CO2 as a heat sink

CO2 compromises 0,03 percent of the volume of the atmosphere, so 184 x 10^15 m3 of CO2 present in the atmosphere. CO2 weighs 2 KG per m3, so 368 x 10^15 kg CO2. Heat capacity is of course lower at 839 J/kgK so CO2 can trap at most 309 x 10^18 J per degree of warming.

This is a thousand fold difference from the amount of energy needed.

I know these calculations are quick and dirty but it just doesn’t add up. Can someone explain?

>>15019938
Yes but again CO2 is low concentration + very weak green house gas, so how can it be responsible?

[Anonymous No.15020014]

>>15020012
Even a doubling or tripling (or tenfold increase) in CO2 concentrations would have only the slightest of effects

[Anonymous No.15020017]

>>15019903
the problem with CO2 is not (limited to) heating the atmosphere but the reactions it does with other molecules found in the atmosphere. For example, the CO2 in the atmosphere can react with O2 to form methane which has much more heat trapping capability

[Anonymous No.15020033]

>>15020012
>how can it be responsible
it acts as a mirror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Role_of_the_greenhouse_effect

[Anonymous No.15020039]

>>15019903
>CO2 could ever store
How familiar are you with the concept of greenhouse effect?

[Anonymous No.15020040]

>>15020012
CO2 heating the planet has nothing to do with it's heat capacity and everything to do with the greenhouse effect it causes.
It's such a trivial mistake that I have a hard time believing you even made such an absolutely gorilla retard post in good faith.
Read this or something, kill yourself, respawn and then try again
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

[Anonymous No.15020048]

From the calculations above it follows that CO2 would need to be at least at 0,5 percent concentration before we would have to worry about the effects

>>15020017
Do you mean CO2 + 2 H2O -> CH4 + 2 O2? Because this is an endogenous process that takes a ton of energy and CH4 is very reactive (hence the far greater greenhouse potential), unlike CO2, so quickly disappears from the atmosphere.

Also CO2 promotes plant growth which helps with cooling down arguably by removing water (very strong greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere as well.

[Anonymous No.15020053]

>>15020033
Yes but it is a very weak mirror that doesn’t reflect that much and doesn’t take up that much to begin with

>>15020040
Well obviously for CO2 to trap and rerelease heat it has to be able to take it up first, hence heat capacity. Something can’t heat something without being warm itself first.

[Anonymous No.15020057]

>>15020012
It has nothing to do with co2 being a heat sink, co2 is really good at reflecting light back down to earth so that it cant escape back into space

[Anonymous No.15020059]

>>15020053
>very weak mirror
good, otherwise we'd boil in a week

[Anonymous No.15020061]

CO2 is a good way to track human emissions as a total, but personally i think the bigger contributor is the water created by combustion, not the CO2, but that water isn't stable enough in the atmosphere to measure global trends - hence, the CO2 excess is a good indirect measure of the extra water that has been added to the troposphere (this goes doubly since CO2 sequestration into carbohydrates by photosynthesis also consumes tropospheric water - the excess oxygen released comes from the water, not the CO2)

i argue we should be dumping O2 into the atmosphere at every opportunity, preferably liberating it from crustal materials to increase supply of various metals for construction or production of goods (bulk silicon and bulk aluminum are highly resilient to corrosion because air oxygen passivates their surfaces) - would likely improve global IQ just from increasing available oxygen

[Anonymous No.15020062]

>>15019903
That image is so braindead it’s impossible to believe it’s not satire
>carbon monoxide poisoning is fake news! How could 9 parts per million in the blood do anything! This is what the liberal academic cultural Marxist establishment wants you to believe!

[Anonymous No.15020069]

>>15020062
It's a bot thread pretty sure.

[Anonymous No.15020075]

>>15020062
Equating biological processes to physics is so fucking retarded I hope you pop sci faggots get maimed raped and murdered by a group of feral niggers

>>15020057
Something has to get hot first according to its relative properties and surroundings before it even can emit heat

Same thing with a magnetron tube in a microwave.

>>15020059
Lame answer and still not a response. Even if CO2 perfectly sent down its heat back to earth (which is the premise for the 0,5 comment), it would still be too weak in the current concentrations to do anything.

>>15020061
Interesting comment and actually insightful, but then I would still derive at the conclusion that water production as a result of combustions is nothing compared to oceanic evaporation, for example.

[Anonymous No.15020079]

>>15019903
Scam to trick gullible western retards into giving grifters their money, and ultimately helping the globohomo put them in pods and feeding them ze bugs
Even if we do everything in our power to combat non-existent "climate change" like CO2 emissions, china and india still exist and our efforts don't mean anything next to their waste pollution

[Anonymous No.15020082]

>>15020061
Water vapor is a self-regulating gas, depending on the temperature of the atmosphere there is a limit on how much vapor it can contain before it condenses into precipitation. Co2 and other greenhouse gases however can stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years before breaking down/coming down as a byproduct in rain. So co2 not only warms the planet itself, it acts as a force multiplier by raising the limit on how much water vapor can stay in the atmosphere

[Anonymous No.15020086]

> Merely a coincidence, please contrinue trusting in (((big oil))), when have they ever lied?

[Anonymous No.15020090]

>>15020075
Co2 doesnt emit heat it bounces light back down to the earth where the surface gets hotter and consequentially warms up the lower atmosphere

[Anonymous No.15020101]

>>15019903
The average male weighs 70kg.
Botulinum toxin is deadly at 1 nanogram per kilogram, therefore 70 nanograms would kill the average person.
Or, imagine you drank 1 liter of water. If someone were to add 1 drop (0.05g) to that bottle of water, they would have added 50,000,000 nanograms to it.

[Anonymous No.15020104]

>>15020075
>its heat
LOL

[Anonymous No.15020106]

>>15020090
>Co2 doesnt emit radiation waves it bounces radiation waves back down to the earth …

This is how retarded you are.

>>15020082
Water vapor is relative then here to constant CO2 (CO2 doesn’t increase with more water vapor). But for one degree heat the saturation limit of water only changes 20 percent or so. But then water vapour has a heat capacity of 4186000 j / kg. Interesting.

[Anonymous No.15020122]

>>15020090
But if the lower atmosphere is warmer it emits more infrared radiation which still goes into space.

[Anonymous No.15020126]

>>15020106
Water vapor doesnt retain enough heat to regulate the atmosphere's temperature itself, it just does enough to moderate it. It requires other greenhouse gases to change the temperature of the atmosphere

[Anonymous No.15020131]

>>15020126
Yes but for the billionth time: CO2 can’t effectively take up that much heat, which is required for infrared thermal radiation in the first place.

Also CO2 as a mirror doesn’t make sense, bc then it would be a coolant: it would reflect back infrared heat coming from the sun into space. Or does it somehow allow incoming heat but bounce back outgoing heat?

[Anonymous No.15020143]

>>15020131
It doesnt matter how much heat co2 emits, because the heat co2 generates is at a surplus because it takes a very long time for co2 to break down in the atmosphere. It's true that water vapor makes up the vast majority of the earth's greenhouse gasses but it cannot regulate the earths temperature because the amount of water vapor available is directly correlated to the temperature of the atmosphere itself. So we could be artificially creating a huge amount of water vapor for whatever purpose and it wouldn't really affect the atmosphere because it would come right back down as precipitation.

[Anonymous No.15020150]

>>15020143
>because the heat co2 generates is at a surplus because it takes a very long time for co2 to break down in the atmosphere

This doesn’t follow. CO2 emits heat in all directions, so the argument that more CO2 leads to constant more heat in the atmosphere is because of its long shelf life is retarded.

[Anonymous No.15020153]

>>15019903
It’s all a sham. The troposphere is not thermally coupled with the stratosphere, where most human pollutants settle. Prove me wrong (pro tip: you can’t).

[Anonymous No.15020155]

Instead of posting here why not go and read the papers this science is based on, you stupid fuck

[Anonymous No.15020156]

>>15020153
Another retarded take. CO2 is heavier than air and is crucial in maintaining life on this planet due to its role in photosynthesis.

[Anonymous No.15020157]

>>15020155
Bc those papers aren’t answering my very simple question:

HOW CAN A LOW CONCENTRATION, WEAK GREENHOUSE EFFECT, LOW HEAT CAPACITY GAS ACCOUNT FOR SUCH AN OUTSIZED EFFECT ON THE TEMPERATURE ON EARTH BY THERMAL RADIATION?

I know that it stays in the atmosphere long: not an argument

[Anonymous No.15020159]

>>15020131
>Or does it somehow allow incoming heat but bounce back outgoing heat?
Yes, the infrared radiation from the sun is not the same as that bouncing off the earth.

[Anonymous No.15020160]

>>15020157
>Bc those papers aren’t answering my very simple question:
You didn't read them

[Anonymous No.15020163]

>>15020150
It's not that hard to understand, the amount of water vapor present in the atmosphere is limited by evaporation rates on the surface, but also limited by the temperature of the atmosphere itself. Those are two negative feedback loops that will make the earth colder over time if water vapor was the only greenhouse gas albeit very slowly because water vapor is almost efficient enough to self sustain atmospheric temperatures. The amount of other greenhouse gasses is not affected by atmospheric temperature here on earth, they are the actors that control earth's temperature by controlling how much water vapor the earth's atmosphere can hold in a period of time. Kind of like how a choke moderates an engine but the choke itself doesnt do much mechanical work itself, but the choke is necessary to get a cold engine started.

[Anonymous No.15020165]

>>15019903
>very low infrared trapping
But that’s not true though.

[Anonymous No.15020169]

>>15020159
Lol that is so much fucking bullshit
Lol by now I get it
You people are liars that pretend like wanting to prevent a catastrophe but actually just want more power and wealth over people
If not you wouldn’t lie so much and just admit co2 is not that big of a deal right now, but it may be in the far future and you are worried because of its long shelf life

>>15020160
I did faggot
They also often say the role of CO2 is controversial, but bill faggot nye idiots like yourself are pointing as CO2 as the sole reason everything is getting hotter, whilst that is scientifically unexplainable

I’m getting worked up over these meme answers. Dishonest communications. Equating a physiological process highly dependent on specific receptors (toxins) to a much more scalable phenomenon on planetary scale is so fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.15020171]

>>15020169
If you’re ignorant about extremely basic concepts in science like the greenhouse effect then ignoring the explanations posted here then that’s on you for being dense.

[Anonymous No.15020173]

>>15020171
You are responding to a bot

[Anonymous No.15020174]

>>15020131
The light coming from the sun comes in all forms of light, when the earth absorbs this light it emits almost exclusively infrared heat. This infrared also happens to be near the frequencies that co2 and other greenhouse gasses vibrate at, so they resonate in contact with infrared coming off of the earth and scatter it on it's way back into space.

[Anonymous No.15020270]

>>15020156
>not addressing the point
HUMAN caused greenhouse effects take place in the stratosphere which has a net cooling effect on the troposphere.

[Anonymous No.15020283]

>>15020012
>heat capacity
Kek imagine obsessing and trying to debunk something when you don't understand it at all. Then thinking a bunch of dots debunks global warming.
Literally for retards.

[Anonymous No.15020789]

>>15020086
>> Merely a coincidence, please contrinue trusting in (((big government))), when have they ever lied?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/intelligence-and-the-hockey-stick/

[Anonymous No.15021476]

>>15019903
global warming is fake

[Anonymous No.15021976]

>>15020075
>Equating X to physics is so fucking retarded
Pretty soon we'll find the physical formula for your mental retardation, just you wait

[Anonymous No.15022303]

>>15021476
> American ape tries to talk about science
OO OO OO AA AA AA

[Anonymous No.15022318]

>>15020789
You nigger Americans with your ~90 average IQ and 14 % illiteracy rate always make me laugh. Please keep writing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s

> NOOOO MY GOVERNMENT THAT LOVES ISRAEL IS COMPLETELY CORRECT WITH CLIMATE CHANGE BEING BUNK! AND EVEN IF IT ISN'T BUNK IT ISN'T MAN CAUSED! AND EVEN IF IT IS MAN CAUSED WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT! AND EVEN IF WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT OUR JEWISH OIL EXECUTIVES WHO ARE WONDERFUL PEOPLE LET ME TELL YOU WON'T LET US! GOD BLESS THE UNITED SHARTS OF AMERICA!

[Anonymous No.15022971]

>>15022318
The US government is promoting the green scam. It's been mandated to affirm "the consensus" to receive grant funding since the 90s. You schizos really need to take your meds.

[Anonymous No.15023228]

>>15022971
> gets BTFO'd
> immediately stops linking retardsources
The republican party, the greatest friend to Israel on the planet, is pretty much the only government organ in the world to still be cimate change deniers.If you kikes were at least a little bit more subtle maybe you'd get some >80 IQ people fooled, bu I guess not.

Here's something to think about, why are Americans, the people who're genetically closer to apes than any other population on the planet, the ones doubting literal scientific consensus? Why dontcha think about that for a while?

[Anonymous No.15023252]

>>15023228
>If you kikes were at least a little bit more subtle maybe you'd get some >80 IQ people fooled, bu I guess not.
BTW most climate crisis proponents and funders are Jewish.

[Anonymous No.15023335]

>>15020033
>>15020040
>>15020057
Source with Proof that Co2 has "mirror like properties"? Wikipedia is not proof, papers that just state it isn't proof. Where are the experiments that show that a minuscule total % increase of Co2 causes this immense "reflecting effect"

[Anonymous No.15023391]

>>15023252
Not true, however the oil executives putting together the Republican agenda actually are. Anyway, scientific consensus, bye bye I win. I'll bring a banana to your zoo if you're nice.

[Anonymous No.15023393]

>>15023391
>Anyway, scientific consensus, bye bye I win.
The kikentific consensus also says that men whose penises are chopped off are women. Do you believe in that too?

[Anonymous No.15023443]

>>15023393
They don't say that actually, and you'd know that if you started reading scientific journals instead of the talmud. Back to your Bar Mitzva Shekelberg, I think I've humiliated you enough already.

[Anonymous No.15023446]

>>15023443
>They don't say that actually, and you'd know that if you started reading scientific journals instead of the talmud.
Proof? The Jewish Surgeon General believes and promotes that.

[Anonymous No.15023461]

>>15023446
If you pay attention to what they actually say it's than trannies kill themselves less with whatever treatments. They're not making statements on whether trannies are actually women or not.

This of course has no bearing on climate change which is wildly established and excusively opposed by Israelites (like yourself, Shlomo).

[Anonymous No.15023473]

>>15023461
>This of course has no bearing on climate change which is wildly established and excusively opposed by Israelites (like yourself, Shlomo).
You still haven't given any proof of this, whereas I can point you to George Soros, the WEF, and numerous soientists who are Jewish who promote these climate warming scams.

[Anonymous No.15023482]

>>15023473
>You still haven't given any proof of this, whereas I can point you to George Soros, the WEF, and numerous soientists who are Jewish who promote these climate warming scams.
There's a scientific consensus, which means everyone understands how climate change works. The only people opposing it are American Republicans, who're all fanatically pro-Israel. Keep doing their bidding thouh, you're doing great!

[Anonymous No.15023510]

>>15020012
>Heat capacity
LMFAO NIGGER WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING

[Anonymous No.15023518]

>>15020086

[Anonymous No.15023573]

>>15023518
Lmao did you reverse the chart? That's pretty funny banter and did waste three minutes of my life. Good on ya mate

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202202

[Anonymous No.15023596]

>>15019903
>what is a positive feedback loop

[Anonymous No.15023599]

>>15023596
A cope.

[Anonymous No.15023602]

>>15023599
It's how the neurons that (you) used to type that drivel work. Though with your intelligence, I doubt you have very many of them.

[Anonymous No.15023703]

>>15019903
>Explain CO2 to me
CO2 is good for plants and life.
Lower CO2 levels would be bad and mass extinctions would occur.

[Anonymous No.15023723]

>>15023703
Good thing we're increasing CO2 levels then, I love algea! Sadly ecosystems and agriculture doesn't like it, but what do they know?!

[Anonymous No.15023735]

>>15023723
>Sadly ecosystems and agriculture doesn't like it
What idiot made that up? Was it you?

[Anonymous No.15023752]

CO2 is the sequel of C Original

[Anonymous No.15023778]

>>15023735
Some retards at the EPA https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/effects-dead-zones-and-harmful-algal-blooms

Some other morons at the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/habs/environment.html

And lastly some idiots at the NOAA https://www.noaa.gov/what-is-harmful-algal-bloom

What idiots, don't they know if our precious algea? Of course the Amazon gets cut down, but the algea surely makes up for it?

[Anonymous No.15023910]

>>15023723
>ecosystems and agriculture love it.
FIFY
CO2 is what plants crave. More plants = more food for people and agricultural livestock.

More CO2 = better planet. Would be hard to ever get too much CO2, since there is not enough Carbon on Earth to make too much, even if ALL of the carbon were converted to it, which cannot happen.

The CO2 cultists are like those religious cults who think the entire planet was covered in water in "The Great Flood". There isn't enough water on the planet to come close to even raising sea levels more than 40 feet/12 meters.

On the same note, there isn't enough C on the planet to make too much CO2 to cause an overly hot planet.

It's all a scam.

[Anonymous No.15023920]

>>15023778
>.epa.gov
>>15023778
>.cdc.gov
>>15023778
>.noaa.gov
Ironically, all of those "sources" are no longer considered legitimate by actual scientists and the scientific community, due to political ideologies and bureaucrats tainting their credibility.
Is a shame really.

[Anonymous No.15023992]

>>15023910
When schools of fish gets wiped out because of algae, you could classify that as them loving CO2 if you want, but it's a prety strange way to talk about it, a more sane way would be "they've been wiped out". Ask how the Fish in the baltic sea are doing for instance.

A sea level rise of 10 meters would be pretty catastrophic, many large cities would get completely flooded and inhospitable, yeah it's not gonna drown us but would easily be the biggest disaster in human history (aside from the Black Death).

You can ask yourself why so many ecosystems are doing to poorly if they all love the CO2 so much?
>>15023920
Source? The problems with algae are well established high school stuff and not controversial.

[Anonymous No.15024007]

>>15023992
>When schools of fish gets wiped out because of algae, you could classify that as them loving CO2 if you want, but it's a prety strange way to talk about it, a more sane way would be "they've been wiped out". Ask how the Fish in the baltic sea are doing for instance.
I didn't know that algae practiced dragnet fishing.

[Anonymous No.15024023]

>>15024007
Baltic sea fish being on the verge of commercial exinction isn't really due to overfishing. Do you actually think this pretty basic high school science just made up everything about algea? What of their claims do you disbelieve?

[Anonymous No.15024054]

>>15023992
>The problems with algae are
overblown and a non-sequitur. Stick to the topic and science facts.

[Anonymous No.15024056]

>>15023992
>A sea level rise of 10 meters would be pretty catastrophic, many large cities would get completely flooded and inhospitable, yeah it's not gonna drown us but would easily be the biggest disaster in human history (aside from the Black Death).
Hello WEF rich 1% glowbot. May a horrible death find you soon.

[Anonymous No.15024064]

>>15024054
Algae is far from the biggest problem with CO2, but pretending it's a good thing is just typical republikike nigger shit.

>>15024056
> Cities being flooded is a GOOD thing ackchyually

[Anonymous No.15024146]

>>15024023
>Baltic sea fish being on the verge of commercial exinction isn't really due to overfishing.
Well, it is.

[Anonymous No.15024159]

>>15023910
in the real world CO2 causes
-excessive heat
-droughts
-wildfires

[Anonymous No.15024177]

>>15019903
Okay, you have some education and training. Let's do this shit.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance.html
Energy Balance

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/predictedplanetarytemperatures.html
The predicted temperature of planetary bodies in the solar system

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures.html
How atmospheres affect the energy balance equation

All the equations are available, plug and chug.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
How atmospheric warming works

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases.html
How greenhouse gases work.

You're a smart, well educated guy. There's the smart, well educated answers.

[Anonymous No.15024284]

>>15024177
>All the equations are available, plug and chug.
But they neglect so many sources of additional energy just to blame it on some inert gas.

[Anonymous No.15024377]

>>15024284
Okay. The only sources of energy on Earth are
The Sun, which is accounted for
The core of the earth, which at the surface of the Earth is 40,000x less energy than what we get from the sun.
Cosmic radiation which is so negligible it can be completely discounted.

So what source are you referring to? Also, CO2 is in no ways an inert gas. Seriously, every single question and complaint has long ago been answered by scientists. You're being contrarian for no reason. You're just another stupid ABCD, "Anything But Carbon Dioxide". Sorry friend, it's Carbon Dioxide.

[lets exchange contact info No.15025603]

>>15020086
Your graph is shit, here's a better one.

>scientific consensus
Science is not a vote.

>oil executives putting together the Republican agenda actually are
Correct, just like the green executives and Democrat agenda. Different puppets, same puppetmaster.

>>15023723
>Sadly ecosystems and agriculture doesn't like it
Life adapts to the environment, and those that fail to adapt die. This is not new.

>Ask how the Fish in the baltic sea are doing for instance.
The trilobites died too. New life replaced them. This is not new.

>Of course the Amazon gets cut down

The Amazon getting cut down is bad. Dumping cyanide into the ocean is bad. We should stop both those things. (Notice how this has nothing to do with carbon credits, which are a money laundering scheme in order to allow the Amazon to get cut down more and more cyanide to be dumped into rivers while the elites pretend to do something and centralize totalitarian power.)

>why so many ecosystems are doing to poorly if they all love the CO2 so much?

Uh ... because of the infinite examples of actual pollution and garbage humans are dumping into the ecosystems, rather than a harmless gas that plants eat? I again remind you how carbon credits don't address actual pollution at all, they in fact encourage it with a "selling indulgences" system that benefits the davos elite only.

>>15024159
>-wildfires
Problem: Your poorly-tested new profit-seeking drug is giving people myocarditis.
Solution: Blame the current bugaboo, a recent strain of cold virus, instead of taking responsibility.

Problem: You banning all traditional forest management practices results in wirefires.
Solution: Blame the current bugaboo, a nontoxic odorless gas that plants eat, instead of taking responsibility.

>>15024377
>ABCD
An excellent website, thank you. It does not, however, have any equations supporting your blame of CO2. It also completely ignores the question of what else affects CO2 in the atmosphere, e.g. plants eating it.

[Anonymous No.15025607]

>>15024377
>The Sun, which is accounted for
Only irradiance is accounted for, which is the minority of input. Inductive heating is completely neglected in climate models, which is why astronomers were shocked to discover it contributed almost exclusively to a huge warming trend on Jupiter.

[Anonymous No.15025692]

>>15025603
>Your graph is shit, here's a better one.
Which shows that we're heading into a period of unprecedented (in human civilization) warming. Just because it was even warmer 50 million years ago means there's no problem?
> Science is not a vote.
No, but consensus demonstrates how much evidence there is. Currently there's no evidence against global warming, there are only disputes in what measures to take, but that's not what we're talking about.
> Correct, just like the green executives and Democrat agenda. Different puppets, same puppetmaster.
Not really, the non-primitive part of the world also has plans for green energy production. Regardless, doesn't change what's true.
> Life adapts to the environment, and those that fail to adapt die. This is not new.
Good thing we're heading into a mass extinction, or maybe that's a bad thing? Who knows! Also human society is going to take pretty serious damage, that's bad.

> carbon credits
CO2 is going to seriously raise the global temperature which is going to cause problems. Are you denying that any problems will arise due to CO2 increase? Inhospitable areas and sea levels rise are just a non-matter? Even if that was true why are people denying that CO2 release increases temperature?

[Anonymous No.15025722]

>>15020012
>So CO2 is heavier than air so I assume it will be primarily found in the troposphere, like 80 percent of gasses, which also makes calculations easier.
Except CO2 in the troposphere is not the problem, it is the CO2 in the stratosphere that is causing the issue as it's half-life there is 10.000 years. Literally the very first sentence you are already showing your retardedness. Either never try to do this again or spend the next 5 years of your life to get it right. No inbetweenies.

[lets exchange contact info No.15025724]

>>15025692
>Which shows that we're heading into a period of unprecedented (in human civilization) warming.
Correct. It also shows that warming and cooling happened all the fucking time without human involvement.

>No, but consensus demonstrates how much evidence there is.
Incorrect. Science is not a vote.

>but that's not what we're talking about.
Actually, it is.

>the non-primitive part of the world also has plans for green energy production
International corporations and NGOs have the same agenda regardless of which tax haven their (carbon-producing) private jet has them laying over in tonight.

>Good thing we're heading into a mass extinction

Life is always going extinct, and the space left over is what enables new life to grow. Mammals exist only because the dinosaurs died.

>Also human society is going to take pretty serious damage, that's bad.
Human society takes serious damage from dumping lithium into rivers. That's why it's such a damn shame that instead of curtailing the dumping of lithium into rivers and other toxic pollution and garbage, the davos elite and their midwit enforcers are busy concoting feel-good do-nothing money-laundering indulgence-selling "carbon credit" schemes. From their (carbon-producing) private jets.

>Are you denying that any problems will arise due to CO2 increase?

Yes.

>Inhospitable areas and sea levels rise just a non-matter?

Non sequitur, but if such a thing were to happen it may open up a lot of arable land in siberia.

>Even if that was true why are people denying that CO2 release increases temperature?
Are you autistic? They are denying it because it's the boy who cried wolf. The credibility of the skinwalkers who murdered science and wear its face as a mask is at an all time low these days. If you want someone to listen to you you have to demonstrate that you have the spine to say what's true instead of lying about it for profit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBdmppcfixM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGn-6kGoD0c

[Anonymous No.15025737]

>>15025724
>Correct. It also shows that warming and cooling happened all the fucking time without human involvement.
Yup, and no one has ever claimed that the climate can't get warmer without human involvement. However this warming is unanimously agreed to be caused by human CO2 releases.
> Incorrect. Science is not a vote.
Not a response to what I said.
> Actually, it is.
Nope, we're talking about whether human released CO2 increases temperature or not, what to do about it is a different topic. Since you haven't disputed the claim, I'm glad you agree with me.
> International corporations and NGOs have the same agenda regardless of which tax haven their (carbon-producing) private jet has them laying over in tonight.
Clearly the Rublicans have a different agenda, driven by their jewish oil baron masters.
> Life is always going extinct, and the space left over is what enables new life to grow. Mammals exist only because the dinosaurs died.
Mammals existed before the Dinosaurs went extinct. Also life isn't going through mass extinctions all the time, that's why it's called a mass extinction, because it's unusual.
> Human society takes serious damage from dumping lithium into rivers. That's why it's such a damn shame that instead of curtailing the dumping of lithium into rivers and other toxic pollution and garbage, the davos elite and their midwit enforcers are busy concoting feel-good do-nothing money-laundering indulgence-selling "carbon credit" schemes. From their (carbon-producing) private jets.
It's possible to focus on different issues at the same time. Republicans and their Jewish masters are against any environmnetal regulation anyway, so I'm glad you're against them.
> Yes.
So increased forest fires, increased amount of hurricanes, sea level rise, droughts, floods and mass migration aren't problems, becausethose are well established.

[Anonymous No.15025742]

>>15025724
>>15025737
> Non sequitur, but if such a thing were to happen it may open up a lot of arable land in siberia.
Are you going to move hundreds of millions of people into Siberia? Do you think Russia is gonna accepts that? And just build mega cities from nothing? Surely it's easier to just reduce CO2 emissions?

> Jewtube videos
GOOD GOY!

Regardless, you previously accepted that CO2 did increase temperatures, now you're saying they don't. I suggest you make up your mind of what you actually believe. Don't worry, I'll provide plenty of McBananas to your zoo cage.

[Anonymous No.15025743]

>>15025737
>However this warming is unanimously agreed to be caused by human CO2 releases.
If by "unanimously" you mean it's agreed upon by globohomo, NGOs and basically nobody else, sure.

[Anonymous No.15025755]

>>15019903
>I’m of the opinion that the climate is indeed changing and that there is a correlation with CO2 presence in the atmosphere, but thermodynamically I really don’t understand
So why exactly do you hold that opinion if you do not understand what you believe?
Either way, it's the jews not being used to the heat of Israel, but they also hold on to their irrational opions, and because bible is true and they understand it correctly, now they want to cool down the planet and to hell with the rest of the world.

[Anonymous No.15025756]

>>15025743
Europe, China, India, Latin America, Australia, Canada, that is most of the world who don't live in primitive mud huts. Go back to sucking babycock Shlomo and go consult your local Shaman, your coal plants are coming to an end.

[Anonymous No.15025768]

>>15025724
>comparing temperature rise ove millions of years to temperature rise over 100 years, 10x faster then in the onset of the interglacials going back 800k years
Retard

[Anonymous No.15025770]

>>15025756
Why do you have an obsession with Jews? The only people who oppose the global warming scam are non-Jewish. Every Jew is promoting it.

[Anonymous No.15025783]

>>15025607
This has been measured here and irradiance and CO2 forcing is magnitudes higher than that

[Anonymous No.15025784]

>>15025770
The only people opposing the truth about climate change are Republicans, the only people on earth to support Israel are Republicans. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM THINKAN EMOJI

[Anonymous No.15025786]

>>15025783
It hasn't been measured here actually. The study of inductive heating is in its infancy.

[Anonymous No.15025788]

>>15025784
>the only people on earth to support Israel are Republicans.
You should probably take your meds.
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pelosi-remarks-aipac-policy-conference

[Anonymous No.15025794]

>>15025788
And Pelosi is opposed to the Green New Deal HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

[Anonymous No.15025798]

>>15025786
We already had this conversation. Jupiter has a completely different atmospheric composition. Here there’s no correlation between CMEs and warming, you can look it up in the instrumental record. Those interact with the upper atmosphere and produce negligible heating as compared to irradiance

[Anonymous No.15025806]

>>15025798
>Here there’s no correlation between CMEs and warming
Except the correlation which is proved to exist historically, which you deny because you're a schizophrenic.

[Anonymous No.15025818]

>>15025806
> Solar radiance goes down the past centuries
> Temperature keep climbing
Nice correlation bucko

[Anonymous No.15025823]

>>15025818
As was explained to you, irradiance is not 100% of total solar energy input. When irradiance goes down during CMEs for example, energy input skyrockets. That's why the scamsters need to ignore other sources of heating to blame it all on CO2 and light.

You're too psychotic with your Jew obsession to even notice you're being conned.

[Anonymous No.15025836]

>>15025823
>When irradiance goes down during CMEs for example, energy input skyrockets.
That's just false, who conned you with this?

[Anonymous No.15025841]

>>15025806
hey guys! the news is talking about "next thing"! OWMYGOD its not like the "news" is just propaganda in western countries or anything! hurr durr

[Anonymous No.15025890]

>>15020039
>greenhouse effect?
Without this, the Earth would be too cold for life.
CO2 is the second most important gas for life to exist, behind O2. Good stuff to have plenty of around.

[Anonymous No.15025894]

>>15023910
>>ecosystems and agriculture love it.
>FIFY
>CO2 is what plants crave. More plants = more food for people and agricultural livestock.
>More CO2 = better planet. Would be hard to ever get too much CO2, since there is not enough Carbon on Earth to make too much, even if ALL of the carbon were converted to it, which cannot happen.
>The CO2 cultists are like those religious cults who think the entire planet was covered in water in "The Great Flood". There isn't enough water on the planet to come close to even raising sea levels more than 40 feet/12 meters.
>On the same note, there isn't enough C on the planet to make too much CO2 to cause an overly hot planet.
>It's all a scam.
thread/
also, without CO2, the planet would look like picrel, since CO2 helps keep the planet warm and wet and viable for life like a greenhouse.

[Anonymous No.15026005]

>>15025836
NASA solar observatory satellites.

[Anonymous No.15026953]

>>15019903
Well I made it this far and it now obvious that none of you alleged brainiacs have any idea why CO2 heats up the atmosphere. Proving once again that the majority are servile fools to propaganda,

Op is not asking for much - a simple correlation that explains why so little CO2 can do so much harm, particularly in the presence of other gases,

[Anonymous No.15027109]

>>15020057
if there is a reflection then why always down?

Is there some special albedo effect that only lets CO2 mirror downward? If you claim so, then the intuitively concentrations of CO2 are far too low to have an effect; I would need to see that calcualtion. If you claim that upward reflected IR from CO2 is absorbed by {clouds} then you can take CO2 out of the picture and still get the same effect.

It doesnt make sense anons.Are the equations so secret that none here knows them?

[Anonymous No.15027120]

>>15025823
You were shown detailed station records for the exact dates of CME's and there were no heat anomalies nor a cumulative effect. Why do you keep lying?

[Anonymous No.15027129]

>>15025823
>blame it all on CO2
Because there's a directly measured increase of heat radiating from the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. This isn't a hard concept to understand.

[Anonymous No.15027146]

>>15026953
I don't know much about the physics of co2 and climate temperature but I dabble in technical analysis and trading and looking at the co2 over temperature chart it seems there's massive bearish divergence in the amount of co2 and the actual temperature of the climate.
Like shouldn't the climate be 10C warmer by now going by past data that shows the co2 and temp in lock step only until recently?
Bearish divergence in this chart might actually be indicating that any reduction in co2 production could trigger an ice age as excess co2 seems to be hiding the fact the earths getting cooler.

[Anonymous No.15027156]

>>15026953
The physical properties of CO2 have been known long before we had any idea about its effects on the climate
>>15027146
>hurr I know nothing about the subject so I'll make shit up

[Anonymous No.15027201]

>>15027156
>hurr I know nothing about the subject so I'll make shit up
The chart I posted is well known and cited, I didn't make it up.
I actually believe my interpretation of the data fits observation more thoroughly and that's if we both start with the assumption that co2 and temperature are linked, we both could be wrong in that assumption as the recent data doesn't seem to show a strong correlation as we should be much warmer than we are with are current level of co2.

[Anonymous No.15027269]

>>15027201
>The chart I posted is well known and cited
Yeah, no shit. Your interpretations are wrong though.
>as the recent data doesn't seem to show a strong correlation
look at:
>>15020165
This has been measured directly.
>as we should be much warmer than we are with are current level of co2
The radiative forcing from CO2 has been quantified as shown in the image above.
I love how people with no basic knowledge of climate science think they know better then decades of collective research on the subject.

[Anonymous No.15027282]

>>15027146
That graph does not include modern data fyi

[Anonymous No.15027286]

>>15027282
>>15027146
Modern temperature data*

[Anonymous No.15027287]

>>15027146
Your chart is incorrect, that's not global temperature, it's temperature determined from ice cores in one location in Greenland. It also fails to mention that the data ends around 1850 and then today's CO2 level is added. Here's a more accurate chart.

>Like shouldn't the climate be 10C warmer by now going by past data that shows the co2 and temp in lock step only until recently?
There's a lag since, unlike in the past, CO2 rapidly increased prior to the temperature change. And the relation between temperature and CO2 is logarithmic, not linear.

[Anonymous No.15027288]

>>15027109
>why always down
>only lets CO2 mirror downward
Atmospheric CO2 might not be dense, but you sure are. Nobody said CO2 only reflected downwards. Even the rally simple models like a single-slab model assume that infrared absorbed by a greenhouse gas is reemitted in several directions.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/singlelayermodel.html

[Anonymous No.15027291]

>>15026953
>Well I made it this far and it now obvious that none of you alleged brainiacs have any idea why CO2 heats up the atmosphere.
It absorbs and emits some of the heat leaving Earth's atmosphere back to Earth. It's that simple.

[Anonymous No.15027294]

>>15026005
Source?

[Anonymous No.15027299]

>>15025894
>without CO2
Who exactly is saying all CO2 should be removed? You know there was plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to the industrial revolution, right? Deranged straw man.

[Anonymous No.15027302]

>>15025890
>you need food to live, therefore it's impossible to overeat

[Anonymous No.15027315]

>>15025786
Energy flux on Earth is more studies Thad any other planet. The study of CO2's effect is fully mature. You accept that data, right? Or do you not actually care about studies?

[Anonymous No.15027482]

>>15027291
>Because there's a directly measured increase of heat radiating from the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. This isn't a hard concept to understand
you mean in the same way that a directly measured result shows since we share 99,9% of DNA, genetic differences are irrelevant?

There is no basis to your reply. And I am not trying to be difficult either. Show me how it is possible for a minute increase in CO2 to cause that big of an effect. It must rely on a few simple equations that will help me accept the causality.

>>15027288 answer is getting a little better - I am already quite familiar with radiation from a black body and the concept of how reflection from the atmosphere can warm the earth. Thats actually all his reference explains btw . So I suspect he is another idiot who didnt bother to read it before he posted.

I actually took the time to read the anons reference.

Even if you read (see the reference references) "Application to Earth’s Atmosphere" they use CO2 at 200 Torr in a 600 Torr vessel to show CO2 has an absorbance spectrum for bending vibration at 15 uM.

WTF - thats 33% CO2, nowhere near the discussion we are at ~400 ppm. And then they disingenuously show a graphic just below that profiles CO2 concentration with altitude. We all know high concentrations of CO2 produce greenhouse gas effects.

There is NOTHING that explains why so little CO2 has such a large effect.

Im not denying that temperatures are going up. Im not denying CO2 is going up. Im not denying that the jungles are being cut down (which will in itself increase CO2).

Just give us an equation that we can plug in the partial pressure of CO2 (even at constant altitude) that clearly shows how a small a concentration change can cause such a large effect.

Or if Brownian motion and atmospheric mixing is irrelevant and CO2 accumulates in the upper layers why dont the doomsayers show us?

Ill tell you why - they have fuckall ability to think independently.

[Anonymous No.15027501]

>>15027482
>you mean in the same way that a directly measured result shows since we share 99,9% of DNA, genetic differences are irrelevant?
What? It would be nice if you could respond to what I actually said, but I guess you can't.

>There is no basis to your reply.
There's a huge basis, a hundred years of scientific study. Here's one example:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585..

[Anonymous No.15027506]

>>15027482
>Show me how it is possible for a minute increase in CO2 to cause that big of an effect.
A doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is not "minute." What makes you think it's minute in the first place? You're the one arguing with no basis.

>It must rely on a few simple equations that will help me accept the causality.
Is this simple enough for you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Carbon_dioxide

[Anonymous No.15027510]

>>15027315
>The study of CO2's effect is fully mature.
Why would you lie?

[Anonymous No.15027524]

It's total scam to steal money, even martian atmosphere has 2500% more CO2 in cubic meter than earth. Boomers already extracted easily accesible oil anyway so eat these bugs if you love science so much.

[Anonymous No.15027550]

>>15027482
>Even if you read (see the reference references) "Application to Earth’s Atmosphere" they use CO2 at 200 Torr in a 600 Torr vessel to show CO2 has an absorbance spectrum for bending vibration at 15 uM.
There's also absorption spectra directly from the atmosphere, so I'm not sure what you're whining about. It's fine to show the absorption spectrum of CO2 by itself to show it's vibrational/rotational states.

>There is NOTHING that explains why so little CO2 has such a large effect.
You didn't read it then. It compares it to other gases. If you want the calculation for is forcing, read this: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/radiativeforcing.html

[Anonymous No.15027554]

>>15027501
>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585
You are a gullible fool. To quote your "proof" directly:

>We apply radiative kernels to satellite observations to disentangle these components and find all-sky instantaneous radiative forcing has increased 0.53 ± 0.11 W/m2

Incident solar radiation ~1400 watts /m2 (https://solar-energy.technology/what-is-solar-energy/solar-radiation/incoming-solar-radiation))

So now they go looking for a model to predict the w/m2 difference (observed) in radiative forcing ?

.53/1400 = .00037 - I mean for fucks sake. What atmospheric model is going to predict a change like that with any kind confidence ? A 1% error in cows flatulence input will cause that kind of swing.
You will note that the confidence level of their predictions, unlike the observed vales, is not given.


And you are obfuscating again - the question was show how small changes in CO2 concentration can cause such large temperature swings. Keep on topic please.

[Anonymous No.15027557]

>>15027482
Here you go, radiative forcing from the last AR report. I wonder what your excuse for ignoring this will be.

[Anonymous No.15027558]

>>15027510
We're at the point where we can directly observe it's effect. No causative assumptions from correlation needed. See >>15027501
Why do you think I'm lying?

[Anonymous No.15027560]

>>15027558
>See >>15027501
>Why do you think I'm lying?
See >>15027554 you lack the most basic understanding of measurement and data science.

[Anonymous No.15027568]

>>15027482
>WTF - thats 33% CO2, nowhere near the discussion we are at ~400 ppm.
Why are you seething over CO2 concentrations used in the experiment? 33% of CO2 for a path length of 10cm is roughly equivalent to 10cm/0.001 = 100 meters (given CO2 at 330ppm =0.001*33%).

100 meters of standard air. Well within the troposphere.

>There is NOTHING that explains why so little CO2 has such a large effect.
As I showed above, the tropospheric CO2 is more than capable of trapping certain wavelengths of Earth's infrared radiation. Total concentration isn't that important, what matters is the number of atoms/molecules on the path of outgoing infrared radiation.

[Anonymous No.15027580]

>>15027568
>Why are you seething over CO2 concentrations used in the experiment? 33% of CO2 for a path length of 10cm is roughly equivalent to 10cm/0.001 = 100 meters (given CO2 at 330ppm =0.001*33%).
In a glass apparatus with no other gases in it in sterile lab conditions.

[Anonymous No.15027588]

>>15027560
>you lack the most basic understanding of measurement and data science.
You are obfuscating. The question isnt about measurement - its asking for a reasonable explanation of why such a small difference in CO2 can cause such a large change in temperature. Im not debating measurements fool.
>>15027557
This is the result of a simulation idiot. I am looking for the equations they used for CO2 and WHY it has such a large effect for such a small change. I dont accept result blindly and always question answers that come from simulations that dont make intuitive sense, Thanks for trying - and you are.

>>15027568
Total concentration isn't that important, what matters is the number of atoms/molecules on the path of outgoing infrared radiation.

Please. Go away.

All of you turkeys send me quotes that lead nowhere. Try and read OP's original question.

[Anonymous No.15027590]

>>15027580
>with no other gases
Fair point: in real air, the infrared will be absorbed even more easily.
That's why you get figures like the one attached: you can see individual peaks for different greenhouse gases.

[Anonymous No.15027592]

>>15027590
>Fair point: in real air, the infrared will be absorbed even more easily.
Don't forget reflected back into space before it even hits the lower atmosphere. That's why upper-atmosphere CO2 has a cooling effect.

[Anonymous No.15027613]

>>15027588
Kek. The >>15027568 has directly addressed OP's "trace gas" line of reasoning. If you don't like the mathematics, you can always consume a "trace amount" of strychnine, say, 0.03% of your body weight.

[Anonymous No.15027617]

>>15027613
You posted faulty at best and fraudulent at worst research. He already debunked your claims in >>15027554

[Anonymous No.15027652]

>>15027617
That wasn't my post, numpty. Still, let's do a quick math: the '.53/1400' calculation shows that 15027554 is a moron. It's actually more like .53/340 = 0.15%. And when you realise that 0.15% * 273K = 0.4K, the ~1K temperature rise doesn't seem so absurd (disclaimer: that's not how you calculate these things, but you still get a roughly correct order of magnitude).
So yeah, 15027554 doesn't know what he's talking about

[Anonymous No.15027655]

>>15027652
>It's actually more like .53/340 = 0.15%.
Source: your desperation.

[Anonymous No.15027666]

>>15027655
Guess how I know your knowledge of thermodynamics hasn't gone beyond the high school.

Read up on planetary energy balance and try to figure out where this factor of 4 (1400/340) comes from. It's not that hard

[Anonymous No.15027669]

>>15027666
Read up on planetary energy balance and note the parts where they neglect every input and moderator that doesn't fit in their computer model.

[Anonymous No.15027676]

>>15027669
>changes the subject
>starts seething about computer models
Ouch. Basic thermodynamics isn't your strong suite.

[Anonymous No.15027678]

>>15027613
Nope. Sorry arbitrary concentrations of CO2 in a partial vacuum do not address OP's questions.

For us to accept the major demographic /technical changes being proposed based on the effects of anthropocentric CO2 emissions, dont you think that it would be prudent and helpful / useful to have a short precis here explaining why CO2 is so bad? Im not interested in seeing the result of someones simulation. I can fucking program, quite happy to deal with pde's.

It would be quite easy to explain something at a level that most people here on /sci could understand. Why doesnt this exist? Instead everyone runs around waving their copy of someone elses simulation wailing about the end of the world.

The majority of complainers here (and scientists in general) are actually clueless mules. They havent even bothered to question at a fundamental equation level the validity of these CO2 effects. They accept them blindly.

You know thats true when all they do is point to vague references in an attempt to explain something they are incapable of.

You call yourself a scientist? Youre sheep. You deserve what is coming.

[Anonymous No.15027684]

>>15027678
We are quite a long distance away from that paradigm. The frauds have another thirty years before they are dead, then you have to wait for libshit indoctrination specialists to also drop dead. It's like 90 years bro.

[Anonymous No.15027687]

>>15027684
The coming energy crisis in Europe due to government meddling might accelerate things. If oma is freezing to prop up some weird Jew, the continentals start having a bit too much to think.

[Anonymous No.15027708]

>>15027524
Mars is farther away from the Sun, has no water vapor (majority of Earth's greenhouse effect), and its atmosphere is so thin that it can't retain heat and there's no pressure broadening effect. Other than those big three things, there's no difference between the greenhouse effect from CO2 on Mars vs Earth.

[Anonymous No.15027723]

>>15027554
>Incident solar radiation ~1400 watts /m2
So you're comparing a *change* in radiative forcing from CO2 to the total radiative forcing from the Sun? Why?

>.53/1400 = .00037
What is this calculation?

>A 1% error in cows flatulence input will cause that kind of swing.
Proof?

>You will note that the confidence level of their predictions, unlike the observed vales, is not given.
What predictions?

>the question was show how small changes in CO2 concentration can cause such large temperature swings
I have you the math you asked for. And as I already told you, your question is loaded since you haven't explained why you think a doubling of CO2 is small and shouldn't have the effect it observably has. It's funny because you just called the radiative forcing small when the large temperature swing is the direct result of it. Are you ever going to explain what your standard is for determining that one is small and the other is large in relation to each other? I'm guessing not.

[Anonymous No.15027753]

>>15027678
>Nope. Sorry arbitrary concentrations of CO2 in a partial vacuum do not address OP's questions.
Why? Lab measurements show CO2's great at absorbing certain IR wavelengths, and this reflects troposphere's properties. And what was OP's claim? Let's see:
> trace gas that is present 0,03 percent in the atmosphere with very low infrared heat trapping capabilities.

[Anonymous No.15027759]

>>15027723
>Are you ever going to explain what your standard is for determining that one is small and the other is large in relation to each other?
Absolute values dont matter ?

A 00001 mol/litre solution of cyanide wont kill you but a .00002 also wont kill you. Dont be so dense.

[Anonymous No.15027765]

>>15027759
>Absolute values dont matter ?
To a Warmist, nothing matters unless it can be massaged into supporting their religion.

[Anonymous No.15027785]

>>15027554
>no the research and measurements are not real reeee

[Anonymous No.15027816]

>>15027652
240 w/m2 is the radiation that reaches the earth. 1400 w/m2 is the radiation entering the atmosphere. >>15027554
is correct.

[Anonymous No.15027830]

>>15027560
Total nonsense. See my response. And none of this responds to the paper. I guess you concede that out understanding of CO2 is very advanced.

[Anonymous No.15027834]

>>15027830
>I guess you concede that out understanding of CO2 is very advanced.
Hahaha why do redditors always say this when they're losing?

[Anonymous No.15027842]

>>15020086
oh fuck, WWII really heated shit up

[Anonymous No.15027861]

>>15027816
>15027554 is correct.
You do realise that the 'effective' surface area for incoming solar radiation is pi R^2, while the 'effective' surface area for terrestrial outgoing radiation is 4pi R^2, right?

1400W/m2 is just solar output per m2, reduced due to inverse-square law. When averaged out over the Earth's surface, one gets 340W/m2.

15027554 seethes about "small changes in CO2 concentration causing large temperature swings". 0.5/340 gives 0.15%. Average global temperature is ~14C or ~287K. A 1K change therefore represents a 0.35% global temperature.change.

Is it reasonable to expect a 0.15% change in radiative forcing to cause something around 0.35% change in global temperature?

[Anonymous No.15027896]

>>15025603
>It also completely ignores the question of what else affects CO2 in the atmosphere, e.g. plants eating it.
Sorry I had work this week and never thought to check back on this thread. This is a misguided although legitimate question. Again, as I explained to you earlier every single question you have has long ago been answered.

The isotopic ratio of C-13 to C-12 in the atmosphere is falling. This is important because of isotopic fractionation of CO2 in plants.
https://www.radiocarbon.com/isotopic-fractionation.htm

As you know plants absorb CO2 however they prefer the lighter C-12 to the heavier isotope of C-13. Because C-13 is falling in the atmosphere
https://gml.noaa.gov/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html
we can conclude that the modern CO2 rise in the atmosphere is from an increase in the burning of plants. This correlates with the fall of O2 in the atmosphere monitored by SCRIPPS
https://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/
and the rise of CO2 monitored at Mauna loa
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
The only solution is that fits all the data is the burning of plants which consumes atmospheric O2 and produces H2O and CO2 we must conclude that the fall of O2 and the rise of CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels.

Your arguments are absolutely 100% positively fucked. We know the effect of CO2 on the absorption of blackbody radiation from the Earth. We know the source of atmospheric CO2. It's the burning of fossil fuels and nothing else. We know that this must lead to a rise in atmospheric temperature. QED

[Anonymous No.15027960]

>>15027588
>This is the result of a simulation idiot.
Please show what simulation was used to caucuses the ERF of the greenhouse gasses. You're not just making shit up, right?

>I am looking for the equations they used for CO2
They were given to you already. Why are you ignoring exactly what you asked for? Because you don't actually want the truth.

>WHY it has such a large effect for such a small change
Why do you think it's a small change in the first place? If the effect is exactly commensurate with the cause in the formula, will that change your assessment?

>I dont accept result blindly and always question answers that come from simulations
What simulations?

[Anonymous No.15028001]

>>15027678
>Sorry arbitrary concentrations of CO2 in a partial vacuum do not address OP's questions.
It partially does, and there's plenty of other data you completely ignored. It's clear you aren't arguing in good faith.

>Why doesnt this exist?
It was given to you, you ignored it. You were also given direct observational evidence. You ignored that too. When you're given simple explanations, you demand formulas. When you're given formulas you demand simple explanations. Who do you think you're fooling?

[Anonymous No.15028011]

>>15027759
>Absolute values dont matter ?
Absolute values of what? What are you comparing to what? You just compared a change to an absolute value. So don't try to act like you care about absolute values. Why don't you compare the change in forcing from CO2 to the change in forcing from the Sun over the same period? Wouldn't that be fair?

>A 00001 mol/litre solution of cyanide wont kill you but a .00002 also wont kill you.
And a doubling of CO2 will cause significant warming. You're not even making an argument, just arbitrarily picking analogies. LOL

[Anonymous No.15028021]

>>15027816
You just told us 1400 w/m2 is an irrelevant number to compare to instantaneous radiative forcing of CO2 and then you said the guy that made that comparison is correct. lmao. Either you have no clue what's going on or you're that guy and you have no clue what's going on.

[Anonymous No.15028025]

>>15027834
How have I lost when you can't even respond to the argument? Delusional.

[Anonymous No.15028113]

>>15027896
>we must conclude that the fall of O2 and the rise of CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels.
No shit Sherlock, we burn 100 0000 000 barrels of oil a day and cut down forests with gay abandon.
>We know the effect of CO2 on the absorption of blackbody radiation from the Earth. We know the source of atmospheric CO2. It's the burning of fossil fuels and nothing else. We know that this must lead to a rise in atmospheric temperature. QED
No shit (2) Sherlock. Now answer OP's question: why does a small change from 300 to 400 ppm in CO2 concentration have such a large effect on temperature? and dont tell me its not small change. Thats not an answer. Doubling fuckall still gives you fuckall.

[Jealous No.15028129]

>>15019903
>but thermodynamically I really don’t understand
It's a quantum mechanical effect that bestows the CO2 molecule with high energy vibrational modes. These modes change the specific heat of the gas admixture (the atmosphere) and that leads to climate change, allegedly. The thermodynamics of the admixture is obviously, vastly more complicated than simple QM and you are very smart to recognize that you don't understand it because you almost certainly don't. Neither do I.

[Anonymous No.15028162]

>>15028129
>thermodynamics of the admixture is obviously, vastly more complicated
So the reason nobody can explain it is because "its vastly more complicated?" Yet all the doom sayers and simulation slayers are meteorologists or BA degrees?
Horseshit.

The truth is that it is quite easy to explain (how a small change in CO2 causes such a large delta T) - in a way people could understand . At the very least people like us but ideally the general public too. Nobody has. And when you overlay the past history of abysmal predictions from these simulations you come to the inescapable conclusion that these people have the virtuosity of an ebola epidemic.

I would be acutely embarrassed to make repeated predictions that turn out to be so badly off.

Of course any reasonable person should question these results.

[Anonymous No.15028164]

>>15028162
If anyone else in any other industry were so wrong so much of the time they would be sacked. 40 years of failed doomsday predictions.

[Anonymous No.15028207]

>>15028113
>why does a small change from 300 to 400 ppm in CO2 concentration have such a large effect on temperature?
Loaded question. What makes you think it's a small change in the first place? It's huge amounts of CO2 absorbing and emitting heat from Earth and sending some of it back towards Earth. This is directly observed. Where's your evidence?

>and dont tell me its not small change. Thats not an answer.
Because you said so? It is the answer. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.15028210]

>>15025890
>Without this, the Earth would be too cold for life.
>CO2 is the second most important gas for life to exist, behind O2. Good stuff to have plenty of around.
Based science anon.

Climate Change Jew grifters need to be rounded up.

[Anonymous No.15028211]

>>15028164
Example?

[Anonymous No.15028221]

Is weird how OP was given exactly what he asked for several times yet contributes to act like no one answered his questions. Is he delusional or just a shill?

[Anonymous No.15028233]

>>15028210
Sure thing fatty

>>15027302

[Anonymous No.15028234]

>>15028207
>What makes you think it's a small change in the first place?
I'm honestly not sure it is a small change, But the only reason I've ever heard is that it is a large change is "the simulations say so".

And given the past performance of these simulations it is entirely reasonable to ask for the basis of the CO2 effect. That would at least give us skeptics a little confidence (or not) that the major societal changes being rushed through have a solid foundation.

None of the happy-clapping climate change advocates here actually know why such a (small) change causes such a bad effect. THEY ARE FUCKING CLUELESS and that doesnt stop them espousing support for rushed change.

[Anonymous No.15028235]

>>15028211
X will be flooded by Y predictions going back to the 80s. Date is always postponed by 10 years when it fails to happen. The global ice age predictions of the 60s and 70s.

[Anonymous No.15028244]

>>15023703
That's a great picrel.

[Anonymous No.15028253]

>>15028234
>But the only reason I've ever heard is that it is a large change is "the simulations say so".
It's not the only reason you've heard, you just keep ignoring the information people give you. Here's direct observation of the effect: >>15027501

Simulations aren't necessary to calculate the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases. Why do you feel the need to make shit up and misrepresent the science if you actually want to learn? What is your end goal here?

>None of the happy-clapping climate change advocates here actually know why such a (small) change causes such a bad effect.
It's been explained and demonstrated to you several times. Greenhouse gases absorb and emit heat leaving Earth's atmosphere, sending some of it back towards Earth. This is directly measured via spectroscopy. The numbers were given to you. The methodology was given to you. I'm not sure what your issue is. It's either a mental block or a hidden agenda.

[Anonymous No.15028259]

>>15028235
>X will be flooded by Y predictions going back to the 80s.
Example?

>The global ice age predictions of the 60s and 70s.
Example? No climatologist would predict a global ice age because they know we're anyway in one. Maybe you're the one who's stupid?

[Jealous No.15028264]

>>15028162
>Yet all the doom sayers and simulation slayers are meteorologists or BA degrees?
John Cook, the author of the billion-times cited paper showing the 99% consensus among climatologists, cited millions of times by NASA alone, has an undergraduate degree in science communications. When you say "all the doom-sayers," you're making an implicit reference to Cook's paper, wittingly or unwittingly. The consensus doesn't really exist, as you would know if you if read his paper. Cook's methods are farcical. Other than Cook's paper, the only thing you could mean by "all the doom-sayers" are the talking heads that the jews pay to have on TV, and that is even stupider than what Cook wrote. The truth is that you have misinformation if you think "all the doom-sayers" refers to any group with scholarly bona fides.

I tore Cook's paper a new asshole in my own paper: pic related.

[Anonymous No.15028281]

QRD on this thread? Going to assume the schizo is right again

[Anonymous No.15028295]

>>15028281
>schizo demands explanation of greenhouse effect
>is given it
>shifts goalposts
>is given additional evidence to fit in new goalposts
>shifts goalposts again
>is given direct evidence of what he denies
>ignores everything above and asks the original question again
Etc.

[Anonymous No.15028301]

>>15028259
>Example? No climatologist would predict a global ice age because they know we're anyway in one. Maybe you're the one who's stupid?
Michael Mann's postdoc advisor was the one responsible lmao. The global warming scam literally originates in his Malthusian delusions looking for a new scam to latch onto.

[Anonymous No.15028350]

>>15028301
>Michael Mann's postdoc advisor was the one responsible lmao.
Source? Why can't you provide a single example?

[Anonymous No.15028401]

>>15028113
Calculus you fucking retard. Measuring the area under a curve. See
>>15027156
We know exactly how much energy is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere. We can directly measure how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Calculus tells us exactly how much CO2 is responsible for current warming.

Hint, it's about 3 degrees C and rising. Maybe that's not a lot to you considering the Sun is responsible for 288 degrees of warming on its own
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/predictedplanetarytemperatures.html

But it's enough to melt ice
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/glacier-research
Raise sea levels
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/sea-level-rise-2020/
Kill corals
https://www.aims.gov.au/research-topics/environmental-issues/coral-bleaching
Force change in animal migration and behavior
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/arctic-animals-movement-patterns-are-shifting-in-different-ways-as-the-climate-changes/
Increase storm frequency and severity
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-storms
Increase desertification
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-is-climate-change-impacting-the-water-cycle.html
And forcing human mgrations
https://research.cornell.edu/news-features/migration-forced-climate-change

None of this shit is good and all of it is explicitly caused by the burning of fossil fuels and the subsequent increase in global temperatures. Your arguments are done brother. They're done.

[Anonymous No.15028417]

>>15028350
This is common knowledge. Are you a zoomer? Are you just lying on purpose? Are you illiterate and don't read?

Read the following newspaper articles, or search for your own from a newspaper of your choice (if you subscribe to the Post you can read theirs on their web archive).
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=j2gfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5dQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1789,2556510
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1oxLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EyQNAAAAIBAJ&pg=7074,2222741
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tfZNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HYsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=939,1267359

In the 1970s the same sort of NGOs demanding depopulation now in response to a slight rise in temperature were then demanding depopulation in response to a slight decline in temperature. You see the exact same appeals to low birthrates and lowered quality of life.

[Anonymous No.15028419]

>>15028401
lol you still believe in "calculus" that ignores or assumes values for such basic things as cloud cover albedo and induction from solar electromagnetism. You're a chump.

[Anonymous No.15028459]

>>15028417
>This is common knowledge
Then it should be easy to give an example. You sound desperate.

>https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=j2gfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5dQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1789,2556510
This cites a legal expert. Not a climate scientist.

>https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1oxLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EyQNAAAAIBAJ&pg=7074,2222741
This says a new "ice age" in 10,000 years. Completely possible.

>https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tfZNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HYsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=939,1267359
This says several thousand years too.

Do you have any examples of failed predictions?

[Anonymous No.15028460]

>>15028419
>lol you still believe in "calculus" that ignores or assumes values for such basic things as cloud cover albedo and induction from solar electromagnetism.
Neither are relevant to calculating forcing from greenhouse gases from their spectra. You lost.

[Anonymous No.15028465]

>>15028460
>Neither are relevant to calculating forcing from greenhouse gases from their spectra. You lost.
Moving the goalposts. You lost.

[Anonymous No.15028476]

>>15028465
Projection. The question was: why does a small change from 300 to 400 ppm in CO2 concentration have such a large effect on temperature?

You didn't like the answer, so you attempted to distract with other alleged forcings.

[Anonymous No.15028477]

>>15028459
>This cites a legal expert. Not a climate scientist.
You lie. It takes the idea of an immediate coming ice age for granted. The legal expert is only talking about what the NGOs are demanding in response.
>This says a new "ice age" in 10,000 years. Completely possible.
You lie. The climate scientist says that the temperature will decline until the year 2000, and even if it's warm in the early 2000s, it will decline again after.
>This says several thousand years too.
You lie. It talks about 30 years of global cooling, and a climate tipping point if a few degrees C of temperature change occurs (sound familiar?).

You're desperate to deny the facts, so desperate that you ignore that this exact rhetoric is being re-used today. Look up John Holdren, who was the science advisor to Obama. He went from an ice age conspiracy theorist to a warmist.
https://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873

In his book he uses the same "small change = big effects" claims that you used in this thread. Except he's using it for the opposite conclusion.

Face it, you're cooked. It's over for you.

[Anonymous No.15028503]

>>15028477
>You lie.
You're lying. The only person cited in the article is some legal expert. Are you denying this when is right there for anyone to read?

>It takes the idea of an immediate coming ice age for granted.
I'm sure random journalists take many things for granted. You were supposed to show a climate scientist predicting an "ice age." Should be easy, but for some reason you're having a lot of trouble finding one.

>You lie.
You're lying, he says an ice age won't occur for another 10,000 years.

>The climate scientist says that the temperature will decline until the year 2000
The temperature was declining slightly until we banned aerosols and really pumped up CO2 emissions. However he doesn't say an ice age would occur any time soon.

>You lie.
You're lying. It says right there "several thousand years." The rest is about air pollution (aerosols) vs. greenhouse gases. Very accurate.

[Anonymous No.15028505]

>>15027861
This was the best reply to date. Made me think a bit.
>You do realise that the 'effective' surface area for incoming solar radiation is pi R^2, while the 'effective' surface area for terrestrial outgoing radiation is 4pi R^2, right?
I think what you are trying to say is that because of the shape of the earth and its "dark side" 1400 w/m2 isnt the total average radiant flux entering the earths atmosphere. OK, I havent done the calculation but that seems reasonable.

>Is it reasonable to expect a 0.15% change in radiative forcing to cause something around 0.35% change in global temperature?
I have no idea. And thats not the point. Even if you take the average 340 w/m2 incident light from the sun, is it reasonable to expect a model like the ones used to give a resolution accuracy of .15% ? Obviously not. Thats what happens when you give these problems to meteorologists who are no more than simulator operators.

We know that from previous errors in the models. If the simulators want me to assign causality to anthropocentric CO2 then I need to see the equations (even in a simplified system) that show a change in CO2 concentration as we have seen can drive a 1C temp rise.

Nothing in my argument changes changes- all you did was derail the point by (correctly) pointing out a mistake in my quick calculation that had little bearing on the conclusion.

[Anonymous No.15028510]

>>15028503
You won't even address the points given to you when a climate scientist is cited in the very post you replied to. An important one, in fact. Very transparent.

[Anonymous No.15028511]

>>15028477
>John Holdren
Plasma physicist. Not climate science.

Basically you're telling me non-climate scientists say dumb shit about the climate. Wow, shocking.

>In his book he uses the same "small change = big effects" claims that you used in this thread.
You're lying. I made no such claim. The change in CO2 is massive, not small.

[Anonymous No.15028512]

>>15028510
>You won't even address the points given to you when a climate scientist is cited in the very post you replied to.
Where?

[Anonymous No.15028513]

>>15028511
>Basically you're telling me non-climate scientists say dumb shit about the climate. Wow, shocking.
He was the US Climate Czar, who made all the pronouncements and decisions about global warming propaganda for Obama.

[Anonymous No.15028515]

>>15028511
>Plasma physicist. Not climate science.
His entire career was based on climate modeling. Are you pretending we don't know these things?

[Anonymous No.15028516]

>>15028513
>He was the US Climate Czar
So you're telling me presidents can confer scientific expertise? Why even bother going to university or doing research?

[Anonymous No.15028518]

>>15028516
Do you know much of his research history, or are you just lying on purpose?

On the other hand, if you're admitting that global warming "science" is produced by non-scientists then be my guest. I'm happy to oblige you on that point.

[Anonymous No.15028521]

>>15028515
>His entire career was based on climate modeling
You mean he created climate models or he interpreted climate models without relevant expertise to create government policy? Please clarify. He was a plasma physicist. That's his only scientific credential.

[Anonymous No.15028523]

>>15028518
>Do you know much of his research history
Yes, I read his list of publications. He has no actual scientific research on the climate. Just policy papers and books.

>On the other hand, if you're admitting that global warming "science" is produced by non-scientists
You're the only one saying that. You're confused about what a climate scientist is. If you want good predictions about the climate, I would suggest asking a climate scientist. Not a journalist, legal expert, or policy wonk.

[Anonymous No.15028533]

>>15028505
>Even if you take the average 340 w/m2 incident light from the sun, is it reasonable to expect a model like the ones used to give a resolution accuracy of .15% ?
You just pulled this number out of your ass. Total nonsense. Do you know what the change in forcing from the Sun is? It's miniscule.

>If the simulators want me to assign causality to anthropocentric CO2
Again, no simulation is needed. You were given direct observation of the causality. Why do you keep lying?

>then I need to see the equations (even in a simplified system) that show a change in CO2 concentration as we have seen can drive a 1C temp rise.
They were given to you. You ignored them. Explain yourself.

[Anonymous No.15028538]

>>15028521
>He was a plasma physicist. That's his only scientific credential.
Absolutely clueless shill logic. Because he says something you don't like, he's not a true Scotsman anymore despite being a national Scottish hero and the figurehead of Scots.

For those people out there reading this exchange in good faith, John Holdren did postdoc research at CIT in Environmental Science at their Environmental Quality Laboratory, which changed the focus of his career. He taught at Berkeley in their Energy and Resources Group (a special collection of professors from different departments focused on climate science and ecology).

The majority of his work post-2000s is policy-focused, but it's policy which he wrote. He's the author or co-author of a huge majority of global warming-related initiatives and programs, including for the IPCC and NOAA, meaning that he had control of which narratives were pushed and which were censored in climate science.

Suggesting that he's "not a climate scientist" when he went to school for plasma physics is a red herring at best. His career is based in climate science, and if you don't believe that he's a climate scientist and want to use that as a means of discrediting him then it only discredits the field for making him one of its leading men.

[Anonymous No.15028547]

>>15028538
>Absolutely clueless shill logic. Because he says something you don't like, he's not a true Scotsman anymore despite being a national Scottish hero and the figurehead of Scots.
I'm not seeing a denial that he was a plasma physicist. Just a lot of whining.

>John Holdren did postdoc research at CIT in Environmental Science at their Environmental Quality Laboratory, which changed the focus of his career. He taught at Berkeley in their Energy and Resources Group (a special collection of professors from different departments focused on climate science and ecology).
Read what he published. It's all policy. Not science.

[Anonymous No.15028563]

>>15028547
>Read what he published. It's all policy. Not science.
He spent 30 years directing where the science was allowed to go. If you want to believe you were scammed by someone without the expertise to tell you what to do, then that's on you. Maybe climate scientists are just too stupid.

[Anonymous No.15028577]

>>15028563
You just found out politicians decide where science funding goes? You're very naive.

[Anonymous No.15028658]

>>15028577
>You just found out politicians decide where science funding goes? You're very naive.
So now he's a politician? I thought your cope was he was a plasma physicist. Still, I'm glad you finally admit that the results you hold in such high esteem are forced to support the warming fraud by people with no relevant degrees.

[Anonymous No.15028667]

>>15023992
>A sea level rise of 10 meters would be pretty catastrophic, many large cities would get completely flooded and inhospitable, yeah it's not gonna drown us but would easily be the biggest disaster in human history (aside from the Black Death).
Would it not take decades upon decades for this to happen? Like, it's not supposed to be an overnight flood that displaces everybody. I just have a hard time thinking that's worse than sudden disaster situations like earthquakes, deadly volcanos, and idk meteorites if there's ever been a big one hit while humans were on the Earth.

[Anonymous No.15028874]

>>15028658
>So now he's a politician?
He's appointed by a politician to a political job directing political policy. What part of this make him an expert in climate science? I'm sorry you were were mistaken about climate scientists and confused them with journalists and non-experts. But now you know better.

>Still, I'm glad you finally admit that the results you hold in such high esteem are forced to support the warming fraud by people with no relevant degrees.
Which scientist is forced to support anything? How can I "finally admit" funding is controlled by non-experts when I never denied that from the start? Are you ever going to show climate scientists committing fraud?

[Anonymous No.15029343]

>>15028401
>Calculus you fucking retard. Measuring the area under a curve. See
>>>15027156
You are a total dipshit. Yes we know that CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation at a frequency different to water vapor, The question is why does such a small change in CONCENTRATION of CO2 cause such a large effect?

25% of incoming solar radiation heats up water, and if you didnt know it, fucknut, water has a colossal latent heat of vaporization. Water is a potent greenhouse gas and there is a fuckton of it in the air.

I am fully aware that the theory of evil CO2 works on the fact that CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation, in some frequencies, at different wavelengths to water.

NOW, cunty, this is the problem: Given the inspiring failures all these simulations have had in the past, is it really too much to ask to see the equations that show essentially how fuckall CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, even when doubled can have such a profound effect..??

Think about it, at 400 ppm is there really enough CO2 absorbtion at 15 um to cause this profound effect? Especially given the quantity of water in the air?

I want to see how much absorbtion CO2 has, relative to water, what the equations are which predict the % increase in absorbtion of CO2 given a 200 - 400 ppm increase.

Cos why? for the thousand 'th time: These simulations suck, I can just see the meteorologist as a terminal monkey playing with a simulation he is clueless about, written by a programmer who knows even and a relying on the thermodynamic equations of a physical chemist who cant even spell Fourier.

Its a recipe for a cluster fuck, circle jerking bunch of retards. Similar to using a committee to design how to get Liquid hydrogen into a rocket booster.

I am not questioning those pretty graphs.

Clean your eyes out moron. You should be concerned if you only neuron wasnt dedicated to writing crap.

[Anonymous No.15029598]

>>15028874
>Are you ever going to show climate scientists committing fraud?
Climategate emails. Already proven.

[Anonymous No.15029785]

>>15029343
You have received this answer already. Failure to understand it is no longer my concern.

[Anonymous No.15029804]

>>15029598
>Climategate emails.
There's no fraud in them, retarded people just took quotes out of context and misrepresented them. You're very gullible.

[Anonymous No.15029815]

>>15029343
>The question is why does such a small change in CONCENTRATION of CO2 cause such a large effect?
As you already know, this is a loaded question. Why do you think the change in concentration is small? It's exactly commensurate with the increase in radiative forcing.

>25% of incoming solar radiation heats up water, and if you didnt know it, fucknut, water has a colossal latent heat of vaporization. Water is a potent greenhouse gas and there is a fuckton of it in the air.
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by temperature. It's not a radiative forcing, it's a feedback.

>Given the inspiring failures all these simulations have had in the past
What simulations? No simulations are needed to calculate the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases.

>is it really too much to ask to see the equations
They were given to you, you ignored them. Why are you lying?

>Think about it, at 400 ppm is there really enough CO2 absorbtion at 15 um to cause this profound effect?
It's not just 15 um.

[Anonymous No.15029826]

>>15029343
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#Carbon_dioxide
I don't understand you keep asking for something you've already got. The water vapor numbers are given in the same article I don't understand. Do you need to be spoon fed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation

[Anonymous No.15029882]

>>15020270
i love driving my F-150 in the stratosphere

[Anonymous No.15029921]

>>15029882
Nawz rolling coal in tha F350 is where it's at!

[Anonymous No.15029924]

>>15022971
>The US government is promoting the green scam. It's been mandated to affirm "the consensus" to receive grant funding since the 90s. You schizos really need to take your meds.
TRUTH.
Governments are nothing but scams now. Really need to get rid of all governments worldwide.

[Anonymous No.15029982]

>>15029882
The gas rises to the stratosphere which cools the earth by intercepting infrared radiation, rather than warming it by capturing it near the ground.

[Anonymous No.15030039]

>>15029982
No, it warms the Earth by sending radiation back towards it. It cools the stratosphere by sending radiation out. The Earth =/= the stratosphere and their temperatures are dominated by different effects.

[Anonymous No.15030048]

>>15030039
>The Earth =/= the stratosphere and their temperatures are dominated by different effects.
I see that convection is another thing which doesn't exist to Warmists, alongside induction.

[Anonymous No.15030170]

>>15019903
>Explain CO2 to me

[Anonymous No.15030232]

>>15028295
Which post debunks OP?

[Anonymous No.15030290]

>>15030039
>>15030039
>>15029826
Heres the thing though, i am really sick and tired of all the fear mongering , I am sick and tired of all failed predictions but more than anything else I am sick and tired of the complete lack of accountability shown moron modelers.

I can just see the IPCC committee on climate modelling pointing their fingers of blame at each other after the simulations next deadline for Armageddon passes.

I want to eviscerate this model and expose all their equations on display. Teach them some accountability. The pricks never apologize for being wrong. At best we would be in a better position to make our own judgments. Between the media and the experts we have been led down the garden path of catastrophic errors in the past.

Think about it: the land area of the deserts are the hottest in the world.Because radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature, the deserts radiate more heat from the earth than the seas at a temperature of 8 C. And there are no clouds above deserts. How is this effect modelled?

Is CO2 uniformaly distributed in the atmosphere? How is the probability calculated that a photon of light will be captured by a CO2 molecule? To what degree are the electromagnetic emissions averaged? What are sensitivities on CO2 concentration? Exactly how were the models "tuned" to try and approach measured values? Why is increased CO2 or temperature rise even a bad thing? What are the known shortcomings of the model? Ill lay odds there are some gross assumptions and major blunders awaiting trial.


Why else would these turkeys not supply us with at least a flowsheet c/w equations used ?

And no its not up to me to sort through thousands of lines of code to find out what is going on. They are the ones making the shitty predictions that none wants to question.

Nothing is worse than a committee of expert fools.

[Anonymous No.15030292]

>>15030290
>Why else would these turkeys not supply us with at least a flowsheet c/w equations used ?
Why don't you just read the literature
What happened to doing your own research

[Anonymous No.15030301]

>earth is measurably warming
>CO2 is measurably rising
>Experiments demonstrate greenhouse effect of CO2

I don't understand how there's still so much cognitive dissonance

[Anonymous No.15030309]

>>15030301
Because all predictions based on the models saying that have failed.

[Anonymous No.15030325]

>>15030290
>He believes he can teach a book learned retard to be "accountable" for the actions they're too smart to be accountable for.

Carbon taxes or a revolution. Take your pick.

[Anonymous No.15030331]

>>15030325
More naive is that he thinks they don't know they're wrong. The IPCC leadership is well aware, as is Michael Mann who told a court he would not under any circumstances give his models to the public to be reviewed.

[Anonymous No.15030336]

>>15030301
>I don't understand
You should stop right there. Think about it.

[Anonymous No.15030344]

>>15030325
Exactly. Scientists are a bunch of gutless wonders. They will abrogate interpretations to politicians because they will never agree amongst themselves. Sad. Countless such cases.

[Anonymous No.15030435]

Watching scientists go at each other's throats is surprisingly entertaining

[Anonymous No.15030445]

>>15030435
no one here is a "scientist"

[Anonymous No.15030447]

>>15030445
What does a scientist look like?

[Anonymous No.15030461]

>>15030048
Neither can explain increased energy in Earth's atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.15030472]

>>15030232
>>15019938
>>15020033
>>15020040
>>15020163
>>15020165
>>15020174
>>15024177
>>15024377
>>15025722
>>15027156
>>15027269
>>15027287
>>15027288
>>15027501
>>15027506
>>15027550
>>15027557
>>15027568
>>15027590
>>15027652
>>15027708
>>15027723
>>15027753
>>15027861
>>15027896
>>15027960
>>15028001
>>15028011
>>15028021
>>15028207
>>15028253

[Anonymous No.15030475]

>>15030290
>Heres the thing though, i am really sick and tired of all the fear mongering
Doesn't matter what you call it, scientific facts are scientific facts. Get over it.

>I am sick and tired of all failed predictions
Then start listening to climate scientists.

>but more than anything else I am sick and tired of the complete lack of accountability shown moron modelers.
What model? As you've been shown again and again, radiative forcing from greenhouse gases is directly observed, not modeled. You can't handle reality so you pretend it doesn't exist. The only moron here is you.

[Anonymous No.15030481]

>>15030309
Why are you lying?

[Anonymous No.15030496]

>>15030331
>Michael Mann who told a court he would not under any circumstances give his models to the public to be reviewed.
Source? His model, data and code have been publicly available for decades: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/

[Anonymous No.15030506]

>>15030496
How the fuck does that help? Are you going to sort through this to try and explain why it’s wrong? You know unless the authors are prepared to explain the flow sheet it’s mission impossible for people with commitments like us.

I’ll wager that so many people have been a part of this that no one knows what the fuck goes on in this program anymore.

It’s simply a weak excuse to pretend to be open but remain totalled shuttered. Without guidance this is useless. Did you look at the comments?

[Anonymous No.15030533]

>>15030506
>How the fuck does that help?
Help what? You just claimed he refused to give his models to the court. You haven't shown this and it's obviously false since they are publicly available. Oh and by the way, his results have been replicated dozens of times: https://gist.github.com/priscian/81099e9332c86800d538542fb7027eaf

>Are you going to sort through this to try and explain why it’s wrong?
No need, see above.

>You know unless the authors are prepared to explain the flow sheet it’s mission impossible for people with commitments like us.
Please explain, your think a court was going to go through his code? No, it's his adversary that needs to go through his code and he is not obligated to explain it to them. They have their own expert for that. So why did you lie?

>It’s simply a weak excuse
No, claiming that Mann refused to give his model and then shifting the goalposts when you got caught lying is a weak excuse.

[Anonymous No.15030549]

>>15030481
Looks like their predictive power is pretty crap from that graph.

[Anonymous No.15030551]

>>15030533
>No, claiming that Mann refused to give his model and then shifting the goalposts when you got caught lying is a weak excuse.
He lost a lawsuit against one of his critics because he failed to publicize how the hockey stick was created. That is a published fact.

[Anonymous No.15030778]

>>15030549
Looks like your lied.

[Anonymous No.15030782]

>>15030551
Again, you're lying. The code and data is publicly available. Show your source.

[Anonymous No.15030968]

>>15023335
I'm interested in this as well

[Anonymous No.15031013]

>>15030533
Another anon here - never made the claim that the source code wasn’t published . I did say it was a waste of time though. Source code release like this is only to placate fools like you. Shows “their” honesty and transparency.

Bullshit. What we need is the manuals that new members to the circle jerk of modelling committees use as an introduction to the simulation.

These contain the flow sheets, equations, time step iterations, source the input data and warnings.

Then we can go to the source code.

[Anonymous No.15031086]

>>15031013
>Another anon here - never made the claim that the source code wasn’t published
So what are you claiming?

>I did say it was a waste of time though.
It's not, it allows others to examine his work in detail.

>What we need is the manuals that new members to the circle jerk of modelling committees use as an introduction to the simulation.
What manual?

[Anonymous No.15031296]

>>15031086
>So what are you claiming?
You answered your question in your next point dickhead.

>What manual?
Exactly

[Anonymous No.15031352]

>>15031296
>You answered your question in your next point dickhead.
So your point is refuted. OK.

>Exactly
So you're just going to ignore what he actually did and the replications of his results, and demand something that doesn't exist. OK.

[Anonymous No.15031491]

>>15030472
Thanks!

[Anonymous No.15031494]

>>15031352
>So you're just going to ignore what he actually did and the replications of his results, and demand something that doesn't exist. OK.
Who replicated his results? Independent, skeptical observers or sycophants?

[Anonymous No.15031514]

>>15031494
>Who replicated his results?
See >>15030533

>Independent, skeptical observers or sycophants?
I'm not aware of their personal beliefs because their personal beliefs are irrelevant to science. I guess you have no argument left so you are just going to speculate on their motivation.

[Anonymous No.15031517]

>>15031514
>I'm not aware of their personal beliefs because their personal beliefs are irrelevant to science.
Self-interest and funding sources are highly relevant to how fraud is conducted. That's why ethics disclosures are mandatory under most journal submission policies.

But you don't write papers and aren't a scientist, so I understand why you don't know that.

[Anonymous No.15031535]

>>15031517
>Self-interest and funding sources are highly relevant to how fraud is conducted.
If fraud actually exists, which you haven't shown.

>That's why ethics disclosures are mandatory under most journal submission policies.
Ethics disclosures don't include personal beliefs. Nice LARP.

>But you don't write papers and aren't a scientist, so I understand why you don't know that.
Projection. I have written papers and worked as a scientist.

[Anonymous No.15031550]

>>15031535
>If fraud actually exists, which you haven't shown.
Climategate emails. We already know collusion was proven.

[Anonymous No.15031689]

>>15031550
>Climategate emails.
See >>15029804

[Anonymous No.15031747]

>>15031494
There's been at least three major research groups who have replicated Mann's work. You can even download the entirety of the data and the python code used for the most recent one. https://atmos.uw.edu/~wperkins/LMR/docs/full_recon.html

[Anonymous No.15032258]

>>15019903
>>15019903
>So I’m of the opinion that the climate is indeed changing and that there is a correlation with CO2 presence in the atmosphere,
Correlation does not equal causation.

[Anonymous No.15032563]

>>15032258
The greenhouse effect is causation and directly observed.

[Anonymous No.15032611]

>>15019938
>global warming literally invented by a wahmen
lmao

[Anonymous No.15032740]

>>15028295
Cut your penis and your balls, globohomo says testosterone is a toxin.

[Anonymous No.15032762]

>>15030481
That is nothing but trash. Measurements are manipulated to meet the projections. All of you morons deserve to be mutilated, flayed and burned alive.

[Anonymous No.15033042]

>>15019903

[Anonymous No.15033123]

>>15032762
>Measurements are manipulated to meet the projections.
Proof?

[Anonymous No.15033259]

>>15020062
Yeah dude your lungs ability to reject toxic gasses is completely related to the earths atmosphere. You know co poisoning requires you to inhale a lot higher quantities of gas in air for it to dissolve on blood right? probably not

how come a soda factory isnt really hot inside? how come auto shops arent ultra hot inside? how come any multitude of environment with higher co2 content isnt experiencing a magnified greenhouse effect unlike, ya know, actual green houses which are more humid than anything? hmmm

we could double co2 in the atmosphere and its greenhouse effect would still be less than what we see from soot and dust. slightly more co2 molecules aren't enough to outpace entropy

[Anonymous No.15033853]

>>15033259
>Yeah dude pixels on a grid are competent related to the Earth's atmosphere
Why do deniers have no self awareness?

>how come a soda factory isnt really hot inside? how come a soda factory isnt really hot inside? how come auto shops arent ultra hot inside?
Why would they be? What heat is the soda factory expelling via radiation that CO2 prevents from leaving? None. They use convection and conduction instead. Only radiation can take heat out of the atmosphere into space. Learn basic thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.15033862]

>>15033259
>we could double co2 in the atmosphere and its greenhouse effect would still be less than what we see from soot and dust.
Proof? Soot and dust are not greenhouse gases. They decrease albedo on Earth's surface but they also increase cloud formation which has a cooling effect.

[Anonymous No.15034096]

>>15033862
>increase cloud formation which has a cooling effect.
CO2 does this also. Earth needs more CO2 released from the ocean floor.

Underwater nukes could do this.

[Anonymous No.15034116]

>>15034096
>CO2 does this also.
Proof? I've never heard of this effect.

[Anonymous No.15034125]

global warming is obviously real and we are literally killing the planet and ourselves. We have pumped billions of tons of co2 in the past few years. That is so much co2 that our planet's temperature has increased by 1C. It's literally over we will never recover from this insane global warming. Check m8 climate denying faggots.

[Anonymous No.15034126]

>>15034116
You've never heard of it? It's commonly known in climate science that CO2 is positively correlated with cloud cover. Some warmists claim that more cloud cover causes the feedback loop.

[Anonymous No.15034131]

>>15034126
>Some warmists claim that more cloud cover causes the feedback loop.
It does the opposite. That's why tropical areas that are almost constantly covered in clouds, such as tropical rainforests, have moderate temperatures around 80F and rarely get warmer than that.

C02 is good for life. That's why the rich 1% wants to reduce it. Part of their "depopulation" agenda to reduce world population levels.

[Anonymous No.15034307]

>>15034126
>It's commonly known in climate science that CO2 is positively correlated with cloud cover
Then it should be easy for you to show this. Why do you keep avoiding doing so?.

[Anonymous No.15034380]

>>15034131
>C02 is good for life. That's why the rich 1% wants to reduce it. Part of their "depopulation" agenda to reduce world population levels.
BINGO so much of this.

[Anonymous No.15034402]

>>15034307
You can literally just google it lol. You don't need to cite common knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15034538]

>>15034402
I did, found nothing. Why did you lie?

[Anonymous No.15034543]

>>15034538
>I did, found nothing. Why did you lie?
Why do warmists like you lie about obvious stuff like this? Seriously anyone can google it and find out you're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.15034550]

>>15034543
Then post the source. You won't, because you're lying. It's that simple.

[Anonymous No.15034555]

>>15034543
Here's a study that says the opposite: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050918318921#:~:text=The%20relationship%20between%20the%20cloud,negatively%20proportional%20with%20significant%20correlations.

Why did you lie?

[Anonymous No.15034573]

>>15034555
The opposite of what, exactly? Tell me in your own words.

[Anonymous No.15034577]

>>15034555
>The research could be extended further also by testing whether carbon dioxide emission affects cloud coverage. Although the research put forth Pearson’s correlation test to test whether carbon dioxide emission, and temperature, cloud coverage and temperature, carbon dioxide emission and cloud coverage had correlations, it did not determine whether one caused the other.
Why did you lie?

[Anonymous No.15034917]

>>15034573
>The opposite of what, exactly?
You claimed CO2 is positively correlated with cloud cover. It's negatively correlated with cloud cover. You repeatedly refused to provide a source for this claim, because you knew there is none while claiming it could be Googled. Why did you lie?

>>15034577
How does this contradict anything I said? Deniers are truly braindead. They get caught making shit up and then instead of doing the smart thing and leaving, they double down on their lies and make complete fools of themselves.

[Anonymous No.15035056]

>>15023335
It's not quite a mirror, but it is transparent to incoming sunlight and opaque to outgoing infrared heat radiation, and if it's opaque it absorbs the energy and radiates it in all directions, including back

[Anonymous No.15035061]

>>15028233
>doesn't ever actually refute his point

[Anonymous No.15035065]

>>15024064
>Implying he's not talking about your WEF masters still choosing to live on beachfront houses despite the oh-so-apparant threat of global warming- excuse me, climate change

[Anonymous No.15035421]

>>15035061
Why would I refute his points when they are irrelevant straw men? No one is demanding all CO2 be removed from the atmosphere. It's like saying you need food to survive when the doctor tells you you need to go on a diet. Dumb fatty.

[Anonymous No.15035425]

>>15035065
>Implying he's not talking about your WEF masters still choosing to live on beachfront houses
Source?

[Jealous No.15035427]

>>15035061
>doesn't ever actually refute his point

[Anonymous No.15035533]

You know you're a retard when literal schizos are cheering you on.

[Anonymous No.15035798]

>>15035421
you gots btfo'd dawg.

[Anonymous No.15036114]

>>15035798
By irrelevant straw men? No. You got BTFO, dumb fatty.

[Anonymous No.15036199]

>>15036114
>A.I. ESL bot struggling with human emotions and learning comebacks.

[Anonymous No.15036219]

>>15036199
BTFO retard has no comeback. Thanks for admitting CO2 being necessary for life is an irrelevant strawman.

[Anonymous No.15037742]

>>15019903
there's no climate change, statistics are fraud

[Anonymous No.15037927]

>>15037742
Proof?

[Anonymous No.15038176]

>>15037742
>there's no climate change,
Correct. Anyone who ventures outside of their pod and pays attention to weather and climate knows this.

[Anonymous No.15038189]

>>15038176
People have been venturing outside their pod and measuring temperature for hundreds of years. Climate change is real. Cry more.

[Anonymous No.15038194]

>>15038189
That includes the "adjustments" that hide the decline.

[Anonymous No.15038210]

>>15038194
Wrong. Hide the decline refers to tree ring data, the graph I posted is instrumental data.

https://skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-advanced.htm

[Anonymous No.15038256]

>>15034131
>>Some warmists claim that more cloud cover causes the feedback loop.
>It does the opposite. That's why tropical areas that are almost constantly covered in clouds, such as tropical rainforests, have moderate temperatures around 80F and rarely get warmer than that.
>C02 is good for life. That's why the rich 1% wants to reduce it. Part of their "depopulation" agenda to reduce world population levels.
This makes so much sense, especially the last part about the 1% elite.

[Anonymous No.15038257]

>>15038210
>posting some gay blog
Uh yeah ok schizo. Go into the padded cell now.

[Anonymous No.15038337]

>>15038257
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.

[Anonymous No.15038347]

>>15038337
>Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.
Bot comment.

[Anonymous No.15038392]

>>15038347
See >>15038337