[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

File: 76 KB, 1200x575, 1691143844286036.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15790655 No.15790655 [Reply] [Original]

How does dry ice form on the surface of Mars with that massive amount of CO2 in it's atmosphere?
Mars has more than 20x as much CO2 as Earth, so it should be warm and comfortable and hospitable because of the massive greenhouse effect from all that CO2.
The coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth wasn't even close to being cold enough for dry ice to form, but Mars has massive dry ice polar caps and its not even that much further away from the sun than Earth is. Meanwhile Earth has only a tiny amount of CO2, if anything Mars should be warmer than Earth because it should have a huge greenhouse effect, but it clearly doesn't.
Why not? Its almost like CO2 is even really a greenhouse gas. If CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas then that would explain why Mars has dry ice polar caps, otherwise there is no way Mars should be getting cold enough to have dry ice polar caps.

>> No.15790722

>Mars has more than 20x as much CO2 as Earth
This is false, even including all the frozen CO2 in Mars' ice caps. No idea where you're getting that
There's a lot of other factors you're forgetting, like the lower gravity and lack of magnetosphere, and the lack of most other gases that compose Earth's atmosphere
>How does dry ice form
Because it's extremely cold and extremely low pressure. Ice can't just magically sublimate and warm itself up

>> No.15790836

mars has over 20x more CO2 than earth, do the numbers yourself if you doubt it. you're not one of those zoomers who can't even add fractions, are you?

>> No.15790933

Are you retarded? Dry ice is solid CO2.

Ahh, I see you are in fact retarded.

>> No.15791412

Where are all the aliens ?

>> No.15791417

Your lungs have 20x more CO2 in them than the surrounding air, why aren't your lungs 3000 degrees warm?

>> No.15791446

>How does dry ice form on the surface of Mars with that massive amount of CO2 in it's atmosphere?
This is easy: dry ice is made of CO2. In fact, it couldn't form without the CO2!

>> No.15791814

no direct sunlight

>> No.15791848

>you're not one of those zoomers who can't even add fractions, are you?
lmao you cannot add fractions, you can only multiply them. If you add them, you get a wrong result, like [math]\frac12 + \frac14 \neq \frac26[/math]

>> No.15792196

you're one of those zoomers who can't even add fractions

>> No.15792618

Mars maybe had magnetic core and life, but it had troubles being disbalanced to keep itself working, so it cancelled out with itself. Literally, it didn't spinned so much, it could keep it's spins apart, because it's not made of metal, but iron, sodium and pottasium are true metals that keeps the magnets alive. When you consider it, where would you see so much empty space for electron as exact half?

>> No.15792866

Dry ice is worth $2/pound
Imagine the profit to be made by harvesting it for free on Mars and selling it on Earth.
Mars's polar caps are worth about $2,000,000,000,000,000 each

>> No.15792905

If you think you *can* add fractions then you're an overconfident bomber. No, you can't. No one can. And I'm tired to pretend you can.

>> No.15792913
File: 132 KB, 516x640, 1689575898713344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

ayyy i'm just chillin' in my saucer floatin' round the planet at the speed of light doin' a bit of dmt geometry
dunno what the rest of the spacebrothers are up to but that's where i'm at rn

>> No.15793033

>This is false
Check it yourself. It's easy to work out from relative partial pressures of CO2 on Earth vs Mars. I was surprised too but it's more or less correct

>> No.15793357

The real reason Musk wants to get to Mars

>> No.15794131

People who can't do math can't check it for themselves, they're stuck relying on (((media))) sources for all of their information.
Thats why globohomo is intentionally sabotaging and dumbing down math education, because doing so leave people at the mercy of the globohomo media

>> No.15794312

The atmosphere is barely 1% as thick

>> No.15794545

how exactly does low pressure promote CO2 stayin in solid form when it should be the opposite

>> No.15794565

Peak Dunning Kruger. Just smart enough to calculate the amount of CO2 on Mars, yet too dumb to consider all the other factors.

>> No.15795677 [DELETED] 

it has massive amounts of co2, the greenhouse effect from all that co2 should hold heat in better than earth's atmosphere does

>> No.15795681

CO2 just absorbs the IR. What holds the heat is the entire atmosphere.

>> No.15795688

>the greenhouse effect from all that co2 should hold heat in better than earth's atmosphere does
Water is a better sunlight retainer, much better. And at the amounts of the air we have even nitrogen and oxygen are good greenhouse gasses.

>> No.15795696

Despite mars having no water (most important greenhouse gas on earth) and only 1% of the earth's atmosphere, they have something like 15% of the greenhouse effect we have. Wow, CO2 seems pretty potent. Looking at Venus confirms this. Maybe we would investigate what CO2 emissions do to earth's climate?

>> No.15795740

mass of mars atmosphere: 2.5 x 10^16
mass of earth atmosphere: 5.9722 * 10^24
even though mars has ~950000 PPM of CO2 vs earths ~421, mars only having 0.000000004 times the mass of earths atmosphere means it 0.00000944 times as much CO2 as earth

if you do it by atmospheric pressure, which some people say is more fair since mars's atmosphere has less area to cover
mars atmosphere pressure: 0.059 earths
950000 / 421 =2256.53206651 higher PPM than earth
2256.53 * 0.059 = 133.13527 times the CO2 pressure
and yeah this supports your argument better but earth's atmosphere has a fuck ton of water vapor to help out

also mars has 0.283045378463x the surface area of earth, and with a CO2 mass only 0.00000944 as high as earth's that means mars still has far less CO2 per square meter of land than earth does

>> No.15795789

>mars has over 20x more CO2 than earth

>> No.15796030

thats why we should hnuke mars. nuking near ice caps covers them in dust. dust sublimates the CO2 and water, making a 600mB atmo in about 20 yrs. then we send plants lichens then a few decades later we have a nice jungle planet. win

>> No.15796067

Chuds BTFO

>> No.15796170 [DELETED] 
File: 93 KB, 436x497, sourcejak.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.15796174

>Chud has no source
>posts wojak instead

>> No.15796839

how does mars' atmosphere weigh 0.0000005 as much as earth's when mars is at 6.5 millibars

>> No.15797004

smaller planet, earths atmosphere extends further into space too

>> No.15797029

So how does it get to 6.5mb, does Mars have a core made of neutron star material?

>> No.15797035

>How does dry ice form on the surface of Mars with that massive amount of CO2 in it's atmosphere?
dry ice is made of CO2, so it checks out. hope this helps.

>> No.15797038

>you cannot add fractions,
oh dear, a retard

>> No.15798122

they don't need that, an inability to back freshman level math and physics is enough to power their beliefs.

>> No.15798766 [DELETED] 

tell an idiot
>Check it yourself.
and expect the idiot to return a fantastically wrong answer
because thats what idiots do, >>15795740 is a fine example of this phenomenon

>> No.15799923

the total mass of the atmosphere is the atmospheric pressure in pounds per square inch multiplied by the total number of square inches on the planet's surface

>> No.15799931

Mars will be bombed by redox peacehead, and will be able to sustain life. There's already people dreaming about that.

>> No.15799941

>Pressure is mass per unit area
This is why America is a shithole, scientifically speaking.

>> No.15800510

>reeeeeeeee i hate america!!!!
take your nationalistic inferiority complex over to where it belongs >>>/int/

>> No.15801613 [DELETED] 

very common on /sci/
science attracts primarily low IQ people because the media promotes science as worth doing and only low IQs are dumb enough to trust the media

>> No.15801618

I think people knowing the difference between weight and mass are the ones who should be allowed to stay on /sci/

>> No.15802202 [DELETED] 

where are all the global warming !?!

>> No.15803286 [DELETED] 

Maybe thats who is making the dry ice on Mars. If CO2 is really a greenhouse gas there is no natural explanation for dry ice on Mars

>> No.15803362
File: 50 KB, 999x732, tgp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Learn the basics.

>> No.15804601

you don't know the basics, that chatbot output

>> No.15804956

What's the group you target with that nonsense?

>> No.15805046

>this is the level of math they used in those retarded models they refuse to publicly release
Global warming retards, it isn't looking to good for us

>> No.15805057

I really, truly, hope you aren't a scientist or engineer because your level of reasoning with basic mathematical/scientific concepts is extremely deficient, yet you still have the deluded confidence and ego to post something this retarded as an answer to a 4th grade level problem.
This isn't some kind of quick maths mistake. You probably spent 10-20 minutes looking up, calculating, interpreting, and writing this post, and yet not once did you realize the monumental fuck up you made in your 3rd line. You even directly reference part of what you failed to consider later in your 8th line, but still, you didn't to apply this information to your previous analysis, in fact, somehow you use this to try and further support it.
Unless you were extremely inebriated when you did this, your level of deficiency can not be treated or improved, this is the innate level your brain can work with these ideas. Genuinely, if you are pursuing any engineering or scientific occupation, or are already in one, please stop immediately. Your incompetency is almost certainly going to lead to the deaths of dozens of people, and that's best case scenario.

>> No.15805085
File: 1.32 MB, 1x1, Eschenbach-Climate-Models.pdf [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

some information about their models has become public

>> No.15805332

Fuck you and your stupid nigger posts

>> No.15805647

You use a whole lot of words for saying nothing.

>> No.15805814

>Net Zero Watch
Literal oil shill, fuck off

>> No.15806309 [DELETED] 

>attacking the source because you can't disprove the information presented
you're admitting that everything in the document is accurate

>> No.15806411

Nonsense. It's propaganda paid for by fossil fuel companies. These think tanks have a long history of manipulating data and outright fabrication. This is more of the same.

>> No.15806417

The CO2 in our atmosphere isn't working in a vacuum. Each CO2 molecule absorbs infrared light and has a chance to bounce off of a nitrogen or oxygen atom and transfer some of that energy before it re-emits it.

On Earth, the CO2 molecules warm up the air around them, and since the air around them cannot as easily radiate infrared, the air warms up more.
Of Mars it's basically all CO2 and at low pressure, so every molecule can efficiently radiate infrared, and the heat escapes more rapidly upward. Also, the sunlight is about half as intense as Earth sunlight so the maximum expected temperature is much lower anyway.
On Venus the CO2 is so thick that regardless of the higher emissivity of CO2 there's simply so much piled up that it takes a long time for heat to escape, and given the 2x brighter sunlight the result is a very hot surface.

>> No.15806454

You don't need to bother to check because you know there's stuff wrong, if it comes from a "conservative", oil lobby funded think tank.

>> No.15807623 [DELETED] 
File: 81 KB, 1280x720, global warming is fake.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>These think tanks have a long history of manipulating data and outright fabrication.
no they don't, you're just making that up.
the global warming shills are the ones with a documented history of fabirication

>> No.15807637

>You cannot see that a screenshot is 20 years old by the jpeg degradation

>> No.15807854
File: 959 KB, 1x1, DunlapMcCrightOxfordHBChap.pdf [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Lol no. How can you be so ignorant? Do you not have access to google? Start with this PDF and these links and look up anything you don't believe. Organized climate change denial is a deep rabbit hole.


>> No.15807855 [DELETED] 
File: 281 KB, 1276x693, sangger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.15807872 [DELETED] 


>> No.15807881

Google anything you don't believe. You can also type "organized climate change denial campaigns" into any search engine. Net Zero Watch is the second wikipedia link I gave you.

>> No.15807947

>The CO2 in our atmosphere isn't working in a vacuum. Each CO2 molecule absorbs infrared light and has a chance to bounce off of a nitrogen or oxygen atom and transfer some of that energy before it re-emits it.
magically the infrared permeates to all the atmosphere. Neither intensity loss nor absorption limit caused by 100% opaqueness at some concentration. A wondergas, it absorbs and passes the magical wavelengths (at a very low spectral band btw.) at the same time. I kneel, as i do an bigbang evolution virus and all the other utterly bullshit science scammers rigutate the whole day.

>> No.15808058 [DELETED] 


>> No.15808076

What relevance do you imagine that page has to organized climate change denial?

>> No.15808185

>A wondergas, it absorbs and passes the magical wavelengths (at a very low spectral band btw.) at the same time.
Stop pretending that you're more retarded than you are.

>> No.15808506 [DELETED] 

you have never studied physics

>> No.15808575

Factually wrong. I have a PhD in physics.

>> No.15808590

CO2 is greenhouse gas, because of atmospheric layers and diffraction.

>> No.15808625

>why does the planet whose atmosphere consists of CO2 have polar ice caps made of CO2
Like.. ???? What even is your point? Should the ice caps be made of something different? Is this a new global warming denial scheme or are you legit retarded?

>> No.15809107

>have a PhD in physics.
Find the failure.

>> No.15809113

> climate change denial
Using that obvious shizo terms are one of the best idiot detectors ever issued.

>> No.15809173

Nonsense. The money trail is mostly public and very clear. You clearly haven't looked into this topic at all. Why don't you start by googling "net zero watch funding" and see what pops up?

>> No.15809197

>FoLlOw ThE mOnEy
>No, not like this

>> No.15809373 [DELETED] 

you're only upset because you can't understand how a planet with such a massive amount of greenhouse gasses in it's atmosphere has naturally occurring dry ice on it's surface

>> No.15809401

I'm legitimately confused what your point is. Mars is 40% further away from the Sun than the earth, that's half the solar power per unit area. The radiative power emitted from the planet scales with [math]T^4[/math], so naively, without greenhouse effect, the average temperature is like [math]0.5^{1/4} = 0.84[/math] times our temperature. If our polar caps are below something like -30°C, or 240K, I expect mars' polar caps to be below 200K.
Now consider that mars has no water, which gives us most of our 30 degrees of greenhouse effect, I have no reason to find dry ice on mars weird, despite the lower pressure and reduced melting point.
So, no. I don't have trouble understanding why Mars has naturally occurring dry ice, since this is exactly what I'd come up with on the back of an envelope and without looking up specifics. If you would, the numbers would probably make even more sense.

>> No.15809404

Oceans absorb almost all light, and earth is 70% ocean. Mars reflects most of the sunlight. That's why it's so cold on Mars, faggot.

>> No.15809430

Mars, despite its 95% carbon dioxide (CO2) atmosphere, is cold due to various factors. Four crucial aspects affecting a planet's temperature are atmospheric composition, atmospheric density, water content, and distance from the Sun. Earth’s habitable climate results from a balanced combination of these aspects, but an increase in greenhouse gases like CO2 is disrupting this balance, leading to global warming. CO2, though a minor part of Earth’s atmosphere, has seen nearly a doubling in concentration since the 1950s, resulting in significant climate shifts. Historical data reveals that during Earth's ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200ppm, but levels surpassed 400ppm by 2013, emphasizing CO2's impactful role in climate moderation.

Unlike Earth, Mars lacks substantial water and has a thinner atmosphere, making it less effective at trapping heat. Its distance from the Sun also contributes to its colder temperature. Mars experiences wide temperature fluctuations due to these factors, with temperatures ranging from slightly above zero to minus 80°C daily.

In the realm of terraforming, the concept revolves around transforming unlivable planetary atmospheres into breathable ones, a popular theme in science fiction. The ultimate goal remains to manage and restore the atmospheric balance on Earth, mitigating the adverse impacts of climate change.

>> No.15809455

Have you followed any money, or have you just taken someone else's word for it? You should look into the organized climate change denial campaigns that have been utilized by oil companies since the 80's. This is on par with all the US rivers that would routinely catch on fire until the EPA was founded and given the power to fine these companies who were illegally dumping highly flammable, highly toxic wastes into our rivers.

>> No.15809551 [DELETED] 

Mars barely has atmosphere compared to Earth, you utter moron. You've been making the same thread for years you useless schizo n1663r.

>> No.15810129 [DELETED] 

>This is on par with all the US rivers that would routinely catch on fire
that never happened

>> No.15810183 [DELETED] 

Everyone hates muttmerica. It's not an inferiority complex, just disgust, faggot nigger.

>> No.15810212

Whatever you talk about oil company claims, it does'nt change the fact that the wording is utterly dumb, unscientific and only used by retards and propaganda shills. Further: The idea only one group has money interests is even below this retarded lowest level, Where are all the good people gone to?

>> No.15810290

>Further: The idea only one group has money interests is even below this retarded lowest level
Who is the other group exactly? Where does their money come from?

>> No.15810399


>> No.15810417

Open a book, retard.

>But on June 22, 1969, a spark flared from the train tracks down to the river below, igniting industrial debris floating on the surface of the water. Flames spread across the river, in some places reaching five stories high.
>the not-so-unusual river fire helped create an environmental revolution.
>and fueled a growing movement that culminated in the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency.

>> No.15810418

Nonsense. Get reading and cope harder.

>> No.15810839

Don't know where you live, over here we have energy taxes all caused by CO2 arguments. With a trace gas in ppm concentration.
Myself rides a bike, heat only one room in winter and do not fly. Pretty sure I have one of the best energy stamps in this shitty board. Just saying I am pro environment. But arguments like muuh bad oil industry so arguments I do not like are not valid is stupid and delusional.

Rise in CO2 is around 200ppm in last century. That's 0.2 promille or a drop of 0.2 millilitre (ml) in a litre of water. Water vapor, a way more capable clima gas is around 4% or 40 ml. That's the relation 50 times more and you shills will tell me the CO is the reason of climate change -which I'd deliberately changed from global warming because the data do not fit anymore the modeled scenario.

>> No.15810878

>With a trace gas in ppm concentration.
That's by far the dumbest argument I've heard. If you had 420ppm of polonium inside you you'd be dead pretty quick.
>Rise in CO2 is around 200ppm in last century. That's 0.2 promille or a drop of 0.2 millilitre (ml) in a litre of water.
Again, 0.2 ml of many substances in a lite of water will kill you.

But also, global warming is an energy imbalance of 1W/m^2, or 0.3%. That's a cumshot in a litre of water. Thats enough to change the climate.

>> No.15810961
File: 147 KB, 1024x954, 1684022574817695.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

You're using those ridiculous lowbrow analogies because you're ignorant of the real science involved.

>Rise in CO2 is around 200ppm in last century
Oh sure, the same soiyence charlatans who alter historical records to fit their global warming narrative and who have a track record of lying and other manipulative dishonesty are totally telling the truth about how much CO2 was in the atmosphere in 1900.
How low does your IQ have to be to be as gullible as you are?

>> No.15810970

>alter historical records to fit their global warming narrative
Never happened, take your meds.
>have a track record of lying and other manipulative dishonesty
The oil lobby has just been lying for decades, so that track record is quite long, but not true.
>How low does your IQ have to be to be as gullible as you are?
The irony.

>> No.15811049 [DELETED] 

Do the planet a favor and kill yourself, you parasite waste of resources.

>> No.15811098

The claimed increase looks reasonable when compared the total amount of fossil fuels burned. Sinks and sources must match, if you add a new source, the sinks won't magically adjust to match exactly, so the excess builds up in the atmosphere.

>> No.15811118

Found the triggered oil shill. Fuck off.

>> No.15811261

>telling the truth about how much CO2 was in the atmosphere in ...

You can't measure a global average. It's "modeled", nowadays sciencefrauds term for a lie.

Know people calibrating gas detectors. They measure 200ppm in atmosphere. Sure that's a local variation (different to valid globals like highways and Mauna Loa volcano station).

>> No.15811263

>That's by far the dumbest argument I've heard. If you had 420ppm of polonium inside you you'd be dead pretty quick.
And if a add 10 000 l water the effect is ... .

>> No.15811380

Water vapor has a low residence time in the atmosphere. It's not well mixed and the concentration is dependent on local temperatures. Because of that water vapor is incapable of driving global warming although it will amplify the effects of other greenhouse gasses.

>> No.15811385 [DELETED] 

Water vapor is the only significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, it is responsible for over 98% of heat retention in our atmosphere. This can be measured directly by comparing nighttime cooling rates in high and low humidity regions.

>> No.15811425

>Water vapor is the only significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere
That's entirely untrue. Without any other greenhouse gasses all the water vapor would condense into water and the Earth would have no greenhouse effect at all. Water cannot drive global warming. It merely forms a positive feedback loop with other greenhouse gasses.

>high and low humidity regions.
The existence of regions with high and low humidity prove that water vapor is not well mixed in the atmosphere and corroborates the fact that humidity is dependent on local temperature and water availability.

>> No.15811429

Schizophrenic low IQ post.

>> No.15811438

Try reading a freshman level climate science text. It will clear up a lot of your misconceptions.

>> No.15811443

If you had any education beyond the freshman undergraduate level you would understand why you're wrong.

>> No.15811466

The irony. You have misconceptions about the fundamentals of climate science which is why you need to start with a freshman text. Any freshman climate science or environmental science text should suffice and if you want I can link you to a book on libgen.

>> No.15811797 [DELETED] 


>> No.15811802 [DELETED] 

I've seen those books, no math. Climate science isn't intellectually or mathematically rigorous and the people who study it don't understand basic thermodynamics. Three decades ago "climate science" was called "atmospheric science" and it was a subset of physics.
>environmental science
girl's science

>> No.15811810

>Three decades ago "climate science" was called "atmospheric science" and it was a subset of physics.
That implies that aquatic and terrestrial systems aren't part of the climate. Are you sure that you aren't a schizo who makes up bullshit? The climate where you live strongly depends on the distance to oceans and oceanic currents.

>> No.15811818

>I've seen those books, no math.
What a ridiculous, low-iq fedora level sentence. First of all, it's wrong, but secondly, what "math" do you expect? I just published a paper on my particle detector and the highest level of math is a Poissonian probability distribution. I took some environmental physics classes and I can tell you, undergrad lectures had more maths. No fact, those books will take you to the very edge of things you can solve "with math", unless you can whip out an analytical solution to the Navier-Stokes equation.

>> No.15812128

>I've seen those books,
Have you ever opened them?

>no math.
That's a no then.

>> No.15812583

>>Three decades ago
There was the same discussion. Sometimes with way better arguments as on this forsaken board of low IQ. But climate shills reacted equal. Muuh Oil at best usual pre ignorance.

Same as in any of this so called science, which is in reality a dumb believe system, unintentionally revealed by shizo wording like "deniers" (in opposite to believers) and "change". When you think that "change" is the must dumb and idiotic term possible, congrats you are outside the targeted audience. Hope you are.

>> No.15813281 [DELETED] 

memorizing formulas that you don't understand how or why or if they work is not doing math.

>> No.15813300

Wow, you moved the goalposts so far I can't even see them anymore. So your new argument is that because you don't understand the equations used in climate science, nobody does? Do you want to give that some more thought?

>> No.15813302

Take your meds and stop making things up.

>> No.15813367

Because greenhouse gases are a lie and don’t exist.

>> No.15813990


>> No.15814793 [DELETED] 

Its a shame that science students are longer required to learn were the formulas they use come from and how and why they were created because Boltzmann's thermodynamics is inaccurate and could use some improvement. If students are taught to take thermodynamics for granted as a given fact then the necessary improvements and corrections will never be made.

>> No.15814860

Please calculate the equilibrium temperatures of Venus, Earth and Mars.

>> No.15814902

The same could be said for Kirchoff's Law and the blackbody spectrum.

>> No.15815615 [DELETED] 

Its all based on the arbitrarily selected premise of an infinite static universe with a baseline temperature of 0ºK, which is now known to be a false premise, yet people still treat thermodynamics as if was written in stone by god himself.

>> No.15815805

>Without any other greenhouse gasses all the water vapor would condense into water and the Earth would have no greenhouse effect at all.
Literally, chemically false. As in "I never learned what vapor pressure was in high school" false.

>> No.15816991 [DELETED] 

Planck's law uses Boltzmann's nonexistent constant

>> No.15817061

It always seems bizarre that physicists in other disciplines will just uncritically assume these things are true for everything, including (for example) stars, when they have strict definitional requirements that most objects do not meet.

>> No.15817610

analytical physics is a dead art, everyone is just coasting along presuming that the formulas handed down to them by the ancient ones are the indisputable truth written in stone

>> No.15817640

Even to the extent of using general rules-of-thumb for completely disparate things? I mean for goodness sake there are people out there who literally believe that the sun has no surface, but that its nonexistent surface behaves like a solid surface in every way.

>> No.15818600 [DELETED] 

where are all the aliens !?!

>> No.15819251 [DELETED] 

>if a constant is true currently then that means it has to stay the same forever
wtf is up with that total bullcrap?

>> No.15819274

I never heard of the Boltzmann constant not being constant. Is this a legit theory or some Mandlbaur shit?

>> No.15819278 [DELETED] 

The Boltzmann constant was derived from the absurd presumption of a static universe with a baseline temperature of 0ºK as was the rest of Boltzmann & the gang's thermodynamics. As a result the CMB fits the curve fairly well, but nothing else does.

>> No.15819280

>the absurd presumption of a static universe with a baseline temperature of 0ºK
Well, it's K, not °K, so I'm not sure how serious I should take your criticism. It's just a definition of absolute temperature, isn't it? What's the reason that no kinetic energy should correspond to a temperature other than 0K?

>> No.15819482

What's the vapor pressure of water on Mars?

>> No.15819999
File: 183 KB, 656x902, volcano2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.15820009

Sometimes I wonder if you people are elaborately trolling or are clinically retarded. But I decide to answer in the spirit of >>15819482
What's the vapor pressure of water in the stratosphere?

>> No.15820530

What was wrong about it? why dont you calculate it? Mr. Correction over here gonna pull out his dusty ti-84 after his 10 hr goon sesh?

>> No.15821036 [DELETED] 

>autistic nitpicking over notation
because you can't address the heart of the matter

>> No.15821078

I did. If you took your ADHD meds and acquired an attention span of greater than 5 words you'd manage to finish reading my comment and see that.

>> No.15821185

You clearly misunderstood what he was talking about due to your low IQ.

>> No.15821534

>Classified Alien Projects Whistleblower - A. H. Boeing Aerospace/Witness Testimony
>face on mars is real, made by aliens
>aliens created the sun
>aliens put the planets in orbit
>gray aliens are in charge of the earth as a sentinel race
>humans created by aliens
>electromagnetic gravitics is real
>ufos teleport
>humanlike aliens called "the orange"
>roswell crash was real
>aliens have underground bases, they always have
>evidence of aliens going back to prehistory
>new laser weapons and soundwave weapons that can demolish buildings
>aliens thousands of years ahead of us
>thinks we're catching up to aliens technologically
>remote viewing of past and future
>operation looking glass
>aliens can go into past and future many years
>mutated our dna over a hundred times
>the aliens want to look like us

>> No.15821663

>aliens created the sun.
If they could do that, why bother with humanity? If you can make an entire solar system, why not just cultivate humanity like a crop for whatever you needed, rather than setting them loose on a planet?

>> No.15821667
File: 605 KB, 1080x1046, aliens carter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

this might be a genetic experiment, or some kind of experiment

>> No.15821927 [DELETED] 

also CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas

>> No.15821953

That's why Venus is so cold, right?

>> No.15822709 [DELETED] 

You'll learn about the effects of proximity to the sun and atmospheric pressure on temperature when you get older

>> No.15822712

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

>> No.15822731

Because the atmospheric pressure of Venus is nearly 16 powers of ten higher than that of Mercury. As any high school student knows, there exists a direct relationship between the pressure of a gas and its temperature.

>> No.15822736

Does that mean that full spray paint bottles (high pressure) are warmer than empty ones?

>> No.15822745

If you light a flame underneath both, which will explode?

>> No.15822752

There's no flame under Venus.

>> No.15822757

Huh, well you really are dedicated to playing the role I'll give you that.

>> No.15822763

You too. Kudos, deliberately misunderstanding 7th grade physics to justify burning fossil fuels wasn't on my list of things I directed. Sadly, there are retards on this board who will think you're being serious.

>> No.15822766

Denying the existence of the sun is probably one of the most staggering troll attempts I've ever seen.

>> No.15822771

The sun is closer to mercury, yet mercury is colder. Do you think that empty paint cans don't get warm if you light a fire under them?

>> No.15822990

>so it should be warm and comfortable and hospitable because of the massive greenhouse effect from all that CO2.
this is what incel chud truthers actually believe btw
pol was a mistake

>> No.15823959

How come Mars has no greenhouse effect when it has so much CO2?

>> No.15823961

Mars does have a greenhouse effect. Get your facts from somewhere other than /pol/ and facebook

>> No.15824116
File: 163 KB, 1024x1024, _a9621a51-8d2c-426e-b6ee-6a77790d0ce2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>mars only having 0.000000004 times the mass of earths atmosphere

>> No.15824117

>why not just cultivate humanity like a crop for whatever you needed, rather than setting them loose on a planet?
Who says we aren't?

>> No.15824126

>How does a planet with a CO2 atmosphere have CO2 ice caps?
You should be able to solve this.

>> No.15824209

isn't mars also bigger?

>> No.15824242

>dude measurements CO2 concentration on the atmosphere are fake because I say so

>> No.15824259

>I have never owned or operated a CO2 meter, therefore I have no choice other than to trust the government to tell me the truth about CO2, the same government thats been caught in a million lies, so I think I'll just trust the government
not very good at pattern recognition, are you?

>> No.15824472

>I believe the CO2 concentration on Mars

>> No.15825760

its not possible for it to be constant in an expanding universe

>> No.15826280

b-b-but the government would never lie about something that had political and financial implications, would it?

>> No.15827486
File: 2.18 MB, 1x1, 1684060306970281.pdf [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

they probably are, the people who make those measurements are all known liars

>> No.15828929

belief in global warming turns on stupidity

>> No.15829019


>> No.15829040

Why do you try to keep all these idiotic threads alive?

>> No.15830534

>I don't believe the CO2 concentration on Mars
>But I do believe the CO2 concentration in the cone of an active volcano is representative of the atmosphere of the entirety of Earth

>> No.15830679
File: 50 KB, 630x354, 41586_2014_Article_BFnature201416615_Figc_HTML.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Satellite measurements don't exist

>> No.15831272

looks at where all the red hotspots are on that map. compare that to where the white nations that are blamed for co2 and expected to pay co2 taxes are.

>> No.15831277

The majority of red hotspots correspond with vulcanism except for the one over China.

>> No.15832146

yeah, brazil is well known for it's volcanic activity

>> No.15832284

You'll note that the South American clusters are centered on the volcanic highlands.

>> No.15832344

>This map correlates to population density
No way! So amazing!

>> No.15832345

It emphatically doesn't. That's the interesting part.

>> No.15832367
File: 440 KB, 792x612, MOTDJuly9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>looks at where all the red hotspots are on that map.
They are where you expect forest fires in October and November. On the southern hemisphere, where you have a lot of forests.
China and North America look very much like a population/industry density map.

>> No.15832513

thats because volcanoes emit much, much more co2 than anything man made does

>> No.15832516

Why did they only start doing that in the late 19th century?

>> No.15832518

That whole thing is just made up.

>> No.15832525

What is made up? The idea that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans? I know, I wanted to hear the pathetic excuse anyway. Next I would've asked where all the oxygen in our atmosphere went.

>> No.15832526

Oh no no no. The nonsense you spewed is made up. The other anon is completely correct.

>> No.15832534

Sorry, I don't speak schizo

>> No.15832543

Now I understand why you have a hard time writing your posts. Try speaking English from now on.

>> No.15833853

>the late 19th century?
Tambora was in the early 1800s

>> No.15833933

Didn’t significantly change the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere though. Maybe the notion that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans is wrong?

>> No.15835002 [DELETED] 

>I know the composition of the atmosphere from the early 1800s
sure you do

>> No.15835250

>I don't know it but I know it's not the one measured in ice cores

>> No.15835977 [DELETED] 

>Its almost like CO2 is even really a greenhouse gas.
If CO2 were a greenhouse gas then sea level would be rising here on Earth.

>> No.15836091
File: 66 KB, 1200x675, 1880-_Global_average_sea_level_rise_(SLR)_-_annually.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Based and truthpilled

>> No.15836179

70m since last ice age tax the Neandertals! Actual tide hub up to 14 meters. "Modeled" average (unobserved) is 0,25 / 150 years in that shittty overzoomed propaganda bullsheet.

Why are you idiots alive? Everyone with the slightest self-awareness will immediately kill himself (reason:hopeless retardation).

>> No.15836184

What do you mean by this?

>> No.15836197

>What do you mean by this?
Nothing. just a trap for idiots like ...

>> No.15836413


>> No.15837029 [DELETED] 

>graph starts at the end of the little ice age
errry single time

>> No.15837062

>Bitches but never posts anything better
Every single time

>> No.15838408

the peer review system doesn't permit publication of information contradicting the global warming narrative in your replication crisis journals, the measurements you're referring to were doubtlessly faked in order to gain peer approval

>> No.15838842 [DELETED] 

Yeah, its weird that all of the important formulas in physics were developed before 1910 or so, how come nobody has come up with any good ones since then?

>> No.15838865

>Mars has more than 20x as much CO2 as Earth

25x times more, but in 1m^3 of atmosphere on surface level not overall. Unfortunately 99% of local soientists are too retarded to calculate that, all they're good at at is reading some shitty reddit articles financed by Klaus Schwab.

>> No.15839070

Serious people did not fall for one word so it indicates the amount of them against shills, idiots ignorants and paid or volunteering propagandists.
Zero as always. Sites like reddit /sci etc. are dumb mainstream and only distinguishable on the amount of tolerated insults.

>> No.15839080

That's wrong. Otherwise, the 97% consensus would be a 100% consensus.

>> No.15839082

>How does dry ice form on the surface of Mars with that massive amount of CO2 in it's atmosphere?
Dry ice is solid CO2.

>> No.15839084

Even in the USSR they pretended that the rigged elections had a small proportion of opposition votes.

>> No.15839155

Take your meds

>> No.15839537 [DELETED] 

how come the CO2 doesn't produce an enormous greenhouse effect?

>> No.15839548

See for example

>> No.15839679

That's not a path you want to go down if you're making the argument for AGW.

>> No.15839764


>> No.15840303

unfathomably based

>> No.15841382

>do the numbers yourself if you doubt it
no, you show us your work.

>> No.15842082 [DELETED] 

>t. zoomer that can't even add fractions

>> No.15842696

lmao you cannot add fractions, you can only multiply them. If you add them, you get a wrong result, like [math]\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} \neq \frac{2}{6}[/math]

>> No.15843194


>> No.15843622

>t. zoomer that can't even add fractions

>> No.15843624

Please be bait...

>> No.15843633

You literally can't. If you think you can, then your the idiot.

>> No.15844179

If thats true then how come Mars has no greenhouse effect?

>> No.15844184

Mars has a greenhouse effect. Next question.

>> No.15845240 [DELETED] 

no it doesn't

>> No.15845258

Wrong. >>15845240

>> No.15845366

Prove it.

>> No.15845978
File: 64 KB, 953x720, 1686122050677430.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Correct, Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is an extraordinarily weak one

>> No.15846002

>The atmosphere of Mars is colder than Earth's. Owing to the larger distance from the Sun, Mars receives less solar energy and has a lower effective temperature, which is about 210 K (−63 °C; −82 °F).[2] The average surface emission temperature of Mars is just 215 K (−58 °C; −73 °F), which is comparable to inland Antarctica.[2][4]
-> 5°C greenhouse effect

>> No.15847037 [DELETED] 

lol, you can't do math so you have to rely on wikipedia's propagandists to tell you the numbers.

>> No.15847049

Name one incorrect thing on that page.

>> No.15847077

You do "the math" then.

>> No.15847791

pretty much admitting that you have no relevant education or knowledge of the topic

>> No.15847910

Name one incorrect thing on that page.

>> No.15847941

Only ignorant stupid morons believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

>> No.15847943

Do you even know what a greenhouse gas is?

>> No.15847944

Sorry, I was phoneposting on the toilet

>> No.15847949
File: 17 KB, 800x600, smooth_brain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.15847954
File: 182 KB, 928x523, waterworld.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.15847956

So you can't find anything wrong on that page? Great. I'm glad we agree that wikipedia is just fine and that Mars does in fact have a greenhouse effect.

>> No.15847961

So you have no clue what a greenhouse gas is. You should do something about your ignorance.

>> No.15847968

No, I corrected my post. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and only ignorant stupid morons believe that it isn't.

>> No.15848796 [DELETED] 

>Only ignorant stupid morons believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
mars would have a massive greenhouse effect if CO2 were actually a greenhouse gas

>> No.15848888


>> No.15849523
File: 660 KB, 2432x1222, Atmospheres.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Guaranteed to be fake.
I looked at that article and it's reference for the equilibrium temperature of Mars is a book called 'Atmospheres' by Richard Goody, page 46
On page 46 of that book it shows that Richard Goody calculated Mars' equilibrium temperature to be 216 K, not 210 K. Mars has no greenhouse effect, wikipedia altered the equilibrium temperature of Mars to make it look like it does in order to trick lackwits that trust wikipedia to be an source of information


>> No.15849581

Amazing that they just lie blatantly like this and think nobody will notice.

>> No.15849871


>> No.15849875

Did you correct the article, properly citing your findings?

>> No.15849876

If he tries it will get reverted by whoever decided to put that lie on the page.

>> No.15849881

>I looked at that article and it's reference for the equilibrium temperature of Mars is a book called 'Atmospheres' by Richard Goody, page 46
Which article? Article [2] simply states the values as the same as Wikipedia w. [4] is a book.

>> No.15849887
File: 28 KB, 672x174, Screenshot 2023-11-10 at 12.58.01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Source 4 from Wikipedia.

>> No.15850065

The lie is that mars doesn't have a greenhouse effect.

>> No.15850198

>The lie is that mars doesn't have a greenhouse effect.
Dear bot-control, please variate at minimum the wording when you don't know what to do. These insubstantial standard sentences are not very entertaining and do not distract. That is what you want with this site, isn't it so?

>> No.15850212

>everyone who isn't a schizophrenic is a robot
Oh boy

>> No.15850521

Even if the greenhouse effect on Mars was worth 5 C that would mean that the greenhouse effect on earth due to CO2 couldn't be more than 0.25 C and that atmospheric CO2 on Earth would have to get to over 2000ppm to create a 1 C temperature increase in the greenhouse effect on Earth

>> No.15850543


>> No.15850554

You can't argue with the math.

>> No.15850565

You can't argue with the fact that your math is based on carbon dioxide being the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and ignoring the positive feedback loop provided by water vapor. How stupid are you? Why don't you try learning about the subject before deciding that you are an expert on it?

>> No.15850577

Ok now do Venus.

>> No.15850586

Do what to Venus? You want me to list the concentration of greenhouse gasses and the water vapor in the atmosphere of Venus? To what end? You think there's some discrepancy because you don't understand the subject, but decided you're an expert anyway?

>> No.15850611

You just outed yourself with that post. Thank you for conceding.

>> No.15850693 [DELETED] 

Theres literally no way to get Mars' equilibrium temperature down to 210ºC without altering one of the variables in the equation way out of bounds with measured values. Even as it is, the equation will normally overestimate Mars' reflectivity because few of the people who use it account for the polar caps' position when figuring albedo. The 216ºC number in Goody is at the far low end of the normally quoted values. 220ºC is the most commonly quoted figure, but both are underestimates since the albedo isn't normally figured accurately.
Run the numbers for yourself and see what you get. Its an extremely simple equation, undergrad astronomy students are normally taught it early in their first semester of study. Its all basic geometry and thermodynamics.

>> No.15850741

This. Belief in global warming turns on ignorance of physics.

>> No.15850863

You are clearly ignorant of this topic. Why don't you try to actually study it?

>> No.15850867

Take your meds

>> No.15850882

You sound kind of emotional anon. I think you need to take a break until you can approach this with a rational mind.

>> No.15850886




>> No.15850888

The irony.

>> No.15850897

Yeah it's ironic that the people who claim to be so pro-science are really the least rational. Oh well. Hopefully they can be helped some day.

>> No.15850907

Uh huh, and that's why you think you have special knowledge that scientists are unaware of, right? Because you're so rational?

Take your meds.

>> No.15850996

Did you reply to the wrong post or is this some kind of weird delusional thing?

>> No.15851019

>Even as it is, the equation will normally overestimate Mars' reflectivity because few of the people who use it account for the polar caps' position when figuring albedo.
Nobody who runs that equation for Earth ever accounts for the annulus of atmosphere which extends above the solid part of the planet's limb, as a result the equilibrium temperature of our own planet is always substantially underestimated, which in turn dramatically overestimates the greenhouse effect on Earth.
Nice to see some else who is actually familiar with the nuts and bolts of these equations posting on /sci/.

>> No.15851043

It has always struck me as odd that TSI is often calculated as if the earth was basically all flat ground. It's one of those mathematical efficiencies that's good on paper when you're teaching undergrads but bad in practice when you have to actually model things.

>> No.15851154

You are confused about many things OP
1:The polar ice caps on mars are not made of dry ice they are water ice.
2:Mars does not have 20x the amount of CO2 as earth, while the martian atmosphere contains more CO2 than O2 you must remember that Mars's atmospheric pressure is about 1% of earth's at sea level, so far less of any gases than earth by far.
3: Even if Mars were to have more CO2 than earth in it's atmosphere it's also much further from the sun reducing the thermal energy entering into it.
4: The temperature at which things freeze or boil is dependant on atmospheric pressure, water boils at room temperature at low atmospheric pressure for example, as the pressure drops objects both freeze at lower temps and boil at lower temps and the window of temps that the material can exist as a liquid shrinks until being non existent. Objects cannot be liquid in a vacuum.

>> No.15851508


>> No.15851579 [DELETED] 

>The polar ice caps on mars are not made of dry ice they are water ice.
No, they're dry ice

>> No.15851731

>and think nobody will notice.
Oh, people do. Just you try to correct this and see what happens. Hint: these editors are autists at the lower end of the spectrum, having all hours of the day to "work" (read: protectt) their world view. When articles in newspapers such as the Guardian overrules articles in Science and Nature, you should know that all is lost.

>> No.15851758

You realise that this anon is the one lying?

>> No.15851774

Mother of all non-sequiturs.

>> No.15851778

Can't argue, but you could at least explain the math.

>> No.15851809
File: 929 KB, 680x384, Magic_Magnets.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


Without a magnetosphere a rocky planet will almost never keep an atmosphere.

>> No.15852226

>the aliens want to look like us
Just why??

>> No.15852240

I had a discussion with a warmerista a few eyars ago. I pointed out that Antarctica has winters where the temperature goes so far that CO2 should precipitate as dry ice. At least that is what a normal CO2 phase diagram shows. The rage I was met with was off the scale.

>> No.15852247


>> No.15852251

Believe in global warming turns on ignorance of physics and chemistry.

>> No.15852330 [DELETED] 
File: 281 KB, 1276x693, sangger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

good find, wikipedia is trash, its all just political propaganda, the whole site is built to trick low iq morons

>> No.15852369

This has to be a shitpost, I refuse to accept you are this stupid.

>> No.15852404

I am surprised how easy it has become to dismiss people as conspiracy theorists when they provide sources. I guess this too is part of Kali Yuga.

>> No.15853037

amazing they lie so blatantly

>> No.15853069

I heard the magnetosphere explanation is a myth or an oversimplification

>> No.15853073

See >>15849887

>> No.15853112

More CO2, sure

But how much atmosphere?

CO2 isn't a large portion of the atmosphere you know.

>> No.15854426

CO2 is nearly 100% of the atmosphere on Mars

>> No.15854540

That explains the dry ice at the polecaps.

>> No.15855389

'Atmospheres' by Richard Goody, page 46

>> No.15855399

It doesn't say that mars doesn't have a greenhouse effect at all there. Meanwhile, sources have been posted that explicitly state the greenhouse effect as 5K: >>15849887

>> No.15855408

It was explained here >>15850693 why that's misleading.

>> No.15855412

Why would I need to run the math? It's been done and cited already: >>15849887
You claim that 220K is normally quoted, yet you have provided zero citations. Meanwhile, citations for 210K were posted.

>> No.15855695

That's not true at all.

>> No.15855941
File: 225 KB, 975x594, CNX_Chem_10_04_CO2phasdi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

PLease do go on. Pic. from

>> No.15855945

DAE think itt aliens could have solved thirst by now? I mean, whats water to them at that point; Scientifically speaking, how does it work?

>> No.15855959

The absolute lowest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica by any means is -93 C and the partial pressure of carbon dioxide is a small fraction of the atmospheric pressure at 0.03 kPa. If the atmosphere were 100% carbon dioxide then you would be correct. It's 0.04% of the atmosphere and so you're wrong.

Do you enjoy making stuff up or are you just too stupid to analyze whatever you're told?

>> No.15855973

Like fr, all of this shit is in the same textbook you linked and literally every other chemistry book ever written. You should have learned this in high school and you should be ashamed if you didn't and you should be doubly ashamed if you know and are maliciously spreading misinformation.

>The pressure exerted by each gas in a gas mixture is independent of the pressure exerted by all other gases present.

>> No.15856201

>>15855959 >>15855973
At least you provided good arguments. The warmeristas just flew into incoherent rage.

>> No.15856232

Are these “warmeristas” currently in the room with us?

>> No.15856256

i would just say let infinity equal zero (hegel's "speculative judgements") and loop the end behavior back to the origin (asymptoto-axiomatically). godspeed pal.

>> No.15856343

No. They were in another forum.
4ch is often dismissed as the cesspool of the net, yet here is the only place where people go into details.

>> No.15856448

Belief in global warming turns on ignorance of math and physics. When confronted with math and physics they become angry because it shows them that they don't know how to come to their own conclusions.

>> No.15856748 [DELETED] 
File: 136 KB, 640x512, 1680573327236224.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>the same soiyence charlatans who alter historical records to fit their global warming narrative

>> No.15857241

No, faggot. Answer me. Do you enjoy making stuff up or are you just too stupid to analyze whatever you're told?

>> No.15857243 [DELETED] 

Come at me retard.

>> No.15857364

They put on a cheap human suit so to not freak out the hairless apes. However, Spacedollar Store humanoid drones are used more often because it's safer.

>> No.15857511

>yet here is the only place where people go into details.
Read this thread. It's full of retards who think that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Some of them might just pretend to be retards, which is equally retarded.

>> No.15857857 [DELETED] 

CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, theres no evidence that it is, theres lots of evidence that it isn't. You only believe that it is because your elementary school science teacher says it is and because NPR repeated the lie to you a bunch of times. You've never pulled off any experiments or observations on your own to find out if it is or it isn't, you just choose to believe that it is, when it clearly isn't

>> No.15857868

>You've never pulled off any experiments or observations on your own to find out if it is or it isn't
Have you?

>> No.15858311 [DELETED] 

so you're admitting that you learned everything you know about climate science from NPR

>> No.15858360

As is usual, yes.

>> No.15858366

The process of a gas turning into a solid is called Deposition. Any other questions?

>> No.15858368
File: 364 KB, 750x726, 1699720252239067.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.15858370

It's dynamo halted early because it's less massive than Earth and Venus

>> No.15858372

Again, have you done experiments yourself? Or have you learnt everything you think you "know" from your mom's yoga teacher?

>> No.15858376

I don't like attacking the mentally ill.

>> No.15858377

Read the thread. A lot of people here seem to struggle with the concept.

>> No.15858960

No, I learned it from a real scientific source, I saw it on the Bill Nye TV show

>> No.15859978

Do the oil shills delete their comments to keep the thread from autosageing?

>> No.15860448

yeah its a big conspiracy, everyone is out to get you.

>> No.15860614

So you're saying that you haven't and that all of your proclaimed expertise on global warming results from things you learned watching the Bill Nye TV show.

>> No.15860644

It's the mods, but otherwise yes. The mods are /pol/tards.

>> No.15862839

Thats right, I've never studies physics and I don't understand thermodynamics at all, but all the TV channels are saying the same thing about global warming so it must be true

>> No.15862909

>mods delete anti climate change posts
>mods are /pol/ shitters
Pick 1

>> No.15862951

The only way that Mars can cool off enough to support the formation of dry ice on it's surface is if there are no greenhouse gasses in it's atmosphere to trap solar heat.
Since Mar's atmosphere is almost 100% CO2 and since Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect, that means that CO2 must not be a greenhouse gas.

>> No.15862961

attacking the source because you can't debunk the contents of the document

>> No.15863196

They delete some of the posts that break the rules after having left them up for weeks with the aim of keeping the rest of them up for weeks afterwards. They're/pol/tards. If they weren't then they'd delete posts as their reported.

>> No.15863204

Yes we get it, it's a huge conspiracy. The mods are surely out to get you. Those posts were definitely breaking the rules by saying inconvenient facts and you deserve to be able to censor them.

>> No.15863228

Spamming and racism are usually the violations that get the posts deleted. Google "rape ape 4chan mod" and see what you find.

>> No.15863259

So there's one simian moderator who deletes innocuous posts for alleged racism and alleged spam but leaves up spammy posts from NGOs?

>> No.15863264

a heavy censored propaganda outlet, not a legitimate search engine

>> No.15863392

No, he's the lead moderator who tells the other moderators how to moderate.

Then use a different search engine, schizo

>> No.15863394

>No, he's the lead moderator who tells the other moderators how to moderate.
And he tells the moderators to delete innocuous posts using allegations of racism and spam as cover for removing things he dislikes. Got it.

>> No.15863415

The point is to keep propaganda threads bumped, moron. It doesn't matter what posts get deleted for what reason because the goal is to reduce the number of posts in certain threads to keep them from autosaging.

>> No.15863418

Space jew

>> No.15863517

>theres a big conspiracy thats out to get me

>> No.15863532

Which is why he only deletes posts that expose the propaganda as false. Good point, now I understand.