Global Warming Is Easily Refutable

[Anonymous No.16001153]

I will do so here.
Bottom Line: radiative greenhouse effect is fake. Planets are not warm because of greenhouse gas. They are warm because of pressure and gravity as a factor of atmospheric mass.
Everything about the greenhouse effect concept is wrong, and almost all data showing warming has built in assumptions that the greenhouse effect is real. It's all a game of calibrating data models ALL built on an incorrect hypothesis.

First, here's how greenhouse theory works: the surface is heated by solar radiation. It then radiates to space. GHG in the atmosphere "blocks" it from leaving, heating up the air. Since air density goes down as you go up, there's less "blocking". If there more GHG, this increases the top altitude where blocking occurs. Because it gets less dense as you go up, the ability to radiate goes down. So it becomes more and more difficult for Earth to lose heat the more GHG there is.
So that's bullshit.
If it were true, then the added heat would simply change the density gradient until the heat could easily escaped. Greenhouse theory takes the density and pressure gradients as fixed somehow, but then attributes the temperature gradient to GHG. It's pick and choose, cafeteria buffet science.
IN REALITY, climate change models use the OLD theory of greenhouse effect where GHG "re-radiates" heat back to the surface, trapping and multiplying heat. This is math where you have 50% of 50% of 50% of solar radiation, approaching a mathematical limit, and that's what's "trapped" and responsible for additional heat. This is then called "G" the greenhouse factor, and it's incorporated into flat-earth integrations of the atmospheric gradient as a constant. So it's bad models hiding bad assumptions and if you argue with these people they'll CONSTANTLY just subject change or pilpul.

1/3

[Anonymous No.16001156]

>>16001153

Here's how climate actually works:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html

When the sun heats the surface, MOST energy DOES NOT radiate back into space, BUT CODUCTS into the inch or two of surface air above it. It then CONVECTS.
This is the first major flaw of the Greenhouse model, which is radiation based.

What the greenhouse model does wrong is that it simplifies Earth thermodynamics down to energy in and energy out. It treats the entire internal process from the exit point, simplifying all the math so the entire internal dynamics are erased and the starting point for climate is actually the ending point. For warmist fanatics, climate begins as radiation leaves the surface and the Earth. Uh, no, a whole bunch of shit happens before radiation leaves the atmosphere. It's not just leaving at the surface then getting "trapped". Most the energy is spreading throughout the atmosphere and leaving from every point in the atmosphere amid a set of other dynamics.

When air convects, it converts heat energy into potential energy of gravity. Potential energy does not radiate, but heat energy does.
Warmists claim the Earth must radiate out at -18C to balance energy in from the sun. Then they claim the average surface temp is 15C, so it must be explained by a greenhouse effect. Do you know how retarded this is. -18C is the FUCKING AVERAGE. It has to occur BETWEEN the surface and top of the troposphere. The potential energy stored as air masses rise and balloon out the troposphere doesn't radiate, so its balanced by MORE radiation below, AKA a hotter surface, to allow for the balanced -18C temperature somewhere in the middle.

2/3

[Anonymous No.16001158]

When potential energy is stored as air mass lifted up above its normal limit, with a tall troposphere, it means that air must fall back down. As it does, it compresses, shedding the energy as heat.
This has the effect of distributing equator heat to toward the poles.
Also, as the sun heats the surface air, it pressurizes it and pressure has to equalize across the entire SHELL of the atmosphere at any given altitude, from pole to pole and noon to midnight. This is because the pressure is determined by the weight of the atmospheric mass pressing against the sun's heating of air.
The Sun can heat air at the noontime equator to 120C!!!!!

So greenhouse theory is utter bullshit. No experiment has ever confirmed it. Some stone age jackass called Arrhenius came up with the idea in the 1800s and multiple scientists between then and the 1940s debunked it out of hand. It was only resurrected by Exxon in the 1950s in a bid to regulate the oil industry to control their rivals, but that effort failed.
Hippies like Carl Sagan picked it up again in the 1970s, then Rockefeller funded that shit through WEF, Club of Rome, and so forth.
Total fake science.

Even the fucking satellite measuring temps is biased. They say CO2 "blocks" heat loss, so a satellite can't "see" the "actual" temperature. Therefore, on the fucking satellite itself is a computer that uses a model that assumes greenhouse effect is real. They upload CO2 levels to the computer and the satellite adjusts its raw instrument reading to correct for temps it can't "see".
There's your fucking global temperature data.

Oh, but there's no global historical temp data at all. Just Europe and North America, Antarctica ice cores, and Siberian tree rings. None of this data on its own shows any correlation between CO2 and warming. However, it's only "regional" they claim. So using NO other data they "normalize, homogenize and calibrate" the global data until CO2 seems to drive warming.

3/3

[Anonymous No.16001161]

Bonus:

What they actually do, because 1950-1990 was a warming phased (1940s was as warm as 1990s), is match up CO2 levels and temp rises from 50-90, then basically fuck with the data pre-1950 (the tree rings and so forth) to make the model cause CO2 and temps to correlate. They use 1980 or some shit as a baseline.
After this model is set up, then any CO2 levels that begin to exceed 1980 levels produce model-predicted additional "anomalous" warming.
Totally fake bullshit science.

[Anonymous No.16001166]

tl;dr

[Anonymous No.16001170]

>>16001153
>>16001156
>>16001158
>>16001161
>Imagine being so retarded that you thought any of these baseless suppositions refute anything

[Anonymous No.16001174]

>>16001170
i don't have to imagine it

[Anonymous No.16001194]

>>16001174
kek. Also,
>meds: untaken
>schizobabble: engaged

[Anonymous No.16001199]

>>16001156
>Earth thermodynamics down to energy in and energy out.
Is that wrong? What else is there in the context of temperatures?

[Anonymous No.16001205]

>>16001156
>Here's how climate actually works:
>https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html
Your link has nothing to do with climate and does not support your claims.

[Anonymous No.16001226]

A reminder that people use to believe grass fed cows made more methane than grain. Why would anyone unrelated to the export of grain make such a claim in such short notice? Modern ecology is about money, not discovery. It's the same with the hippie naturalists that leave trash everywhere in the wilderness worry about the world's air being unsustainable.

[Anonymous No.16001240]

>>16001226
>cows
>ecology
Pick one, retard.

[Anonymous No.16001285]

>>16001205
You are aware that you're literally arguing with a mentally ill person, aren't you? He is like the angular momentum guy. Maybe he has some scientific or engineering background, but then mental illness took over.

[Anonymous No.16001294]

>>16001285
Sure. I felt like it would be prudent to check his link anyways so fewer retards would be convinced.

[Anonymous No.16001303]

>>16001240
Cows are an ongoing ecological debate retard.

[Anonymous No.16001311]

>>16001303
Cows have nothing to do with ecology, retard. Raising cattle is an agricultural and economic activity that takes place on managed land.

[Anonymous No.16001332]

Not saying OP isn't a schizo but can someone point out what's your with his arguments?

[Anonymous No.16001339]

it's all faggotry.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8AHkAJrpAxd4/

[Anonymous No.16001369]

>>16001332
It's all nonsense that he made up. Read some of these and compare it to his posts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_system

[Anonymous No.16001419]

>>16001311
If you think animals stop contributing to ecology just because they're raised by humans, you're one of the biggest retards on this entire site.

[Anonymous No.16001431]

>>16001332
>radiative greenhouse effect is fake. Planets are not warm because of greenhouse gas. They are warm because of pressure and gravity as a factor of atmospheric mass.
That's just schizobabble nonsense. Pressure doesn't make anything warm. Something can be pressurised and very cold. Neither does gravity. Tidal forces, yes, they can heat up a planet. But unless gravity/pressure become high enough to start fusion, they don't contribute to the thermal equilibrium of a planet.

[Anonymous No.16001467]

>>16001332
It's just babble, barely even English. You can basically pick any random sentence and it's just flat out false.

[Anonymous No.16001535]

>>16001153
reminder that insulators are used to stabilize the temperature of an object.

they do not drastically increase the temperature range like we are seeing now

[Anonymous No.16001632]

>>16001419
Wow kys

[Anonymous No.16001698]

>>16001369

These models literally input CO2 to populate non-existent temperature readings to produce a global average. They're bias confirming models, not observational data.

Too bad you're retarded and can't read footnotes.

[Anonymous No.16001700]

>>16001431
No, not all of what I presented is taken into account.
Greenhouse theory is wrong. It doesn't take atmospheric pressure effect into account. It denies it and has other explanations for certain atmospheric gradients.
It uses actually empirically false and disproven models of radiation budget and thermodynamics.

You're just saying shit to say it. Even reading my OP shows why your inane statement is weak horseshit.

[Anonymous No.16001734]

>>16001153
I doubt a random post on Mongolian basket weaving forum will refute last 70 years of progress in geosciences, but ok.
It's honestly funny, that people who have no idea what they're talking about even attempt to take on the experts. I guess humility crisis is real.

[Anonymous No.16001749]

>>16001698
>>16001700
Call your therapist. They won't be upset you stopped talking to them.

[Anonymous No.16001867]

>>16001467
What the fuck sort of non-sequitur is this?
Bro, your "sky cooling paint" is not escaping into space. It's being cooled by the upper atmosphere, in a manner of speaking.

Yes it depends on the material, etc. Most surfaces, especially water, conduct most of their heat into low air layers.
JFC you're stupid.

This has been measured and studied. The radiative budget model is false. That's now how heat actually transports from the surface, through the atmosphere, into space.

It's literally just scientific shorthand to translate a blackbody model into a big picture clouds and albedo budget.
It's not empirically validated, but is the basis of greenhouse theory.
Bullshit.
Discredited in the 1920s.

[Anonymous No.16001870]

>>16001734
Scapegoat? WTF are you talking about? There is NO warming. It's fake. Fake, biased data. The planet's climate is normal and fine. What is the scapegoat supposed to be doing?
Freaking out over a statistically normal hurricane season?
AGW myth is media hype.

Yeah the IR window is real but it doesn't matter. There's no effect on atmospheric thermodynamics. Mass of atmosphere, gravity, pressure, solar heating create climate. More or less only cloud albedo affects it otherwise in the long run.
That or geologically shallow seas.

[Anonymous No.16001874]

>>16001749
Ask yourselves,
"What if?"
What if actually greenhouse theory is complete unscientific bullshit and easily discredited?
What if the climate of Earth is easily explained through basic pressure and thermodynamic laws?

I mean, how could that be true? How could so many scientists "miss" that.
Then look at the shills and how they try to divert the conversation and how desperate they are.
Maybe it just is that simple after all. A big fat lie, easily debunked, but most humans are just retards, and most scientists are midwit conformists.

[Anonymous No.16001877]

>>16001199
Yeah so this is in the category of "even if greenhouse theory was real, CO2 just don't work that way".
Greenhouse theory falls apart in almost every way you look at it, but that doesn't mean it's not helpful to attack from every side.
Remember you have to be poor, cold and eat bugs for this dumb fake shit.

[Anonymous No.16001879]

>>16001205
Proof their global temperature models are calibrated to 1980 as the baseline for determining anomalous temps. Basically after 1980 the model stops prioritizing observational temps and instead prioritizes the CO2 warming model and tracks CO2 levels, not observational temps.

They had to calibrate at 1980 to fit the pre-1950 proxy data (so it showed cooling with less CO2, which is bullshit by the way), as well as to create this "temperature anomaly" metric.

Since CO2 doesn't actually drive temps, you have to anchor your fake CO2 model somewhere before you let it run off and generate fake warming data.

[Anonymous No.16001883]

>>16001285
They tried to debunk heat island effect. It was retarded.
They basically said, "does a measured heat island effect explain our fake temperature data created by modeling CO2 warming into a biased model? no, it doesn't, so there's no heat island effect explaining our fake model."
Completely retarded study.

Heat island effect is real.
So you have Roy Spencer who is called a lukewarmist because he pretends to believe in greenhouse theory and CO2 driving temps. He just doesn't think they drive temps that much.
Even HE points out that NASA is biasing the observational data to juice their models.

The models are calibrated to 1980, so the more time passes since then, it has to get hotter and hotter. At some point, the observational regional data, even though its normalized, homogenized and calibrated into fake global data, that regional data will start pulling down the warming signal because the two are so fucking divergent. So NASA in 2016 had to start juicing the observational data.

What they did was find the hottest reading in a region, and then say "oh the other readings are much colder, so we're just going to assume they're wrong and make them match the hot one". So they calibrate data to fit a regional test case, which inevitably is urban with the "cold" temps being rural
>but they didn't measure accurately with consistent procedures.
Bruh, then you have to adjust according to that premise, not use it as an excuse to just make all the cold readings match the one hot reading, WTF.

The whole science is full of absolute shit it's embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.16001884]

>>16001870
Sir, your chatbot broke.

[Anonymous No.16001886]

>>16001339
Lol, no they're just drinking the kool-aid.
Scientists are retarded.
They believe in dark matter even though it's been disproven by quantized inertia.

[Anonymous No.16001889]

>>16001884
>it's a well-established scientific principle backed by extensive research
There's actually zero experimental evidence for it, and a decent amount of experimental evidence disproving it.

Nice chatgpt

[Anonymous No.16001891]

>>16001889
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.16001898]

>>16001419
You are legit retarded.

[Anonymous No.16001904]

>>16001698
Nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16001907]

>>16001879
That link has nothing to do with climate or climate models.

[Anonymous No.16001912]

>>16001891
Why did you post lukewarmists when we're showing how the greenhouse effect is disproven through basic science.

[Anonymous No.16001915]

>>16001904
oil doesn't harm the planet at all. So you're full of shit

[Anonymous No.16001922]

>>16001907
F to doubt.
You're just hearing about global warming in the news while hot in the summer and imagining it's worse because when you were a kid you weren't paying attention.

[Anonymous No.16001926]

>>16001915
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.16001927]

>>16001926
The pressure of a 1 m3 surface pocket of air is caused by the weight of the column of air on top of it. Weight = airmass * gravity.
When you heat up the surface, that pressure can't change because neither the mass above nor gravity changes.
However, as you go up into the atmosphere, pressure does change due to convection and conversion of heat energy into potential energy.

Now, in reality, you can't think in terms of meter cubes. You have to think that the pressure in one inch by one meter square of air can fill a full meter cube if the density decreases due to higher heat.
So adding heat to the Earth's atmosphere alters the atmospheric gradient with gravity and atmospheric mass moderating how that alteration occurs.

NOTHING THE FUCK TO DO WITH GREENHOUSE GASSES.
All IR active gasses do is convect faster. They actually cool the weather (minimal effect on climate).
Rainforests and the ocean see lower daily high temps, which occur a couple hours sooner than dry deserts.
That's the effect of IR active gas AKA water vapor.

[Anonymous No.16001930]

>>16001922
Are you illiterate? Read that link. It doesn't have anything to do with climate or climate modeling.

[Anonymous No.16001933]

>>16001927
Take your meds. That's not how any of that works.

[Anonymous No.16001934]

>>16001930
Peak dunning kruger.
If you take a column of air which has mass, plus gravity, that's an unchangeable amount of force. The pressure of air under that mass is FIXED, period.
Because if the pressure of air under that mass increases, some will escape until the pressure equalizes.
This results in changes to the density gradient.

Holy fucking shit it's in the Feynman lecture I linked in OP you are a turbo dumbass.

[Anonymous No.16001936]

>>16001933
Your reading comprehension skills suck.

Radiation escapes to space from throughout the atmospheric gradient. More down where it's hotter, less up top. However, the average in the middle corresponds to the blackbody model predicted energy out.

When surface radiation hits IR active gas and is absorbed, that gas convects up the general pressure gradient, doing work against gravity.
It either radiates out anyway at some point just higher up OR it converts to potential energy, which means when the convection cells bring that air back down to the surface at the tropic, it compresses and converts back to heat.
So, instead of radiating to space from the equator, it radiates from the tropics. That's call convective heat transport. It's why and how water moderates Earth's climate.
It is not a matter of heat being "trapped". It all gets out.
There's no radiative greenhouse effect creating warming, lol wtf

[Anonymous No.16001963]

"The greenhouse effect" is such a stupid idea. Greenhouses work because they have a physical barrier which prevents convective cooling. No gas can reproduce that effect, gasses are subject to convection

[Anonymous No.16002077]

>>16001153
>>16001156
>>16001158
OP please dont reply to these retards who do nothing but troll. I agree with you, And the link you posted in 2/3 is genius. dont let these lower iq brainlets get the best of you. for you brainlets, he just showed you the physics behind his claim. its an interesting point. but you also need MORE evidence, not for these brainlets who just agree on mainstream conclusions telling you, youre a schizo because their 110 iq cant understand your conclusions, but to disprove, analyze, and conclude even further. i have some questions too. if the warming of temperatures is a natural occurrence, how can we(humans hope fully without the brainlets that called you schizo) live or adapt to this?

[Anonymous No.16002082]

>50 years ago
>Oil companies admit in internal memos that emissions cause global warming but it would be better for profits if there were a competing narrative
>today
>"Global Warming Is Easily Refutable"
If it was easily refutable it'd have been easily refuted fifty years ago OP

[Anonymous No.16002085]

>>16001369
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

[Anonymous No.16002087]

>>16002082
keep in anon oil companies ruled the world

[Anonymous No.16002088]

>>16001153
>They are warm because of pressure and gravity as a factor of atmospheric mass.
Stopped reading.
You're retarded.
Next.

[Anonymous No.16002094]

>>16002088
hey brainlet if you know any physics gravity does that too. and also yes heat can come from other sources but what he's saying is the earths gravity has something to do with it. its called science derive questions(which he did) and make conclusions(thus his aurguments) i swear i stopped 4chan for awhile now you zoomies and brainlets have cluttered this board fuck off brainlet

[Anonymous No.16002100]

this board i9s officially full of trans faggotry and brainlet logic fed by mainstream science(refering to the ones who called OP schizo cause their IQ's cant comprehend his conclusions)

[Anonymous No.16002148]

>>16001332
mercury is smaller than the earth and is 5x hotter on average, venus is further away from the sun than mercury but is hotter than mercury on average

[Anonymous No.16002152]

>>16002148
are they on goldilocks zone anon? are they?

[Anonymous No.16002485]

>>16002082
Nope. Exxon, BP are owned by the people who fund the Club of Rome and WEF and NASA.
"Climate deniers" is a niche lobbying arm of Koch brothers money. Most of them are lukewarmists who believe in the greenhouse effect. They are "part of the club"

[Anonymous No.16002486]

>>16002087
Imagine believing that what the WEF, international finance, BlackRock, the Fed and everyone else is supporting (net zero carbon reduction) are the good guys.

[Anonymous No.16002488]

>>16002085
Oh, sorry data BTFO your stupid opinion

[Anonymous No.16002490]

>>16002088
Lol what about when it was hot in the 1930s and 1940s.
Everyone know climate warmed from 1960s to 1990s. Just inconveniently it was also hot before then when, um, there was less CO2

[Anonymous No.16002492]

>>16001194
>a good argument too difficult for me to understand
>schizo
Oh fuck off

[Anonymous No.16002565]

>>16002490
What about that time? There was a strong El Niño from 1939 until 1942, do you mean that?

[Anonymous No.16002570]

>>16002565
Right, and temperatures PEAKED in the 30s and 40s, then BOTTOMED in the mid-60s. Holy shit the pilpul.

Yeah what's a year anyway? All years are every year fuck it. It's all warming, fuck it morty

[Barkon No.16002571]

>>16002570
Why is sci so retarded?

[Anonymous No.16002575]

>>16002571
1947 is after the peak, dumbass.
Explain to me how 1-2 degrees of warming globally can change regional climate by 10s of degrees.

The religious basis of global warming was based on the 1990s models which predicted (never observed even today) CO2 "hotspots" and global average temperature increases of 5-10 degrees.
The models were calibrated to 1980, so any CO2 increase after 1980 was supposed to spike temps in their models, so by the 1990s they were predicting insane fucking temperatures because the models are bullshit.
That was the premise behind extreme changes to weather driven by climate change.

They've had to fucking milk every last bit of data fuckery they can to get the 1-2 average temp increase they have now, and they're STILL arguing it will cause the same massive changes to weather patterns they were predicting with 5-10 degrees increase.

Holy shit. You fuckers don't even pay attention to your own shit. It's all hype and retardation and intellectual laziness.

Also, UK academics are pozzed turbo homo masons. The way they defend dark matter bullshit is unbelievable. Fucking satanist cunt demon dick suckers. Fuck UK science. You let the cock gobblers and kid diddlers in and let them take over and didn't do shit you fucking smoothbrained "know your place" turbo faggot tory redcoat royalist faggots.

[Anonymous No.16002598]

>>16002570
Your therapist will be upset when she learns you haven't been taking your meds.

[Anonymous No.16002600]

>>16002575
>least unhinged climate change denier

[Anonymous No.16002615]

>>16002598
No, jesus christ.
The height of the troposphere is driven by solar energy in. It's not affected by GHG composition.

In order for GHG to alter the climate of Earth, the blackbody model after energy out -18C would have to rise up to the top of the troposphere. Only then would the atmosphere lose the ability to fully radiate out solar energy.
Guess what would happen though, the height of the troposphere would just rise first. Holy fucking shit.

Heat to the tropics does not alter climate. It just moderates weather at the fucking tropics. Jesus fucking christ.

GHG causes local cooling, and doesn't contribute to warming or changes to climate whatsoever.
Water vapor, say when injected in the upper atmosphere from a volcano, can temporarily modify climate until things settle, but it doesn't do so through its IR absorption abilities. Rather through its ability to do latent heat retention.

[Anonymous No.16002624]

>>16002600
>checked
right back at you

[Anonymous No.16002626]

>>16002615
Yes. She prescribed those meds for a reason, mate.

[Anonymous No.16002630]

>>16002626
Now you're full pilpul.
Fuck off shill.

[Anonymous No.16002794]

>>16002600
The atmospheric gasses are too cold.
They scatter radiation toward the surface that has too low of a frequency density to add energy back to the surface.
When this energy hits the surface, it is re-emitted without being absorbed.
The process of radiation, re-radiation, re-emission, then escape to space takes less than half a second at the speed of light.

There is no heat trapping or greenhouse effect from this phenomenon.
Learn physics.
Look at the Planck curve.
Stop being a nonce.

[Anonymous No.16002801]

>>16002794
>When this energy hits the surface, it is re-emitted without being absorbed.
If it was re-emittrd then it had to be absorbed first. Christ, do you actually think about what you're saying? Clearly not. I think you are trying to say reflected, and no the albedo is not 1 at any wavelength.

[Anonymous No.16002805]

>>16002801
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. It is IR active. It has a limited ability to absorb IR radiation and agitate then re-emit.
It's not a greenhouse gas because there's no greenhouse effect.
When re-scattered radiation from a colder atmosphere hits the surface, that radiation is not absorbed. The energy level of the surface is unaffected. The radiation just bounces back to space. At worst, it is absorbed again at the height it was emitted, or higher. Heat escapes up only, not down.
The hypothesis of radiative greenhouse effect is built on a false premise and they knew this since the 1910s.

[Anonymous No.16002807]

>>16002801
Not how that works. Not that same guy but that is not how that works. Thermodynamically they are 2 seperate things.

[Anonymous No.16002809]

>>16002807
What is two separate things? I'm aware re-emission and reflection are different, I didn't imply they were the same

>>16002805
>The radiation just bounces back to space.
Show me some data to support this. Who measured the albedo at 1 at these wavelengths?

[Anonymous No.16002812]

>>16002809
>What is two separate things? I'm aware re-emission and reflection are different, I didn't imply they were the same

I am referring to absorptivity and reflectivity. They are two seperare parameters. For any object hit by radiation the sum of the transmisstivitty, absorptivity, and reflectivity is 1. Your post implied to me they were the same, but I could be wrong.

[Anonymous No.16002816]

>>16002809
Titan fits the pattern. Less solar energy in, high albedo.
It's covered in fucking Methane snow but still approaches the pressure driven expectation.

[Anonymous No.16002817]

>>16002812
I didn't imply that, or I didn't mean to. He's talking about "re-emission without absorption", which is nonsense. What he is trying to describe is just reflection, no absorption. So he needs an albedo of 1, reflectivity of 1 for there to be no abortion.

[Anonymous No.16002820]

>>16002816
No. I asked you for measurements of the Earths albedo which support your claim that there is no absorption. Put up or shut up.

[Anonymous No.16002821]

>>16002820
Nikolov and Zeller
They published initially with their names spelled backwards and it passed peer review. Then someone figured out it was them and complained, and THEN the paper retracted it.
Lol, alarmist science is so gay.

[Anonymous No.16002827]

>>16002821
Post the paper link and cite the figure showing this measurement.

[Anonymous No.16002831]

>>16002827
Greenhouse effect has never been demonstrated experimentally, quite the opposite.
https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/11/25/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/

[Anonymous No.16002845]

>>16002831
That's not a paper. It seems you've given up trying to support your claims.

[Anonymous No.16002847]

>>16002831
NTA, but what even is this shit?

[Anonymous No.16002858]

>>16002847
Terminal autism.

>>16002831
>“Greenplate Effect”
Not even testing the greenhouse effect at all. Try harder.

[Anonymous No.16002860]

>>16002845
Carbon emissions affect the climate jack and shit.

[Anonymous No.16002861]

>>16002847
Just marketing.
Although, science is 1000% gatekept by these niggers.
They, unlike the idiotic claim of warmist cheerleaders, have all the money and institutional power.

[Anonymous No.16002862]

>>16002858
If the black body model energy out temperature is below the highest level that air can convect, no energy is being trapped, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.16002893]

>>16002862
Convection doesn't happen in space, retard. There's effectively no air to convect.

[Anonymous No.16002895]

>>16002485
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.16002896]

>>16001698
>not observational data
Are you retarded? There's decades of observational data on this.

[Anonymous No.16002898]

>>16001936
That's still not how any of that works, retard. Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.16002899]

>>16002893
Greenhouse gas is a misnomer. They are IR active gasses. GHG is just a colloquialism.

Cold air has lower frequency density than hot surface. It doesn't really depend since for most of the atmosphere the surface will always be hotter than high altitude.
Look up physics dumbass. Planck's curve. Cold objects don't radiate as much high frequency radiation. That's what frequency density means.

On Earth, heat goes up. Because space is cold, and the surface is hot by converting solar IR at a VERY high frequency density to heat.

[Anonymous No.16002901]

>>16001934
That's not how any of that works and that link has nothing to do with climate or climate modeling. Go back to freshman physics.

[Anonymous No.16002902]

>>16002805
I hope people making this board aggressively more stupid are at least getting paid to deny basic empirical data on gas properties.

[Anonymous No.16002903]

>>16002895
What oil conglomerate? Identify them and their owners.

[Anonymous No.16002905]

>>16002896
No. The greenhouse effect has never been experimentally demonstrated. If you think it has, you're dumb. You've misinterpreted the result of a poorly conceived experiment.

[Anonymous No.16002909]

>>16002899
>Cold air has lower frequency density than hot surface.
No, Heisenberg means the cold air has higher momentum uncertainty principle. Learn physics. Wiens law.

[Anonymous No.16002914]

>>16002905
>NOOOO a property of CO2 that has been observed since the 1800's and has extensive observational data of increasing the heat of the atmosphere is fake because I say so :(
I hope you're getting paid for this faggot

[Anonymous No.16002945]

>>16002898
If air can convect above the average line, then it can do work against gravity, up to a place where it still can radiate.
The fact that the blackbody model average is below where air can convect means no heat is being trapped.
If any radiation is "trapped" below that line by IR absorption, then those molecules will migrate up above that line and continue to radiate.
While this creates potential energy, it's balanced by the heat at the surface. In a thought experiment, you can imagine a molecule radiating less but then falling down and colliding with more similar molecules as they compress, creating heat that radiates more.

The total potential energy the atmosphere can carry is a factor of insolation, the energy source, not gasses which alter the internal configuration. Energy budget retard.
All IR absorbing gasses do is cool surface temperatures faster in the day night cycle.

[Anonymous No.16002947]

>>16002909
This is where greenhouse effect bullshit peaks. The pressure gradient is not caused by radiative heat trapping, which doesn't exist. It's caused by gravity, insolation and pressure laws.
You are an absolute idiot.

The "insulation" you're thinking of is accomplished by the conversion of heat into potential energy which is a natural consequence of warming gas under gravity with an external heat source.
Learn basic science HOLY FUCK

[Anonymous No.16002949]

>>16002901
Heat gives gas kinetic energy. Kinetic energy does work against gravity, converting into potential energy. Potential energy doesn't radiate. This is balanced by a surface temperature exceeding the blackbody average.

Learn science fuckwit.

[Anonymous No.16002951]

>>16002902
So you're just shilling talking points at me, what a genius.
>somehow they still manage to catch covid and not the flu
Yeah because it's 10x as infectious dumbass what do you think that means, holy shit.

>Thermos
Has nothing to do with radiative greenhouse effect.

[Anonymous No.16002952]

>>16002914
And heat transfers by conduction from one material to another. So the heat of the surface gives kinetic energy to the air

I'M FUCKING DONE WITH YOUR RETARDED PILPUL GOALPOST MOVING ASS

[Anonymous No.16002957]

>>16002949
>>16002945
>>16002899
Again, that's not how any of that works. Back to freshman physics.

[Anonymous No.16002981]

>>16002945
>>16002949
Instead of just guessing why don't you calculate how much energy is "stored" by convection.

[Anonymous No.16002994]

>>16002952
>clear, direct observations of more incoming radiance fro the atmosphere
>but what about the ground :(
Absolutely retarded

[Anonymous No.16002999]

>>16002957
Yeah basically not wrong.

[Anonymous No.16003000]

>>16002994
Yeah I was trying to say that but these shills were smart enough not to take that bait.
It's not only that they're sealed containers, it's also that the heat lamp heats the container wall which conducts heat into CO2 which is also denser than N and so of course it will retain more heat. Stupid experiment.

[Anonymous No.16003009]

>>16002981
>Why Venus, poles?
Nigger, you tell me. Describe to me Venus's advective convection cells and how they're structured. Tell me how a fake "greenhouse" effect has anything to do with that.

[Anonymous No.16003036]

>>16003009
Who the fuck are you quoting?
I asked you for a calculation of this energy. You're the one who baselessly asserts this balances everything. We'll go ahead.

[Anonymous No.16003084]

>>16003000
>still talking about irrelevant shit when there's direct evidence of increasing radiance incoming FROM HE ATMOSPHERE due to rising CO2 levels

[Anonymous No.16003089]

>>16003084
There not being warming in Romanian summers for 50 years is not me lying with statistics.

[Anonymous No.16003095]

>>16003036
>magnetic pole shift
>micronova
>incoherent babble about lodestones
>OP is a faggot don't read his cogent debunking of climate change using basic science, trust me kids I also think global warming is fake but I don't not listen to scientists.

Goddamn. What if you niggers all got a real job?

[Anonymous No.16003122]

>>16003095
Oh look. More deflection. More quotes from the voices in your head.
That's two giant assumptions that we have demonstrated you cannot defend.

[Anonymous No.16003144]

>>16003122
>changing the substance of a fluid
Not when the blackbody model energy out is below the system's coldest temperature. That means all the energy is effectively radiating out.
>Substance of a fluid
Changing it 0.0001% is not significant.

[Anonymous No.16003151]

>>16001153
Lmao, your effortpost is entirely wasted on this board.

[Anonymous No.16003160]

>>16003089
lmao you gypsies don't even have records from 50 years ago. How can you claim anything about Romanian summers?

[Anonymous No.16003184]

>>16003160
I think COVID was real but they weren't supposed to actually track the numbers.
So they wanted to get 99% infected, and so the 1% getting sick would seem like this sudden nightmare and no one would realize that basically everyone had been infected since it was so mild.

They wanted MORE lockdowns and stronger enforcement of vaccine passports. The goal wasn't necessarily to vax people. The vax is a bit toxic, but that's them being greedy fucks not trying to kill us.
What they wanted was subscription medicine that ties to political rights and economic privileges. Triple whammy of goodgoy credit score enforcement.

What fucked it up is people rogue tested in the US spilling the beans, then some actor or agent released Omicron which gave everyone good T-cell immunity and nerfed the (mild) death rates completely.

I'd love to know who is competing against whom.
But, the virus was real.
Social distancing actually worked. You niggers act surprised that there was no flu in 2020. It's not that infectious and people were staying home, working from home.
That also seriously suppressed the wuhan strain.

They wanted to delay the lockdowns until more people got sick.
You get 80% of a city infected because no one is distancing, you end up with a Wuhan hospital crisis.
They wanted lockdowns AFTER the crisis hit.
Their shit fucked up.
They had to lockdown with a like 10% of the population infected or less and so that shit never spread.
Hahahahahahaha.
Then someone made Omicron and it overtook the original virus.

[Anonymous No.16003186]

>>16003184
Sir, this is a global warming thread. Keep your covidbabble in one of the covid threads.

[Anonymous No.16003193]

>>16001153
>>16001156
>>16001158
>>16001161
I believe this. It’s not only very thorough but it also cites actual lectures from real scientists instead of pulp fiction pops i dreamed up by lobbyist funded government bureaucrats and laundered through billion dollar corporate publishing houses. Thanks, OP

[Anonymous No.16003307]

>>16003186
JFC
You niggers are obsessed with this shit. It's a mental illness.

1) The virus wasn't that bad
2) The vax should never have been approved and is toxic
3) The pandemic was a scam

However,

1) The original virus was uniquely infectious and harmful. Mostly infectious. It mostly harmed older people. It spread via super spreaders, and only in enclosed spaces. This made it very easy to mitigate. Places like Wuhan where people were taking no precautions and spend close knit dinners together saw plenty of spreading
2) The vax wasn't designed to kill, whatever it was designed for. The excess deaths are only proof that it's toxic and shouldn't have been approved. They're far from catastrophic. You niggers can't downplay virus deaths but then turn on a heel and kvetch over a few vax deaths of about the same number. The problem is the cover up and corrupt medical system, not some red deer shit.
3) The scamdemic failed, but that doesn't mean the next virus won't kill or that you're not retarded knee-jerk monkeys who follow hype online without looking at the full picture.

[Anonymous No.16003607]

>>16003307
1) the n-word is racist
2) I don't listen to racists

[Anonymous No.16003767]

>>16003607
No faggot. Staying home and not going to parties or bars with dozens of people in close quarters works.
Half of the work force working from home works.

[Anonymous No.16003871]

>>16002947
but anon, the vacuum of space is cold, and as the atmospheric air goes up, with less air being present and nowhere else to get energy from, the air cools adiabetically. Meaning that the air becomes colder as you go up and goes against whatever rant you did earlier.
>what about my one hypothetical atom losing energy?
It doesn't matter as we're dealing with a large number ensemble in our case, the molecule will just bump into one another and statistical mechanics dominate rather than the individual atoms doing work instead. Please read up on undergraduate stat mech next time to not embarass yourself.

[Anonymous No.16003883]

>>16003151
It's because this board is filled with pseudointellectuals that wants to feel smarter than the normies through many ways. Some manifest it by extrapolating misunderstanding like OP and some do it by harrassing misunderstood people away from science instead (meds-posting without constructive criticisms on where OP has gone wrong).
All in all, a perfect environment to grow and nurture genuinely bizarre conspiracy theories (since people are too stupid to deconstruct it completely while still being emotional attached enough to give people like OP a "cause" and "martyrdom".

[Anonymous No.16003987]

>>16003883
i’m smarter and more diplomaed than you (from a better university,too) and i like the new theory better than the old one. sorry to unbubble you

[Anonymous No.16004016]

>>16003987
ah degeneracy at its peak.... huhuhuhu

[Anonymous No.16004030]

>>16001170
LMAO. As always you have no arguments at all, just as expected from climate cultists.

[Anonymous No.16004032]

>>16003607
Racism is good, you stupid moron.

[Anonymous No.16004044]

>>16004016
At least you didn’t deny it, good on you
>>16004032
Too broad, extended family is good. Race is for faggots who want to get buttfucked more tenderly in prison

[Anonymous No.16004399]

The funniest part is big oil is the one funding this climate change shit, go to any of their websites what's the first thing that pops up, " moving toward a lower carbon future." yeah so they can drive the price up when the demand increases ten-fold because of the gay restrictions. Weird how Chernobyl and 3-mile island just happened to have sticky valves on the exhaust. Take your meds you oil shell shill low iq homo deux limp wrist faggots. Money does not make you smart. Have any of you even changed a tire? Can you hold a shovel without getting an ouchie?

[Anonymous No.16004401]

>>16003871
boyles law you retard

[Anonymous No.16004415]

>>16003883
>harrassing misunderstood people away from science
As if science were a religion.

[Anonymous No.16004431]

>>16002957
>dads holding the baseball
>if only i had a son
>jk we know he left your whore mother
> sophmore math/cs major with c average
>you have the audacity to challenge me?

[Anonymous No.16004432]

>>16003883
I got aids from this. women or minority?

[Anonymous No.16004435]

Ir absorption of co2 is less than aslphalt? is assphalt a greenhouse gas!?! ahh we must stop the road! to the hammers men! and bring your new pink leather gloves!

[Anonymous No.16004671]

>>16003871
No, Denmark had far fewer infections than Sweden.
Spanish lockdowns didn't work because Latins are retard extroverts that ignore formal authority and can't help but partying and congregating all fucking day.
If they made you go to the office like in Japan, then you would have caught it there.

The only way in which I'm wrong is via some lockdown countries had spikes later because the population didn't develop T cell immunity.
COVID severity depended on the viral load of infected (weak immune system bro will breathe out more particles), and viral does of infectee (did you get a few particles for 3 minutes on the train, or did you get a fuck ton sitting face to face for 2 hours).
Light viral loads create low viral doses create low viral loads. It's a way to inoculate a population.

That said, Sweden and Japan just fucking lied about a lot of their statistics because their cultures are based on face and lying to avoid public drama.
In the end, we're talking about mostly old people and a few fats dying from this shit.

There were young people who did die of the original variant up until like March/April 2020 after the other strains came. They typically died of strokes from bloodclots after a fever after half the office got fevers but only one person was allowed to be tested for COVID (Japan for example).

Anyway, when the real virus comes out you retards are dying first.

[Anonymous No.16004672]

>>16001153
Sabine Hossenfelder has gone full YouTuber. Sad

[Anonymous No.16004751]

>>16004431
>>16004030
>>16003193
>>16003089
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.16004979]

>>16004751
You have to correct for culture dumbass. The virus spreads when large groups congregate, not when the government passes a law or not. Swedes are introverts who social distanced before COVID.

[Anonymous No.16004987]

>>16001153
not a climate physicist
-END OF THREAD-

[Anonymous No.16005298]

>>16004399

[Anonymous No.16005318]

>>16004401
Boyle's law describes a confined gas you idiot.
Also we're talking about pressure and temperature here, why would Boyle's law (P_1 V_1 = P_2 V_2$) even help in our case?
>>16004671
sir your 4chanGPT appears to be bugged, please don't contact me again.
>>16004415
But anon, define what is science to me? Genuinely asking to see you what think science is. You do know that this is a systematic approach for understanding the world right? Genuinely stupid approach or emotional baggage will only hinder any systematic approach anon.
>>16004432
>I got aids from this.
Anon, you can't get aids through a screen silly, you probably got it from your own unhealthy sexual habits instead :)

[Anonymous No.16005796]

>>16004432
why not both?

[Anonymous No.16005802]

>>16005318
>But anon, define what is science to me? Genuinely asking to see you what think science is. You do know that this is a systematic approach for understanding the world right? Genuinely stupid approach or emotional baggage will only hinder any systematic approach anon
Science is a discipline, not a worldview, you utter moron. It's something you do, not something you believe; and most of what is done now is in service to beliefs which is the exact problem.

[Anonymous No.16005804]

>>16002485
>"Climate deniers" is a niche lobbying arm of Koch brothers money
You guys will do some pretty big mental gymnastics to always make your narrative the right one (in your mind).

[Anonymous No.16005928]

>>16005318
>If ur approach hurtz my feefees its le stoopid
You have to go back

[Anonymous No.16006609]

>>16005796
kys racist

[Anonymous No.16007424]

>>16006609

[Anonymous No.16007458]

>>16001431
If I understand what he’s saying, I think he means the atmosphere would expand as it warmed thus allowing the trapped heat to more easily escape. The warm air decreases in density.

[Anonymous No.16007671]

For the longest time the only argument alarmists had was
>urrr but there's no competing theory so it has to be true
Now that a competing theory has been formulated by respectable and accredited scientists
>NOOO NOT THIS KIND OF COMPETING THEORY NOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.16007676]

>>16007671
The actual worst part is there was a competing theory to global warming, only now alarmists insist nobody ever believed in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRqr9_jw5I

[Anonymous No.16007683]

>>16005298
It's almost like the establishment just created climate change out of thin air, anyone wanna place bets on the failure at three-mile island?

[Anonymous No.16007694]

Now why are arctic areas colder, and why during periods where they receive less sunlight do the areas further away from equator get cold?

[Anonymous No.16007696]

>>16004671
You’re not wrong on most of your takes, but what does this have to do with global warming?

[Anonymous No.16007836]

>>16007696
>MUH TOPIC
grow up

[Anonymous No.16008036]

>>16007458
>>16007671
>>16007676
>>16007683
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.16008307]

>>16008036
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.16008440]

>>16008036
Holy shit you're peak globushomus

[Anonymous No.16008523]

>>16002952
Heat transfer from a solid to a fluid is by convection. Heat transfer from a solid to another solid in physical contact is by conduction.

[Anonymous No.16008739]

>>1600803
(You)

[Anonymous No.16008751]

Everything absorbs ir. CO2 is also by mol symmetrical and asymmetrical in the range of 50 percent at a given time. So symmetrical absorbs~2349 cm^-1 and asymmetrical is ~667cm^-1. Hahaha even if the ir absorption feedback bs is true you'd have to half the "remitted ir" hahaha haha

[Anonymous No.16009768]

>>16007683
>its almost like people in the energy sector created global warming as a means to justify higher costs for energy

[Anonymous No.16009905]

>>16008307
>>16008440
Both of you need psychiatric help and medication.

[Anonymous No.16009909]

>>16001153
You're understanding is flawed on a fundamental level.

The re-radiated energy is a different (lower) frequency than the primary radiation.

The lower frequency energy is reflected more than the higher frequency energy.

/greenhouse effect, all you need to know

[Anonymous No.16009920]

>>16009909
>greenhouse effect
greenhouses function by using a solid barrier that prevents convective cooling, no free floating gas can reproduce that effect, gasses are subject to convection

[Anonymous No.16009921]

>>16009920
You are legit retarded

[Anonymous No.16009947]

>>16009905
You're trying to deny you're globularhomular?

[Anonymous No.16009961]

>>16009921
You are if you think that global warming deniers are both serious and mentally sane. Treat them like the trolls and schizos they are. Don’t let the, troll you and if they are really seriously believing what they’re spewing (maybe 10% of them, i guess), it doesn’t matter that you treat them badly. So, insult them, waste their time, pretend to be dumb, just give them a taste of their own medicine. I like posting things about global warming that have a true core but have an inherent flaw to watch their reaction. Like the al gore plot of the correlation of co2 and temperature. That’s like dumping a wheelbarrow load of bananas in the chimp cage. They go completely mental.

[Anonymous No.16009973]

>>16009961
Post screen caps of you ever doing this or it didn't happen.

[Anonymous No.16010466]

>>16009973
Y-you jokin?

[Anonymous No.16010744]

>>16009961
In my experience they never engage with anything to any degree. They just ignore what you've posted and hammer out some inane bullshit for you to respond to. It doesn't matter if what you typed has flaws or is 100% correct, they'll just post some stupid nonsense about tarmacs or plants being magic energy sinks and they are incapable of understanding the gaping holes in their logic. I certainly hope they're just trolling, but I'm pretty sure they're just retards who decided to make /sci/ their platform.

[Anonymous No.16010747]

>>16010744
If you're putting in too much effort, they ignore you. They probably know that they're wrong, so they have nothing left once that's clear. They ignore you and open a new thread. But if you're ALSO slightly wrong, that gives them the opportunity to chimp out.

[Anonymous No.16010754]

>>16010744
Retard cultist moment. The less you respond to criticism and just act smugly superior, the more science will be outright rejected as dogma because you don't engage in good faith. The more you cast aside facts such as news reports, historical research, historical data graphs, and so on as "not real science, only modern science matters, only modern prediction matters", the more climate change looks like pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.16010773]

>>16010747
They don't ignore me, they just type out something completely irrelevant like >>16010754

It's like trying to argue with a recording. It literally doesn't matter what you say.

[Anonymous No.16010781]

>>16010773
Yeah, that's also a well known tactic. They have a handful of images they repost over and over again, mostly local newspaper articles from the 70s where some villager is quoted with "last winter ma dingdong almost got frozen off like never before". This is then spun into
>it used to be global cooling
>then it was the ozone hole
>then it was global warming
>then it was climate change
Followed by some wild conspiratorial conclusion. Sometimes I tell them that it was George W. Bush's administration who pushed the narrative of calling it "climate change" because change sounds less frightening than warming. Or that global cooling was never scientific consensus. The latter does little but sometimes trigger them to post a second newspaper article.

[Anonymous No.16010784]

>>16010781
I'm familiar with the tactics. I think they're actual shills from a troll farm. /sci/ always gets worse when there's an election year.

[Anonymous No.16010785]

>>16010773
>"He criticized my view of scientific discourse? Not relevant. lol, I'm so smart. :^)"
And slowly, I disbelieve climate change a little more.
>>16010781
So an ever changing environmental crisis isn't relevant? We should only care about what is being talked about today, and treat anything talked about yesterday as just "mass media hysteria"? So basically, just wait for climate change to blow over?
Surely you must understand how insane this sounds.

[Anonymous No.16010787]

>>16010785
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.16010791]

>>16010787
Since you don't want to engage, I'll just ask more questions.
Why is it that polar bears were facing imminent extinction a few years ago and then, when that tactic no longer captured public interest, all news about the phenomenon stopped?
Are polar bears still in danger of extinction, or has this too blown over?

[Anonymous No.16010794]

>>16010791
Polar bears are a vulnerable species and will likely go extinct. Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.16010796]

>>16010791
>all news about
NTA but assuming he's also a scientist, neither of us control the news. Maybe you should ask those questions on a board dedicated to news. I don't even recall when they were supposedly facing imminent extinction. When was that? Maybe we can pull up some old numbers and help you understand what was going on.

[Anonymous No.16010797]

>>16010794
Why is their population increasing in the high arctic but decreasing in land areas then?
https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-population/
>in before 'not real science'

[Anonymous No.16010799]

>>16010797
Learn what a 'vulnerable species' is. The process of going extinct does not mean that your population cannot ever rise, it means that it trends downward until it reaches 0. Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.16010800]

>>16010797
>globe warms
>polar bears migrate to colder regions
>Why is their population increasing in the high arctic but decreasing in land areas then?
Truly a mystery.

[Anonymous No.16010801]

>>16010800
>arctic ice is melting
>high arctic shows improving population
>areas near human populations miraculously are only areas of decline
No alternate theories allowed, of course, only cult.

[Anonymous No.16010803]

>>16010801
So you agree that humans are destroying their habitat? Great, that's what they scientists have been saying for year. What's your complaint?

[Anonymous No.16010805]

>>16010801
>humans settle where it's the least cold
>the least cold areas are the first that become uninhabitable in a warming environment
>it can't be simple thermodynamics, it must be us
American exceptionalism is really rotting people's minds.

[Anonymous No.16010809]

>>16010803
Human activity disrupts animal habitats, of course. It crowds out their habitat, disrupts their prey, and in the case of polar bears they become an unwanted pest of garbage sites, which leads to a vicious cycle of maladaptive and confrontational behavior.
Is this a surprising statement to you?

>>16010805
Can you read a map?
>Bearing Strait: Stable population
>Beafort Sea: Declining, major hub of human activity
>Mclintock channel: Increasing
>Foxe Basin: Stable
All of these are the same latitude. If the "ice melt drives polar bear northern migration" were true, we'd see a decline across this latitude, not the opposite.

[Anonymous No.16010812]

>>16010809
So you agree with the scientists who've been telling you that polar bears are a vulnerable species. Great. What's your complaint?

[Anonymous No.16010816]

>>16010809
>All of these are the same latitude
But not the same temperature you dingus. They're moving from warm to cold. If you are interested in the species as a whole you shouldn't focus at "decreasing" or "increasing" local populations which will always be driven by migration. Look at the total numbers.

[Anonymous No.16010817]

>>16010812
Looks like the population is increasing to me, and human urbanization is driving local decline. Isn't this good news? Why isn't the media celebrating this?
>>16010816
Population is increasing.

[Anonymous No.16010818]

>>16010817
And yet they're still a vulnerable species and are still very likely to go extinct. How is that a cause for celebration in any way shape or form? Did you grow up in the generation of participation trophies?

[Anonymous No.16010819]

>>16010817
inb4 I ask for a source and you post this:
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.336X8XE

[Anonymous No.16010822]

>>16010818
Go extinct why? Because of ice melt?
>>16010819
I actually prefer to use the first result on google.
Really, it seems like things are improving since 2010.
https://www.grida.no/resources/7757

[Anonymous No.16010824]

Anyway, it's amazing no other explanation is possible other than climate change. And such proof too, like "nothing" and "but we debunked you already". Very scientific. Not cultish at all. Reminds me of how Christian evangelicals use terms like "Jesus loves you" over and over again.

[Anonymous No.16010830]

>>16010822
Your link doesn't back up anything you've said. Like, nothing at all. It mentions polar bears, but that's about it.

[Anonymous No.16010831]

>>16010822
>>16010824
Take your meds. You wanted to pretend polar bears are in danger of extinction and only succeeded in proving your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.16010835]

>>16010831
>are
are not*

[Anonymous No.16011602]

>>16010784
Tsey...

[Anonymous No.16011605]

>>16010799
Wow you're peak globulushomulus

[Barkon No.16011606]

>>16011602
There may be dangers I face from a phenomenon like the illusion Kelly is in that has no kelly in it and it may have too much exposure. However, I predict it will be good in the future as I'm not breaking rules like putting myself under a light spasm and causing my head to fuzz up and whole physique to shake. It's hard to do and I'm only benefiting from it but also it's been a long time so it may be best left as it is or very carefully inhabited. Good saved me one night I did put myself into a spasm like that which was done by entering me into a temporary fast hallucination and then making a vibration that took over my mind.

[Anonymous No.16011616]

I haven't really read at all into the science of global warming. But a few criticisms I have are.

1. These people seem to get it wrong every generation.

They change the terminology, move the goalpost 15 years further down the line, and just keep the same hustle going. In the 1970s it was global cooling, then when I went to school in the early 00s it was global warming, now it's climate change.

2. Climate change is clearly being utilized as an excuse for social restructuring and politics the masses would otherwise not accept.


https://www.amren.com/videos/2024/02/get-ready-for-the-next-great-anti-white-swindle/

Here it is being used to justify demographic replacement.


3. There's a historical precident for environmental scientists and government agencies bludgeoning those who come to results they don't like.

The studies on great lakes toxicity from the Carter Administration producing results that went contrary to what the environmentalist movement expected, resulted in attempts to destroy the careers of the scientists involved. Considering the money and resources involved, I'm sure the IPCC acts a similar way as a cartel.

[Anonymous No.16011664]

>>16011616
>1. These people seem to get it wrong every generation.
According to who? The models match the observations very closely.

>They change the terminology, move the goalpost 15 years further down the line, and just keep the same hustle going. In the 1970s it was global cooling, then when I went to school in the early 00s it was global warming, now it's climate change.
Global cooling has never been a real thing. The Bush administration pushed for the term "climate change" because they thought it sounded less scary.

>2. Climate change is clearly being utilized as an excuse for social restructuring and politics the masses would otherwise not accept.
Lol no. Take your meds.

>amren.com
>Here it is being used to justify demographic replacement.
Take all of your meds. I'd recommend an extra dose.

>3. There's a historical precident for environmental scientists and government agencies bludgeoning those who come to results they don't like.
>Considering the money and resources involved, I'm sure the IPCC acts a similar way as a cartel.
Lol no. Schedule an emergency appointment with your mental health care provider.

[Anonymous No.16011689]

>>16011664
Seconded. All of it.

[Anonymous No.16011706]

>>16011664
>The models match the observations very closely.

You can make any plot of data fit an algorithm

>According to who?

According to the plethora of scientists during the 1970s scaremongering about global cooling. It was supposed to be too late by now several times over according to mainstream consensus, the propaganda is borderline Jehovah's Witness tier of "two more weeks". Do you really have a short memory?

And yes, it is being used to justify demographic replacement. Climate Migration peculiarly only includes first world countries and the global north. A lot of what are clear cut Malthusian catastrophes like in Madagascar are being brushed over as the effect of Climate Change.

That's not even getting into the absurdity of making sweeping scientific claims with such certainty onto a complex system where you can't control the variables.

And also there's a conflict of class interests. People talk about the oil companies interest in downplaying climate change, while ignoring the personal interest of scientists involved in studying the climate to play chicken little. The more hysteria they ferment, the more jobs and resources they get given. The golden goal would be their appointment as climate commissars effectively overseeing large portions of the economy. Take that away from them and they're at risk of literally pumping gas for a living because who the fuck needs a climate scientist without government funding?

You can be a smug little onions fuck, but these are valid concerns that should make anyone skeptical. The last claim especially so, we've had massive hysterical scares already that have been overblown so some nobody environmentalists and scientists can engorge themselves on public funds. The asbestos scare being a famous one.

[Anonymous No.16011719]

>>16011706
>You can make any plot of data fit an algorithm
We usually call that "being correct".

>According to the plethora of scientists during the 1970s scaremongering about global cooling. It was supposed to be too late by now several times over according to mainstream consensus, the propaganda is borderline Jehovah's Witness tier of "two more weeks". Do you really have a short memory?
You really need to be medicated.

>And yes, it is being used to justify demographic replacement.
Like heavily medicated.

>Climate Migration peculiarly only includes first world countries and the global north.
China gets more than half of their power from renewables and nuclear. You know that your meds don't work unless you take them, right?

>That's not even getting into the absurdity of making sweeping scientific claims with such certainty onto a complex system where you can't control the variables.
So you're one of the retards that thinks we need a second Earth to justify climate science? Legit the creationists are smarter than you.

>And also there's a conflict of class interests. People talk about the oil companies interest in downplaying climate change, while ignoring the personal interest of scientists involved in studying the climate to play chicken little. The more hysteria they ferment, the more jobs and resources they get given. The golden goal would be their appointment as climate commissars effectively overseeing large portions of the economy. Take that away from them and they're at risk of literally pumping gas for a living because who the fuck needs a climate scientist without government funding?
Lol, you don't just need meds, you need a whole ass case study done on you.

>You can be a smug little onions fuck, but these are valid concerns that should make anyone skeptical.
Lol no. The fact that you feel that way confirms your need for psychiatric treatment.

[Anonymous No.16011774]

>>16011616
>These people seem to get it wrong every generation.
You are not allowed to make this criticism. Anyone who makes a prediction that later turns out to have been false and alarmist is considered to have never been a real scientist, or to have never "seriously" said such a thing, or only said it as a white lie to bring attention to the problem.
>Climate change is clearly being utilized as an excuse for social restructuring and politics the masses would otherwise not accept
See pic related.
>There's a historical precident for environmental scientists and government agencies bludgeoning those who come to results they don't like.
Invalid because only oil companies do this.

[Anonymous No.16011953]

>>16011774
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.16012131]

>>16011953
Stop being a pawn for globulinulushomulinulus

[Anonymous No.16012135]

>>16011774

[Anonymous No.16012613]

>>16012131
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.16013109]

>>16010784

[Anonymous No.16013125]

>>16013109
Not much people need to conspire for this.

[Anonymous No.16013876]

>faggots that believe in psychology
>faggots that trust the university system
>faggots that need to be affirmed of their intelligence by television and the "scientific" community
>instead of taking my meds I'm gonna roll a puddle and engineer a new disease I can store in an ampule
>is that okay?

[Anonymous No.16013878]

All the climate change cultists are from mlp, with their arms being twisted by criminals too stupid to use a real narrative to launder their money

[Anonymous No.16014201]

>>16013109
Confirmed troll farm worker. I hope you're at least being paid well, but I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.16014705]

>>16014201
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.16014711]

>>16014705
Take your meds and find a higher paying job.

[Anonymous No.16015353]

>>16012135
The fact that scientists are no longer punished for lying or forging data is the exact reason why they do it so often.

[Anonymous No.16015355]

>>16015353
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.16016417]

[Anonymous No.16016438]

>>16016417
https://fundraising.co.uk/2023/02/28/edit-agency-acquires-wood-for-trees-other-snippets-of-news/
https://tracxn.com/d/companies/edit/___0ef1tWyqtFzPjgN1zP24dRCoKQFn9WPGGHn3VQzgdg/funding-and-investors
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/gresham-house-ventures

This is literally corporate propaganda. They didn't even try to hide their paper trail.

[Anonymous No.16016929]

>>16008751
>Hahaha even if the ir absorption feedback bs is true you'd have to half the "remitted ir"
Wait they don't?

[Anonymous No.16017047]

so, was op right? are there any refutals other than "meds"

[Anonymous No.16017417]

>>16017047
Meds

[Anonymous No.16017421]

>>16017417
We'll just sit here with you and pretend your jokes are funny.

[Anonymous No.16017428]

>>16017421
I'm getting good.

If I activate this one thing. You can say bye bye to thrusting your pelvis like a perv on whatever gay pride float you like.

[Anonymous No.16017504]

>>16017047
>>16017417
Guess not. I like how they think they don’t have to engage with people because they are on the /sci/ board. It’s like they think this isn’t 4chan. “Meds” posters are small brain cancer

[Anonymous No.16017522]

>>16017047
>>16017421
>>16017504
There have been multiple refutations, you illiterate monkeys. Try reading the thread next time.

>>16001205
>>16001369
>>16001431
>>16001889
>>16002082
>>16002088
>>16002801
>>16002812
>>16002893
>>16002896
>>16002909
>>16002914
>>16005318
>>16009909

[Anonymous No.16017590]

>>16017522
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.16017688]

>>16017590
I accept your concession, monkey.

[Anonymous No.16017973]

>>16017522
I think you accidentally quoted the schizo poster in the refutations to the schizo poster.
Regardless things not looking good for the tranny army.

[Anonymous No.16018151]

>>16017973
>No argument
I accept your concession too, monkey.

[Anonymous No.16018220]

>>16018151
I'm on your side retard

[Anonymous No.16018232]

>>16018220
Sorry, I didn't read your post too closely.

[Anonymous No.16018288]

>>16001156
>Warmists claim the Earth must radiate out at -18C to balance energy in from the sun.
I'm pretty sure thats basically just the napkin calculation:
>assume earth is perfect black body with infinite termal conductivity, so temperature is homogenous everywhere
>assume sun hits the cross section of the earth, a perfect circle
>system reaches termal equilibrium, so heat-in = heat=out
>only way to get rid of heat in space is thermal radiation
>calculate heat in for the circle, with satelite measured solar constant
>has to be equal to heat out of the sphere, calculate black body radiation temp with bolzmann, T=-18C

[Anonymous No.16018313]

>>16018288
Boltzmann doesn't factor in the greenhouse effect.

[Anonymous No.16018340]

>>16017590
>>16018151
Meds now

[Anonymous No.16018355]

>>16018340
>No argument
I accept your concession too, monkey.

[Anonymous No.16018375]

>>16016417
Pre-2016 RSS is proven false, by the guys that run the RSS satellites.
https://youtu.be/LiZlBspV2-M?t=3m40s

[Anonymous No.16018664]

>>16018355
Meds

[Anonymous No.16019098]

>>16018664
>No argument
I accept your concession, monkey.

[Anonymous No.16019590]

>>16018288
>1800s physics
lmao that physics hasn't advanced for the past 125 years yet you still presume you can predict the future
they couldn't predict the future climate 125 years ago and you're using the same formulas they used back then

[Anonymous No.16019607]

>>16019098
Meds

[Anonymous No.16019634]

>>16019607
>No argument
I accept your concession, monkey.

[Anonymous No.16020181]

>>16019634
Meds

[Anonymous No.16020240]

>>16020181
>No argument
I accept your concession, monkey.

[Anonymous No.16020254]

>>16020240
Meds

[Anonymous No.16020980]

>>16020254
>No argument
I accept your concession, monkey.

[Anonymous No.16021100]

>>16018288
>assign the same albedo value to trees that you do to asphalt even though trees absorb solar radiation without ever remitting it at any frequency.
>set co2 as a constant even though it varies substantially daily, including being at it's lowest levels during the warmest part of the day.

[Anonymous No.16021131]

>>16010791
Global warming is good for wildlife. There are more polar bears now than ever.

It was postulated that global warming would harm polar bears because something about sea level ice. The media took this and ran with it as they are apt to do. When the data was actually examined the postulate was disproven and the media stopped reporting on it. Don't expect retractions though, that would hurt the medias credibility and ability to properly fear monger.

File not related.

[Anonymous No.16021466]

>>16001332
They cant.

[Anonymous No.16021602]

>>16021466
See
>>16017522

[Anonymous No.16021761]

>>16021602
Meds

[fkukun No.16021902]

contrail cirrus ice crystals that the majority of which have a nuclei of black carbon soot either freshly or pre nucleated uncombusted jet A1 fuel has a particular microphysical properties that causes the crystal lattice of the contrail cirrus ice crystals to form a hexagonal cylinder shape, this along with horizontal wind sheer and effects of earths magnetic feild and photophoresis cause the incoming solar radiation to be 'split' and direct the long wave aspect to be directed earthbound having an indirect radiative forcing effect on near surface c02, absorbtion, scattering, absorbtion then a slowly re emitting; ghg are also broken down in a chain reaction effect due to the surface chemistry of lower stratospheric / upper tropospheric black carbon soot, of which it's 2 week atmospheric and eventual polar migratory life cycle

[Anonymous No.16021918]

>>16020980
>Meds

[Anonymous No.16022016]

>>16001153
why the hell would anyone trust you when you say its fake? I don't believe in global warming either, but reading that makes me and anyone else like me not want to listen to anything you say. You speak like a conspiracy theorist giving a hot take.

[Anonymous No.16022270]

>>16021761
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.16022508]

>>16001153
>How to spot a crank 101.
How do you expect anyone to believe a word you're saying when you cannot even form a coherent fucking sentence? You use all sorts of jargon in the completely wrong place grammatically- and definitionally- speaking; it's just utter nonsense to anyone who actually has a background in the physical sciences and the English language.

OP, take your meds. To anyone who takes OP seriously, you should consider maybe euthanizing yourself for being a dumbass

[Anonymous No.16022660]

>>16022508
Based.

[Anonymous No.16022677]

>>16001153
>This is then called "G" the greenhouse factor, and it's incorporated into flat-earth integrations of the atmospheric gradient as a constant.

[Anonymous No.16023160]

So the atmospheric composition is derived by using irms, so wouldn't these readings favor ir absorption in the ir range used to conduct the experiment? How can Co2 absorb ir at a high frequency and not lower one? does infrared mean hot or something now? I am confused with all the thermodynamic elements of the greenhouse effect. Could anyone provide any math that would support the hypothesis of climate change or the greenhouse effect? thank you

[Anonymous No.16023166]

>>16023160
https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

[Anonymous No.16024229]

>>16021131

[Anonymous No.16025666]

>>16023166
computer modeling is just a means of translating the programmer's ignorance and inability to do analytical mathematics into a format that makes those failings be erroneously perceived as virtuous. computer modeling is not a valid experimental or scientific technique

[Anonymous No.16026082]

>>16023160
>I am confused with all the thermodynamic elements of the greenhouse effect. Could anyone provide any math that would support the hypothesis of climate change or the greenhouse effect? thank you
People who study climate science never learn any thermodynamics. Keeping them ignorant of thermodynamics is the only means of getting them to believe in global warming.

[Anonymous No.16026092]

This is like the god of the gaps for Exxon shills. Every other line of argument has failed so now they resort to saying chemistry and physics isn't real using sophistry.

[Anonymous No.16026106]

>>16001153
So what you're saying is, the greenhouse effect is more like... A literal greenhouse?

[Anonymous No.16026109]

>>16026092
sure, the same corporations who buy fortunes of advertising the media outlets which promote the global warming lie are also secretly conspiring to deny the same lies that they're financially backing via their advertising spending.

[Anonymous No.16026116]

>>16001153
>If it were true, then the added heat would simply change the density gradient until the heat could easily escaped.

I hate this on cold nights when my blanket gets so hot it just rises up to the ceiling and I have to get up and pull it down again

[Anonymous No.16026118]

>>16026109
Sure, the corporations who stand to lose the most if people stopped using their products would establish a global scientific conspiracy so they put themselves out of business...

[Anonymous No.16027022]

>>16026106
greenhouses function because they have a solid barrier that prevents convection, gases cannot produce that same effect because gases are subject to convection

[Anonymous No.16027049]

>>16027022
You can't convect in space dipshit.

[Anonymous No.16027365]

>>16027049
You're full globular homular

[Anonymous No.16027370]

>>16027049
You can. Space is not a pure vacuum. It is why the Sun warms the Earth, and why radiators for spacecraft function. The problem is the heat loss is very slow, so it can easily build up faster than it is lost in Human machines.
>what does that have to do with climate change?
Nothing, you're just wrong.

[Anonymous No.16027382]

>>16027022
>gases cannot produce that same effect because gases are subject to convection
That's the opposite of what he said though
He said the literal density of the atmosphere acts as a solid barrier to heat

[Anonymous No.16027420]

>>16027370
>why radiators for spacecraft function
>?
good question
its because they radiate
radiators don't function by convecting
radiators function by radiating
wow, astonishing i know
radiators do not convect

you fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.16027438]

>>16027420
Convection does occur because space is not a true vacuum.

[Anonymous No.16027440]

>>16027438
you need gravity for convection too you dumb fuck. spacecraft are in orbit therefore not influenced by gravity.

God damn global warming deniers are stupid. It's just sad.

[Anonymous No.16028495]

>>16027440
>spacecraft are in orbit therefore not influenced by gravity.
yes they are, they wouldn't orbit if they weren't under the influence of gravity

[Anonymous No.16028499]

>>16027440
>no gravity in space
Are you a child, by chance?

[Anonymous No.16028548]

>>16026118
we are dependent on oil, all this pseudo-scientific global warming garbage does is make it more expensive, nuclear fusion is the only thing that threatens the oil industry and they have seen to it the American public is terrified of it. Why don't they build nuclear reactors underground next to uranium mines?

[Anonymous No.16028550]

Hello why does the heat Island effect not contribute to global warming? also a greenhouse allows light into a chamber that traps gases it does not trap the light itself, global warming only works if you assume the amount of gas is fixed and contained

[Anonymous No.16029586]

>>16028548
Nuclear power goes unused because it cuts into the profits of the energy companies. They are the ones that shill the global warming meme, because doing so allows them to have higher profits.

[Anonymous No.16030137]

>>16029586
>no nuclear power for you, goy!
>nuclear power is only useful for our ZOG warboats because reasons

[Anonymous No.16030142]

>>16028548
Nuclear power is unused because we currently have two nuclear wastelands in Belarus and Japan and don't need any more.

[Anonymous No.16031150]

>>16030142
Lithium mining leaves behind wastelands, but that doesn't bother you. so your concern about "nuclear wastelands" is clearly false. Plus those "nuclear wastelands" aren't "wastelands" they're brimming with wildlife

[Anonymous No.16031165]

>>16031150
>mining leaves behind wastelands
They pay into a trust that ensures the land is reclaimed after mining has ceased. But you don't care because you are here shilling against batteries for some odd reason.

Also it would have been better for everyone if Fukushima was never evacuated. The amount of harm caused by the evacuation far exceeds the amount of harm the radiation would have caused.

[Anonymous No.16031177]

>>16031165
>land is reclaimed
BWAHAHA HAH AHAH AH A
Show us some "reclaimed land". I bet a few things can even survive on it.

[Anonymous No.16031235]

>>16031177

Can't you just do 5 seconds of research before making such a fool of yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_reclamation

[Anonymous No.16031275]

>>16031235
That's nice.
In reality mostly nothing grows on the pile of rocks the mines leave behind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_mining_reclamation_in_West_Virginia

[Anonymous No.16031878]

>>16031165
The evacuated areas near Fukushima have an even better post apocalyptic vibe than Chernobyl does because the tsunami debris was never cleaned up. Everything there was just left wrecked and nature is slowly reclaiming it.

[Anonymous No.16032749]

>>16031878

[Anonymous No.16033563]

>>16031878
>>16032749
looks absolutely epic

[Anonymous No.16034478]

Global warming is completely fake

[Anonymous No.16034492]

>>16031235
>>16031878
>>16032749
>https://jciv.iidj.net/map/
>dose rate in in fukushima is ~5000 nSv/h at the worst
>thats 0.0005 Rem/hour
10,000 hours at fucking ground zero and you would barely hit the US YEARLY limit for radiation workers.
No fucking reason why this land shouldn't be used.

[Anonymous No.16034576]

>>16001153
>>16001153

I'm sorry, but you are misinformed about many aspects of the greenhouse effect and the satellite temperature measurement. You are also making unfounded accusations and conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality. Let me address some of the points you raised. You seem to have some misunderstandings about how the greenhouse effect works, and how it is different from other factors that affect the temperature of a planet, such as pressure and gravity. Let me try to explain some of the key points:

- The radiative greenhouse effect is not fake, and it is supported by a large body of scientific evidence and consensus.

- The greenhouse effect is not based on the idea that greenhouse gases (GHGs) "block" or "trap" the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) from the surface. Rather, it is based on the fact that GHGs absorb and re-emit OLR in all directions, including back to the surface. This creates a net downward flux of longwave radiation, which adds to the energy received by the surface from the sun. This extra energy causes the surface to warm up until it reaches a new equilibrium temperature, where the OLR matches the incoming solar radiation.

- The greenhouse effect does not depend on the density or pressure gradients of the atmosphere, but on the optical depth or the amount of absorption of OLR by GHGs. The optical depth is a function of the concentration, distribution, and spectral properties of GHGs, as well as the temperature and pressure of the air. The optical depth determines the effective emission height, or the altitude where the OLR can escape to space without being absorbed by GHGs. The higher the optical depth, the higher the effective emission height, and the colder the temperature at that height. This means that the OLR is reduced, creating a radiative imbalance that drives surface warming.

[Anonymous No.16034580]

>>16001153
- The greenhouse effect is not a fixed or constant factor, but a dynamic and feedback-driven process. The surface warming caused by the greenhouse effect affects other components of the climate system, such as water vapor, clouds, ice, vegetation, and aerosols, which in turn affect the radiative balance and the temperature of the planet. Some of these feedbacks amplify the warming (positive feedbacks), while others dampen it (negative feedbacks). The net feedback is uncertain, but most likely positive, meaning that the greenhouse effect is enhanced by the response of the climate system.

- The greenhouse effect is not the only factor that determines the temperature of a planet, but it is the main factor that explains the difference between the actual and the expected temperature based on the solar radiation alone. The expected temperature of a planet can be calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which relates the emitted radiation to the temperature and the emissivity of a body. For a blackbody (a perfect emitter and absorber of radiation), the expected temperature of the Earth would be about -18 °C, as you mentioned. However, the Earth is not a blackbody, but a graybody, meaning that it has a lower emissivity than 1. The emissivity of the Earth is about 0.612, which means that it emits less radiation than a blackbody at the same temperature. This lowers the expected temperature of the Earth to about -33 °C, which is still much colder than the actual average temperature of about 15 °C. The difference of 48 °C is due to the greenhouse effect, which adds about 155 W/m2 of longwave radiation to the surface.

[Anonymous No.16034582]

>>16001153
- The greenhouse effect is not the same as the adiabatic lapse rate, which is the rate of decrease of temperature with altitude in a dry and stable atmosphere. The adiabatic lapse rate is caused by the expansion and compression of air parcels as they move up and down in the atmosphere, due to the change in pressure and gravity. The adiabatic lapse rate does not depend on the composition or the radiation of the atmosphere, but only on the specific heat capacity and the gas constant of the air. The adiabatic lapse rate is about 9.8 °C/km, which means that the temperature drops by 9.8 °C for every kilometer of altitude. The adiabatic lapse rate explains why the troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere) is colder at higher altitudes, but it does not explain why the surface is warmer than expected. The adiabatic lapse rate also does not apply to the stratosphere (the second layer of the atmosphere), where the temperature increases with altitude, due to the absorption of solar radiation by ozone.

- Potential energy of air mass is not the same as heat energy. When air rises, it expands and cools, converting its internal energy into potential energy. When air falls, it compresses and warms, converting its potential energy back into internal energy. This process is reversible and does not change the total energy of the air mass. The only way for air to lose or gain heat is by exchanging it with other air masses or the surface through conduction, convection, or radiation.

[Anonymous No.16034584]

>>16001153

- The sun does not heat the surface air directly, but rather the surface itself. The surface then transfers some of the heat to the air through conduction and convection. The air also absorbs some of the solar radiation, especially in the upper atmosphere where ozone and other gases are present. The pressure of the air is not determined by the sun's heating, but by the weight of the air column above it. The pressure decreases with altitude because there is less air above.

- The sun cannot heat air at the noontime equator to 120 °C. The highest air temperature ever recorded on Earth was 56.7 °C in Death Valley, California, in 1913. The air temperature at the equator is moderated by the large amount of water vapor, clouds, and precipitation that occur there. The water vapor also acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping some of the outgoing longwave radiation from the surface and the lower atmosphere.

- The greenhouse theory is not utterly false, nor was it invented by Arrhenius or Exxon. The greenhouse effect was first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, and later quantified by John Tyndall in 1859 and Svante Arrhenius in 1896. The greenhouse effect is a well-established physical phenomenon that has been confirmed by many experiments and observations. The greenhouse effect is also essential for life on Earth, as it keeps the average surface temperature about 33 °C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.16034585]

>>16001153

- The satellite temperature measurement is not biased, nor does it rely on a model that assumes the greenhouse effect is real. Satellites measure the brightness of the Earth's atmosphere in different wavelengths, which can be related to the temperature of different layers of the atmosphere. The satellites use calibration methods to correct for any drifts or errors in the sensors, and compare their measurements with other satellites and ground-based instruments. The satellites do not adjust their readings based on CO2 levels, but rather use them as one of the inputs to calculate the optical depth of the atmosphere, which affects the radiative transfer.

- There is global historical temperature data, not just from Europe and North America, but from many other regions and sources. These include thermometers, weather stations, ships, buoys, balloons, radiosondes, and proxies such as tree rings, ice cores, corals, and sediments. These data show a clear correlation between CO2 and warming, especially in the last century. The data are not normalized, homogenized, or calibrated to fit a preconceived notion, but rather to account for any biases, uncertainties, or gaps that may affect their quality and consistency.

[Anonymous No.16035006]

>>16001156
>gravity
lmao, doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.16036236]

>>16034492
maybe but the pictures of nature retaking the land are kind of neat so its good either way

[Anonymous No.16036372]

>>16001170
go back to r e d d i t

[Anonymous No.16036434]

>>16032749
>>16031878
theres dead decaying bodies lying all over the place throughout that region, mostly just skeletons that have been picked clean by rats

[Anonymous No.16036625]

Bu joy hozir mening hojatxonam.

[Anonymous No.16037439]

>>16034576
>- The radiative greenhouse effect is not fake, and it is supported by a large body of scientific evidence and consensus.
no it isn't

[Anonymous No.16038079]

>>16037439
This.
Gasses are subject to convection, "the greenhouse effect" occurs in greenhouses as a result of having a rigid barrier that prevents convective cooling. The same effect cannot be replicated in a freely convecting atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.16038347]

>>16001153
>>16001156
>>16001158
>>16001161
Interesting theory. But, unless it blames the Jews, it's incomplete.

[Anonymous No.16039487]

>>16038347
Michael Mann is jewish

[Anonymous No.16040278]

>>16037439
>consensus
that just means "midwits agree"
geocentrism was a consensus for thousands of years, when a more accurate alternative was proposed it was shot down by the midwit consensus

[Anonymous No.16040686]

>>16001153
Global warming is non existent, if we pick some set of thermometers with history and make calculations according to that.

But if we pick different set of thermometers, it have alarming numbers and must be acted upon immediately.

Now please install yourself a 20k thermometers, preferably time traveling, so we've got 50years history, so we can discuss if something happened.

I would use a common sense nowadays, and realize it's not bad because water evaporating in occean is something like reducing effect on globe we expected, but oceans getting warmer are problem, weather is getting more violent, and in the end costs civilisation more money.

Also some crops will yield nothing in too much warm climate, if warm and wet, it'll rott in the field without need to be harvested.

Food will be more expensive, even if we had somehow possibility to grow more of it.

Insect that was only in tropic arreas now move close to the poles and carry dangerous disseases.

Also final estimation in this is: Food is expensive. We don't have plants that grows after climate change, and better be careful, than being starving humanity to death.

Ecosystems are fragile, the one humans are part of are even more fragile, and I highly doubt you can live on algae diet.

Thank god for the chemtrails, that fix ozone layer, so we're not already boiling and take your "do not worry" somewhere where people are not better safe than sorry.

[Anonymous No.16040695]

>>16040686
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.16040763]

>>16040695
You should finally stop bothering people with your bullshit, that is pure brainwashing.

Everybody know it's pills for people that doesn't obey narrative and their effect is that they don't talk because they lack any form of self esteem mediated by dopamine due to antagonizing it by pill.

You can't hide. You can't run. Narrative won't help you. You better regret and apologize.

[Anonymous No.16041024]

>>16040763
Meds.

[Anonymous No.16041350]

>>16039487
That explains a lot about him