/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8576864]

>High School Biology

"Plants feed off of Carbon Dioxide. They convert this into Oxygen and improve our living conditions. It's good to have more plants!"

>Politicians

"Global Warming will be terrible for the environment, increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere will kill the planet"


Explain.

[Anonymous No.8576869]

>>8576864
Fun fact:
>Plants actually love a carbon dioxide rich environment and our planet is currently in the lowest amounts of airborne CO2, ever.
Not get me wrong, whilst we are damaging our environment and need to be more careful, CO2 isn't the demon here.

[Anonymous No.8576872]

> Exercise is good for you

> Anorexia athletics

Explain.

[Anonymous No.8576879]

>>8576864
>>8576869
CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth in most cases, and fast warming with more extreme weather will have negative effects on much of the ecology humans rely on.

Now could you really have not figured that out yourself or are you just shitposting?

[Anonymous No.8576884]

it all has to do with the way light acts in our atmosphere

although the atmosphere looks transparent to humans, if you saw in infrared, the atmosphere would be a lot more cloudy, almost opaque

co2 is VERY opaque in the infrared, and this has the effect of trapping in infrared light (heat) and causing the surface of the planet to warm up, rather than allowing the heat to escape


any climatologists on here - feel free to improve on this

[Anonymous No.8576893]

>>8576879
I'm a physicists, alright, dickhead?

[Anonymous No.8576899]

>>8576893
mmhm

[Anonymous No.8576927]

Water is good for you but you can still drown in it.

[Anonymous No.8576938]

The ocean is one big buffer solution, too much CO2 makes that shit shift toward an acidic pH. Ruins ecosystems which eventually affects us.

[Anonymous No.8576963]

>>8576864
It would be ok if they weren't chopping down large areas of forests in both tropical and boreal regions.

[Anonymous No.8576971]

>>8576938
this has been the only post in this thread to make sense.

[Anonymous No.8577103]

Increases in ambient CO2 do increase plant growth, yes. However, increases in temperature outside the optimum range decrease plant growth, and the projected increased variation in weather events (fewer, more powerful storms) mean less consistent water sources and more damage to plants.

[Anonymous No.8577227]

>>8576864
>>8576879
A picture is worth a thousand words.

[Anonymous No.8577250]

>>8576938
Its important to note that Henry's Law only applies for solutions where the solvent does not react chemically with the gas being dissolved. A common example of a gas that does react with the solvent is carbon dioxide, which forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) to a certain degree with water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law

Thus, as the other anon pointed out, we are dealing with a buffered solution which requires a different analysis to determine the change in acidity from an increase in atmospheric CO2. That is, the analysis has to be done on a Carbonate <-> Bicarbonate solution. Whitfield (1974) performed the analysis that accounted for this buffering and showed that a change in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 313 to 454 ppm only changes ocean water pH from 8.24 to 8.16. And that is much less than the variance in the data. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.8577258]

>>8576864
They can only consume so much at a time, and deforestation means we have less trees around to consume the surplus C02. Furthermore the agents responsible for causing warming extend beyond just CO2 and not all of them can be consumed and recycled by plants.

[Anonymous No.8577262]

>>8577250
hundreds of papers published in the last decade on the topic and you choose one that's almost forty years old and basically a dinosaur and guaranteed not current at all to theory or evidence

[Anonymous No.8577505]

>>8577227
>A picture is worth a thousand words.

Indeed.

[Anonymous No.8577541]

>>8577505
epic dude, I'm convinced by this study you just posted, +1

[Anonymous No.8577546]

Plants don't "feed" off CO2. Also, plants actually exhale CO2 at night.

[Anonymous No.8577595]

>Explain
Give the politicians and climatologists time to rewrite high school biology textbooks, perhaps with revenue generated through a tax?

The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

[Anonymous No.8577670]

[Anonymous No.8577673]

>>8576893

[Anonymous No.8577680]

>>8576879
>CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth
oh ok

[Anonymous No.8577683]

>>8577673
PLZ DELET,, I VEVRY EMBRIS, ABOT THT!!!!?%

[Anonymous No.8577689]

>>8576879
>CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth
uh hi /pol/, explain:
1. greenhouses
2. why you arent staying back in >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.8577691]

>>8577680
because it fucking isn't

[Anonymous No.8577719]

>>8577689
>Make thread denying AGW
>Call everyone else /pol/
Well, it's a definitely an unusual plan.

Also:
>explain greenhouses
Fertilisers.

[Anonymous No.8577721]

>>8577689
no u

[Anonymous No.8577722]

CO2 isn't the limiting factor in most cases simply because phosphate, nitrate, and/or iron are rare in most environments. the reason you can get higher production by increasing pCO2 in laboratory or greenhouse conditions is because in those cases, you've fertilized the soil so that those nutrients aren't scarce.

[Anonymous No.8577770]

>>8577227
A picture is a good way to pretend to counter an argument. For example, the plants in your picture were grown in a greenhouse.

[Anonymous No.8577777]

[Anonymous No.8577782]

>>8577719
CO2 is now a political molecule, there is no denying it, if you do you are a denier in denial.

[Anonymous No.8577790]

>>8577719
I didn't make this thread, but I like to mock the >>>/pol/ shitposters. The only thing I believe about CO2's effect on our environment is water acidification because I understand acid-base equilibrium better than whatever the hell global temperature is supposed to do.

[Anonymous No.8577820]

>>8577790
I like how you're boasting about your lack of understanding of something that anyone can learn about.

[Anonymous No.8577831]

>>8577262
References please. Show an analysis based on the kinetics of the buffered Carbonate <-> Bicarbonate solution. That is the analysis performed by Whitfield. Please provide a solution of the kinetics which is superior to Whitfield and doesn't falsely use Henry's Law.

[Anonymous No.8577841]

>>8577670
Pretend thread with the inevitable final ad hominem which is stock'n'trade of warmist ideology.

I will credit the paid shills, in that they always try to put the last word in these threads. Thus, this false description. Must be nice to get paid to help the Soros' Global Agenda.

Let the warmist ad hominem begin.

[Anonymous No.8577865]

>>8577820
>anyone can learn about.
Reading abstracts of articles on CO2 emissions != learning

[Anonymous No.8577867]

>>8577689
>/sci/ - Science and Math
>implying that greenhouses work the same way as the atmosphere

>supporting evidence for global warming
>/pol/
pick one

[Anonymous No.8577871]

>>8577867
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.8577894]

>>8577865
http://oyc.yale.edu/geology-and-geophysics/gg-140#overview

[Anonymous No.8577895]

>>8577770
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

[Anonymous No.8577897]

>>8577894
>http://oyc.yale.edu/geology-and-geophysics/gg-140#overview
boooring!

[Anonymous No.8577904]

>>8576869
>>Plants actually love a carbon dioxide rich environment and our planet is currently in the lowest amounts of airborne CO2, ever
Interesting, considering that CO2 levels are higher now than they were 150 years ago

[Anonymous No.8577906]

>>8577841
Okay but we all know Working Group 3 was a shitshow.

[Anonymous No.8577907]

>>8577841
>Pretend thread with the inevitable final ad hominem which is stock'n'trade of warmist ideology.

People probably tell you to fuck off a lot for reasons entirely unrelated to topic, I'll wager

Pic related, its ur mom

[Anonymous No.8577912]

>>8577904
>150
>not a 150 MILLION years ago
checkmate creationists

[Anonymous No.8577921]

>>8577912
If you're just pretending to be retarded, you can come out and say so. Climate research has been my life's work and I'm prepared to defend it, but you seem more concerned with (You)s than offering a coherent argument.

[Anonymous No.8577925]

>>8577907
>People probably tell you to fuck off a lot for reasons entirely unrelated to topic, I'll wager
>Pic related, its ur mom
Wow did you get your jimmies rustled.
Must have hit real close to home.

[Anonymous No.8577934]

>>8577925
Yeah! That's no way to treat a physicists!

[Anonymous No.8577937]

>>8577841
I made that flowchart for free, but if you want I'll post my paypal and you can pay me to stop posting it :^)

[Anonymous No.8577942]

>>8576869
Fun fact: when a plant is exposed high levels of co2 the new growth has less co2 "receptors" for lack of better word/I'm not sure what they're actually called.. Basically the plant won't absorb more co2 just because it's there.

>8576879

The limiting factor is almost always light

[Anonymous No.8577951]

>>8577841
Nice cherrypicked, mistranslated quote.

I wonder how many times people (probably including me) have pointed out the actual source of it, and what he actually said?
Calling other people are paid shills while reposting material you know to be false kinda raises questions about your integrity.

[Anonymous No.8577971]

>>8577841
>inevitable final ad hominem
>you're all paid shills

>warmist ideology
*sniff*

[Anonymous No.8578000]

>>8577951
Is this the correct quote?
In what context should it be taken?
What is Mr Hoffengoblins endgame here?

[Anonymous No.8578044]

>>8576864

The former is actually true, when the ice finally melts and we leave the current ice age, biomass on Earth will increase considerably, not just from freeing up antarctica, canada and siberia as farmland / forests, but also because the higher moisture content of the weather will 'green' the Sahara and Austrailia. In the long run, it will be seen as a great benefit.

Unfortunately, it will be catastrophic to actually live thru, since it will involve much of Europe vanishing beneath the seas and mass climate disruptions across the world that will likely kill millions. This is why politicians (pretend to) care about it.

It's kind of academic to have this debate now anyway, the time when action could have been taken to prevent climate change is long past and realistically, we should be planning for the actual transition instead of wasting time arguing about carbon taxes and the like.

[Anonymous No.8578095]

>>8578000
>>8577841

Who cares what this guy did or didn't say or if it has been taken out of context or not. It's an obvious red herring with regards to AGW.

[Anonymous No.8578104]

>>8577541
>epic dude, I'm convinced by this study you just posted, +1

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Anonymous No.8578109]

>>8578000
>>8577841

Completely true, modern climate policy is about the state distributing rent-seeking opportunities to parasites like Al Gore. If you actually wanted to "fix" the problem, the first thing you'll need is a time machine because that ship has sailed.

[Anonymous No.8578116]

>>8578095
>>8578000
>>8577841

This. He's honest enough (or naive enough) to make public his distress that the current system does not do what it ostensibly was set up to do, but this in and of itself says nothing about whether AGW is real (protip: it is) or whether or not we could adopt a climate policy that would halt or reverse it (protip: it's too late) or at least a climate policy that would protect as much as possible of our environment in the event of massive climate disruption.

[Anonymous No.8578120]

>>8577689

Have you ever, like, just googled what a farm is?

http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/issue/global.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber-Bosch_process

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

[Anonymous No.8578145]

>>8578095
I don't think it is a red herring, I think it is the well planned ends justified through the means, the AGW meme. The only question was to what extent will these bureaucratic planners pilfer helpless populations, reshuffle wealth and restrict resources from getting into the hands of anyone who opposes their agenda.

Since Hoffengoblin is a German you can't really hold his ulterior motives against him, his country is really impoverished when it comes to fossil fuel reserves and most of Europe is now dependent on Russian natural gas to heat their homes through winter. I am sure playing UN IPCC bureaucrat is also a nice day job if you can get it so his candor is appreciated.

It looks like velvet glove phase today but when things start getting a bit hairy out comes the iron hand...history repeats.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it." H.L. Mencken

[Anonymous No.8578173]

>>8578145

You have it coimpletely backwards. It was scientists and econuts who brought this to the public agenda, then politicians used it as a way to embezzle money and trade favors, like politicians always do. Meanwhile, decades roll by and nothing gets done but political graft, and now we're basically fucked. GG democracy.

[Anonymous No.8578316]

>>8576864
>Plants feed off of Carbon Dioxide.
Was this written by a hillbilly moonshiner?

[Anonymous No.8578341]

>>8578000
>Is this the correct quote?
No.
I'll give you a hint - the actual quote was in German.

>In what context should it be taken?
That climate policy will strongly impact the economic health of developing nations, and that should be taken into account before making that policy.

>>8578116
>(protip: it's too late)
Not really.
It's too late to avoid all of the impacts. But we should definitely stop before we make things worse, because it can get a LOT worse.

>>8578145
>I don't think it is a red herring, I think it is the well planned ends justified through the means, the AGW meme. The only question was to what extent will these bureaucratic planners pilfer helpless populations, reshuffle wealth and restrict resources from getting into the hands of anyone who opposes their agenda.
>It looks like velvet glove phase today but when things start getting a bit hairy out comes the iron hand...history repeats.
You're a moron.

[Imnot Arobot No.8578371]

>>8578000
>What is Mr Hoffengoblins endgame here?
He is not a chessplayer, he has no endgame.

[Anonymous No.8578618]

>>8577831
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-4-2-3.html

This page is chock full of references to papers that include the equilibrium reaction of CO2 and carbonate species in their analyses.

[Anonymous No.8578619]

>>8576893
No you're not. You're a physics student. Like 1% of physics students go on to become physicists and you're clearly too dumb.

[Anonymous No.8578670]

This is /pol/-tier logic, which is to say bad. I'd answer you if you'd like, but I'd rather just call you an absolute retard who likely couldn't read at a 5th grade level.

>LELNOTANARGUMENTMEME

I know, it wasn't meant to be an argument. I'm insulting you.

[Anonymous No.8578688]

>>8578173
That sounds like you are trying to rationalize being suckered into the meme. This is the sort of dissonance I predict will only grow to epic proportions as the real agenda moves forward supplemented by and flying under cover of the regular installments of climate doom and fear mongering propaganda. Good luck with that!

>>8578341
You deny the quote, then defend the quote, then spin it into your own version that the economies of developing nations will be impacted? That is precisely the opposite of what he is implying. The policies are implemented in the first world and target the first world working class, they have nothing to do with the third world because for one thing you can't squeeze blood from a stone and secondly by third world populations are not subject to the relentless AGW propaganda bombardments as they are too busy trying to survive.

>>8578371
His wiki bio is interesting and his endgame is apparently to retire a very wealthy individual. He has since moved on from the IPCC to head up an assortment of climate doom propaganda fronts. No surprise either to find out he is a Jesuit priest of the Catholic Church because AGW is a new age religion and its business model revolves around the economic pilfering of the first world through AGW policy that he himself and his cronies implement.

[Anonymous No.8578706]

[Anonymous No.8578709]

[Anonymous No.8578711]

[Anonymous No.8578715]

[Anonymous No.8578718]

[Anonymous No.8578721]

[Anonymous No.8578730]

>>8578688
You deny the evidence and defend a quote.

[Anonymous No.8578735]

[Anonymous No.8578738]

>>8576864
>plants need carbon dioxide
>more carbon dioxide must be good for them
humans need oxygen
more oxygen must be good for them

[Anonymous No.8578750]

>>8578738
And yet an increase in both CO2 and the wrong kinds of Oxygen can cause terrible climate anomalies which could destroy ecosystems. Bad times for all.

[Anonymous No.8578763]

>>8578750
Which "kinds of oxygen" are you referring to?

[Anonymous No.8578774]

then it dosent cutting all the trees.

also when you increase carbon emissions through more and more advanced industrilization, you get an inbalance carbondioxide in the atmosphere, that plants can't cover. all of this extra carbondioxide, keeps heat on the earths surface increases the tempatures on the poles, which will lead rising sea levels, and a more unsafe global envirement with drouts, hurricanes, ect. the increase of freshwater in the sea may also block the golf current across atlantic and make europe way colder. it is projected that if humanity ignores climate change, we might have future, with famine, floods, and may force up ta billion people away from the homes. so dont ignore climate change.

[Anonymous No.8578775]

plaese don''t be ignorant listen to sience.

[Anonymous No.8578797]

>dont ignore climate change

[Anonymous No.8579005]

>>8578618
"The uptake of anthropogenic carbon by the ocean.."
How does the ocean tell anthropogenic carbon from other carbon?

[Anonymous No.8579010]

>>8579005
They're talking about the carbon that's added on top of the normal carbon cycle inputs.

[Anonymous No.8579016]

>>8577777
Checked

[Anonymous No.8579033]

>>8576963
But I need paper to write down my feelings on climate change!

[Anonymous No.8579045]

>>8576963
We've gotten tree farming down to a point that it's basically a renewable resource. The problem with tree cutting isn't carbon inputs to the atmosphere, it's that we're destroying habitats for other organisms.

[Anonymous No.8579075]

>>8577505
Higher CO2 actually helps mitigate droughts as plants lose most of their moisture during transpiration and don't need to keep their stomata open as long with higher concenetrations.

[Anonymous No.8579077]

>>8579010
But the processes they describe show no such distinctions.

[Anonymous No.8579084]

>>8579077
If more carbon is entering the oceans than normal, then it will shift the concentration of one of the equilibrium products to a new value that might have biological implications. It's not hard to understand, anon.

[Anonymous No.8579136]

>>8576864
Yes but you do realize Carbon MONOXIDE kills plants, right?

[Anonymous No.8579299]

>>8579075

But plants transpire more rapidly at higher temperatures because water evaporates more rapidly as the temperature rises.

[Anonymous No.8579317]

>>8579045
Ever walked through a tree farm or some clear cuts that have been reseeded? It's not renewable because it's no longer a forest but a farm and once the soil is depleted will require massive inputs like any modern agricultural operation to grow trees. They typically plant 3 species, spruce, pine and fir and maybe only 1 species per clear cut depending on its location. I would bet these operations can pull this replant with saplings trick a few times at most before the soil is completely depleted of nutrients.

When you take a look at the remaining forests of NA for example through the satellite views it's a bit startling all the attention is now focused on some extra CO2 molecules and the best methods of taxing people for their "emissions".
The "renewable" "green" " environmental" crowd is frighteningly ignorant and why they were easy prey for the ivory towered AGW memers.

[Anonymous No.8579378]

>>8577951
Ah yes, the inevitable spin job. How about an apology instead? In any case lets look directly at the translation:

"Climate policy redistributes world wealth"
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzz.ch%2Fklimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227&edit-text=&act=url

That's from the Google Robot. Yeah, Google, not exactly big friends of Exxon last time I checked.

[Anonymous No.8579384]

>>8578618
You still haven't answered the question. I provided a scholarly reference, based on the chemical kinetics of a buffered solution. If you're too lazy to provide one yourself, then you have waved the surrender flag. Its not my job to try to hunt down what appears to be a non-answer. Or worse yet (and I've seen it) an IPCC report using "Henry's Law" which is a huge mistake.

[Anonymous No.8579390]

>>8579084
The value is only slightly different. Less than the variance of the natural pH values.
>>8577250

[Anonymous No.8579394]

>>8578735
> Goal seeked models prove Climate Change is TRUE!
That's why they keep tampering the data, got to pretend their models are accurate.

[Anonymous No.8579403]

>>8578721
> Mom I created a huge spike!
Ah yes, tacking on high-frequency, high-variance data (daily) onto data which has a temporal resolution of about 50 years. A statistical abomination.

What happens when you look at instrumental data through out, instead of combining ice core data with instrumental data. Voila! CO2 values have been just as high before the advent of the SUV.
Source; Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.

>nb4 Where did Gigatons of CO2 come from?
Clearly you are unaware that a warming ocean outgasses gigantic amounts of CO2
The answer is about 6 gigatons for a mere 0.1 degree C change in ocean temperature.
as large as all the Anthropogenic CO2 output in a year.


Ocean area is 360,000,000 sq km = 360 x 10^12 sq metres
Ocean Mass: 1 gigatonne (Gt) = 10^9 tonnes = 10^12 kg = 10^12 m^3 water

Volume of oceans to 3m depth = 360 x 3 x 10^12 m^3 ie approx. 10^15 m^3
Mass of oceans to 3m depth = 10^15 / 10^9 Gt = 10^6 Gt
CO2 dissolved to 3m at 15ºC = 10^6 x 0.2/100 Gt = 2,000 Gt
CO2 outgassed for 0.1ºC temp rise = 2,000 x 0.3/100 Gt
= 6 Gt ie one year's emissions

[Anonymous No.8579407]

>>8579394
reprocessing data 15 years later induces changes, wow. who would have thought?

what's next? modern radiometers allow for better spatial resolution than older one's?

[Anonymous No.8579408]

>>8578718
Keep on data tampering buddy!

[Anonymous No.8579417]

>>8579408
Kek. Overlaying sea level and sea level change - whose brilliant idea was that?

[Anonymous No.8579426]

>>8578711
>Key Components to John Cooks Paranoid Ideations and Conspiracy Theories
ftfy

"'Cause the oil companies totally deny climate change"
https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/shared/documents/CVX_Climate_Principles.pdf
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

[Anonymous No.8579429]

>>8579417
Don't be stupid. They're zeroed to the same point, meaning the reference a change from a 0 value.

[Anonymous No.8579435]

>>8579407
So by magic, the exact same data now leads to a higher temperature value.
Wow!

[Anonymous No.8579438]

>>8579407
>what's next? modern radiometers allow for better spatial resolution than older one's?
So NASA developed a time machine to go back in time and re-measure old temperatures with new radiometers?

[Anonymous No.8579450]

>>8578120
>hating on literal world savior, Fritz Haber

[Anonymous No.8579457]

>>8578763
Probably ozone

[Anonymous No.8579517]

>>8579390
>the difference in temperature is only slightly different. Less than the variance of the natural temperature values

>>8579384
>You still haven't answered the question.
Yes I did, you just don't want to acknowledge it.

[Anonymous No.8579552]

>>8579426
That's actually more frightening, some lame PR play to placate AGW cultists, than enormous multinational energy corps in the 'denier' camp.

Obviously they will simply pass any taxation or emission penalties directly to the consumer and it really just enables fascism which has never accomplished anything good. Or worse, they get right into bed with governments developing 'renewables' and 'alternatives' opening the door to gouging just as cheap energy passes into the review mirror. Ontario Canada is actually a great example of both these scenarios, first the privatization of electricity leading to massive rate increases (or even California) and now the carbon tax levied unto natural gas immediately passed onto the consumer.

All of this simply by convincing many people CO2 is an evil doer molecule and worthy of a crusade and Inquisition for anyone who denies it! Wew, we certainly aren't in Kansas anymore.

[Anonymous No.8579606]

>>8579408
>>8579435
I don't even need temperature data to prove you completely and utterly wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygCKQZiOSNw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PEi0Retg8A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1hJYLw7OlM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5wpCo0Sqg

Face it friend, the Earth is warming, you're on the wrong side of the debate.

[Anonymous No.8579619]

>>8579378
>Ah yes, the inevitable spin job.
Uh, did you read the translation you posted? I think my description pretty accurately matched what he was talking about:

>So far economic growth has always been hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historical memory of mankind has burnt itself into the air: whoever is rich burns coal, oil or gas. And that is why emerging markets are afraid of emission limits.

>In the case of climate protection, however, everyone should participate, otherwise he will not work.

>Basically, it is a big mistake to discuss climate politics separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conventions since the Second World War. Why? Because we still have 11,000 gigatonnes of carbon in our coal reserves - and we can only deposit 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree goal. 11 000 to 400 - there is no way around that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

>In fact, this is an expropriation of the countries with the mineral resources. This leads to a completely different development from that which has hitherto been initiated with development policy.

>First of all, we have expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to say clearly: We are de facto distributing world wealth through climate policy. It is obvious that the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about it. One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems like forest extinction or ozone hole.

He's not "admitting it's all a conspiracy", he's stressing the importance of economics in any discussion of climate policy.

[Anonymous No.8579627]

>>8579403
>Ah yes, tacking on high-frequency, high-variance data (daily) onto data which has a temporal resolution of about 50 years. A statistical abomination.
How do you know they tacked on high frequency data? You would get the exact same spike if you took the 50 year average.

>What happens when you look at instrumental data through out, instead of combining ice core data with instrumental data.
The "instrumental data throughout" Beck uses is tainted by background CO2 and shoddy measurement techniques. His analysis is also falsified by other data.

http://www.biomind.de/treibhaus/180CO2/Comment_E&E-on_Beck_Meijer_update.doc

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/found-in-margins-recently-eli-has-been.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/

>Clearly you are unaware that a warming ocean outgasses gigantic amounts of CO2
Funny how this feedback is never accepted by deniers when it supports AGW.

>The answer is about 6 gigatons for a mere 0.1 degree C change in ocean temperature.
>as large as all the Anthropogenic CO2 output in a year.
Can you show me the source of these numbers? They're clearly bullshit. The real outgassing from the oceans is *hundreds of gigatons per year* while the net flux is -6 gigatons. The oceans absorb more than they release.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.html

[Anonymous No.8579711]

>>8579438
>So NASA developed a time machine to go back in time and re-measure old temperatures with new radiometers?
No, they just compared the old equipment against the new stuff.
It's not even that hard the find papers talking about the adjustments they used.

[Anonymous No.8579996]

>>8577227
Hmmmmm, one snarky response to your picture. Doing an actual science experiment with controls, that shows the truth of the matter.
Fully ignored... I'm so surprised.
Good job /sci/ clap clap

>>8577505
You still need water, but I understand. That's the best response you could think of. Must be in Engineering...

[Anonymous No.8580022]

>>8577227
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

The Earth's atmosphere is currently 426ppm co2

[Anonymous No.8581082]

>>8580022
>In a controlled environment, increasing CO2 increases plant growth!
Yeah no shit

[Anonymous No.8581181]

Standard 62.1–2007 ventilation rates may result in indoor levels up to 2,100 ppm above ambient outdoor conditions. Thus if the outdoor concentration is 400 ppm, indoor concentrations may reach 2,500 ppm with ventilation rates that meet this industry consensus standard. Concentrations in poorly ventilated spaces can be found even higher than this (range of 3,000 or 4,000).

[Anonymous No.8581246]

>High School Biology

Baby tier science taught via regurgitation.

>Politicians

Meme social engineers paid to bitch and moan about problems and exploit cognitive fallacies of the populus.

>Explain

Fuck you, do some research on your own so you can learn why all this debating is causual surface bullshit.

Climate change can fuck us but not for the reasons you think.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412015300489

[Anonymous No.8581625]

>>8581082
No shit, in the real world plants grow better with higher levels of co2 too.
Nice argument idiot, what point was your autistic mind trying to make? You're grasping at the very bottom of the straw. Just fall off already.

[Anonymous No.8581655]

Is climate change a hoax?

[Anonymous No.8581675]

>>8581655
I prefer fraud and energy theft. You can tell from the policies being implemented because they don't reduce CO2 emissions, the idea of 7 billion humans wired to fossil fuels in the oil age reducing their fossil fuel use if laughable, it's about control of those resources obviously. So the next logical question if you were Columbo is Cui bono? Well large governments and large private corporations, particularly energy corps who are left to their own devices to implement complicated taxation schemes on behalf of their friends in government often through revolving doors. The largest government apparatus itself is pushing it, the UN. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and it sure didn't take long after full assimilation for the fear mongering to be unleashed. Once this thing really gets rolling everyone will be a useless eater in their eyes.

[Anonymous No.8581688]

>>8581675
Obviously the reptilians are trying to terraform our planet.