is this true
>>16071230I don't know. I'm not a climate scientist or atmospheric physicist.I can tell you that it's possible for that to be true and for human caused CO2 to still be problem. Even if human emissions account for 0.3% of the "total greenhouse effect" by whatever metric this is referencing, if the system is very sensitive to small variations in CO2 it could still be a problem.I don't know enough about climate change or atmospheric physics to give you a solid yes/no, but it's definitely possible for this to be true and for emissions to still be a problem.
>>16071230>6,000,000 tonsNot even close, there's been about 38 billion tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 emitted.
>>16071284>no sourcebecause you're lying
>>16071286Ah shit, you got me.
>>16071286>It has been estimated that 2,400 gigatons of CO2 have been emitted by human activity since 1850, with some absorbed by oceans and land, and about 950 gigatons remaining in the atmosphere. Around 2020 the emission rate was over 40 gigatons per year.[17]quick google searchhttps://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/global-warming/global-co2-emissions
>>16072298>url/climate-change/global-warmingat least try to find a site that isn't obvious propaganda
>>16071284>oy vey! its more than 6 millions!
>>16071230>no source>incorrect numbers (obvious if you do a 5 second internet search)Oil shill propaganda thread. All oil shills deserve to be burned alive in a furnace.
the knight we need
>>16072622No she's just a controlled opposition.
>>16071230I don't understand the problem, but I've been told that a global communist dictatorship is the only solutionhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/jyPwh4Xaaihj/
>>16071230yes
>>16072657That is enough. The revolution will spare you.
>>16071230Not really. Water vapor condenses too quickly to drive global warming, but can form feedback loops with actual greenhouse gasses. Water vapor is driven by temperature, not the other way around.
>>16071230Water vapor is not a greenhouse gas.
>>16072622Nice one, Punchy!
>>16071230>The Greenhouse Effect is over 99% Natural>Nature produces 99.72% of theGreenhouse EffectWhy is it so repetitive? Why are Random Words Capitalised? Why is the "conclusion" the very same thing as the first point? Was this created by a monkey? Even ChatGPT would create better retard bait.
>>16071284>Not even close, there's been about 38 billion tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 emitted.That would be 5% of the 720'000'000'000 tons mentioned in OP.Just saying, math nerd.
>>16071230either way i wouldn't worry too mucheven if co2 were some big problem nobody would ever be willing to solve it, lots of people take it seriously now but the only "solutions" proposed are naked power grabs that will not solve any issues. the necessary measures are too unpalatable for anyone with an ounce of power
>>16077602co2 isn't even supposed to be the primary concern, temperature is, and temperature is much more tractable than co2. we know how to do solar geoengineering. it's not hard. it's not even expensive.
>>16072622pedos get the rope first
>>16077482That number mentioned in OP might be wrong, too. Not surprising if the other one was also wrong. Human CO2 makes up about one third of the atmospheric CO2.
>>16078216no it doesn't
>>16078280
>>16078810Chud will just call it fake and uncritically believe OP's graphic, since it does not imply that chud should change his way of life.
>>16071230I haven't been here since before the pandemicWhy has this board turned into a climate change one
>>16078843The pandemic attracted all the antivaxxers. Now that no one cares about the vaccine anymore, they've moved on to global warming.
>>16071272>if the system is very sensitive to small variations in CO2 it could still be a problem.Is the global climate very sensitive to small variations in CO2? We've increased CO2 in the atmosphere by over 100ppm since the industrial revolution, and things seem to be basically the same.
>>16077947She's 18 you sick fuck
>>16071284CO2 is fake and climate change cannot logically exist
>>16078911We have an energy imbalance of 460 TW. We have the equivalent of 460,000 nuclear power plants doing nothing than heat our planet.
The moment the panama closes for good and delivers an economic punch straight to America's nutsack every rich conservitard will do a 180 and pretend they've supported climate activism all along. You will smile and nod and obey what they say. You wouldn't want to be seen as 'unbased' by your discord friends, after all.
>>16071284(you)
>>16071230>>16071284>>16079630See pic related and >>16072298Further the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 3,570,000,000,000 tons. The 1,530,000,000,000 tonnes in pic related is 43% of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide and the 950,000,000,000 tonnes estimated in >>16072298 is 27%.Your infographic is garbage and you didn't bother to check the facts. You just ate the shit and smiled.
>>16071230A better question is, why are you posting bait threads? Are you paid to do this, or are you just a loser with nothing else to do? By your stupid definition, the atmosphere itself is composed of nothing but greenhouse gases. Any molecule traps heat, including the nitrogen and oxygen that make up the bulk of our atmosphere. Is your snarkiness and petulance broken? Why didn’t you include these in your troll bait? Water is not a “greenhouse gas,” because it is not a causal object adding to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Water actually takes heat out of the environment. It is a heat sink, taking 240 cal/g out of the atmosphere when it turns to water vapor, and releases that 240 cal/g when it condenses as rain. While in their condensing state in the upper atmosphere, they reflect heat away from the planet. Since water cannot exist in the upper atmosphere, it creates a global heat pump.The problem is that other “greenhouse gases” can exist in the upper atmosphere, and so break that heat pump. This is also why abatement is the only solution. You can’t take greenhouse gases out of the upper atmosphere, and those saying we can just “capture” what is here in the lower atmosphere are shills for their industries. Like the ones paying you.
>>16073402this is often repeated but not exactly correctthe reality is atmospheric water vapor has increased, and it CAN provide something of a feedback loop for heating (higher humidity -> higher water vapor greenhouse effect -> higher temperature -> more evaporation -> higher humidity)however, this particular feedback loop requires that the temperature forcing from the water vapor be enough to raise both the maximum absolute humidity (i.e. how much water vapor the air can hold) AND the total evaporation sufficiently to in turn raise both of those again while exceeding the cooling from evaporation/condensation. we aren't at that temperature (if we were, the system would runaway and there wouldn't be any non-gaseous water left).all that said, increases in other temperature forcing - like from CO2 - increases both of those things without the condensation/evaporation mechanism to cool things.in short, water vapor makes other greenhouse effects "stickier" and more able to increase absolute temperature - it's not a fuel, but a catalyst/amplifier.and that's not even considering how water affects planetary albedo. surface albedo from water decreases as temperature increases (another heating feedback loop; relates to loss of ice/snow reflection and high absorption of liquid water. aerosol-driven albedo is extraordinarily difficult to model, in part because it has BOTH warming and cooling effects (the same thing that makes it reflect insolation also reflects thermal radiation back down, while also simply transmitting a portion of both through itself - you quickly start having to literally model the shape and composition of every single cloud).
>>16071230Extremely misleading.Imagine you have a bathtub with water and you add a gallon of water then take out a gallon of water. Every minute you add a gallon of water and take out a gallon of water.Then you add a tablespoon of water every minute without taking any out. Every minute you add a tablespoon of water.Will the water level go up, down, or stay the same?The problem with the CO2 that we add to the atmosphere is we are taking it from CO2 buried for millions of years underground and adding it to a system that has no way of taking it out. Saying "We're only adding .3%" is worthless when we keep adding that every year, year after year, for 150 years with no natural way to remove it.
>>16079858> >>16072414
>>16079731Yes, but why should I care about this see oh too? At the end of the day it was in the ground, so burning all the fossil fuels in the world can only bring us back to where we were when they were created.Then if we assume this climate change craps gonna happen, we've got the reality that humans' innovation is perfectly capable of solving any problems it might bring.The only real danger is socialists/statists demanding the govt be put in charge/ban everything.
>>16079869don't care commie; >>16079980
>>16071230If you eliminated the greenhouse effect from water vapor the average temperature would be 100 degrees colder. The effects of CO2 is still large enough to be the tie breaker between “ice age” and “alligators in the arctic”
>>16080059> you're too uneducated to calculate planetary equilibrium temperatureI dont need to know how to calculate the equilibrium temperature, because the moon is an actual, existing example of a planetary body that is the same distance from the sun but does not have an atmosphere.Calculating the difference is as simple as subtracting the average temperatures, pic related
>>16079861Wrong
>>16080078>WokeramAlpha
>>16080090Are you sayin Wolfram Alpha made the 4d chess move of planting fake lunar surface temperature data in anticipation of the idea that someone would want to use it to calculate how much colder the earth would be without an atmosphere, in order to win an argument with climate change deniers? Take your meds, schizo
>>16079980>>16079982Because that chart ignores the increased solar output over time you fucking moron.
>>16080103>muh hockeystick https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=is+climate+change+real?+if+so,+what%27s+responsible+for+it?
>>16080112>less than 10% in 1 billion years>less than 0.01% in 1 million years>less than 0.00001% in 1000 years>somehow this is responsible for what we observe over the last 200 years
>>16080110> so you're now admitting that too uneducated to calculate planetary equilibrium temperatureMaybe I am, or maybe there’s no reason to bother breaking out the differential equations when there’s a much simpler argument based on basic arithmetic that proves the point just as well
>>16080161I made a simple, easily understandable argument that proves you wrong. You have resorted to calling me uneducated because you have no counter argument
>>16071230>1/3 of 1%That’s why it’s more hurricanes and wild fires and not the oceans boiling off to turn Earth into Venus-lite.
>>16071230these pie charts represent the abundance of the gasses, not the impact on warming. they all absorb/scatter radiation differently
>>16071230No
>>16080269Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect if CO2 was as potent a greenhouse gas as you're trying to suggest it is. Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect.
>>16071272>definitely possibleAnd this is why you need to import 1 million niggers per year
>>16079824>Like the ones paying youThere are orders of magnitude more funding coming in to push "man made climate change" because it gets the goyim to depopulate
>>16080118>what we observe over the last 200 yearsThe temperate has been stable over the past 200 years, so that's what you would expect, agreed
>>16082758You are a moron
>>16080025CO2 doesn't cause any greenhouse effect, you only believe it does because you saw someone on TV say it, if you understood the relevant physics involved you would understand that CO2 cannot produce any greenhouse effect
>>16083776why are you pretending to understand physics?you don't. you never did. you're a poser and a charlatan. go away and sell dementia patients some snake oil, like the sleazebag that you are.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_window
>>16083786>wikipediapretty much admitting you have no idea what you're talking about
>>16083800welcome to the internetwikipedia exists.you can find the exact same thing in countless textbooks
>>16083583It's gotten 1°C warmer. If you left your mom's basement from time to time, you might notice something.
>>16083808Chud will be like>textbooks agree with scientists >textbooks are written by scientists >it's a conspiracy
>>16083800you faggots sure are fucking retardedwikipedia may be biased on political issues, but when it comes scientific facts it's generally reliable, and can be verified by textbooks if you want
>>16083822>its gotten warmer since the end of the little ice ageand its gotten colder since the end of the mwp. not meaningful, if co2 were as potent a greenhouse gas as you and your ilk are claiming then it would currently be massively hotter than it was at the start of this century or at any other point in time since the end of the last ice age and it isn't because co2 isn't a greenhouse gas.
>>16083836Just a conflict of interest.
>>16083937global warming is a political issue, so is most of the rest of science, since its nearly all government funded. the guy who founded wikipedia says its trash and nobody should believe anything on it or even bother looking at it
>>16084081irrelevantwe were talking about the atmospheric window, which is very much a scientific fact, and is most easily learned about by going to wikipedia"global warming" is more complicated than that and I agree it's a political issuehowever many facts relevant to global warming are well-established and could/should be learned about on wikipedia, and verified elsewhere if you're enough of a schizo
>>16078911How long did it take cyanobacteria to fill the atmosphere with oxygen?What if the effects are slow, anon? A yearly retention of heat in the ocean that bites your descendents in the ass 100,000 years from now. The future of our species, nipped short by careless behavior in the long past because people won't consider any time period longer than 100 years.
>>16085049now you're resorting to insane disaster scenarios that defy physics and which you would only be able to image are true because you've never managed to pass freshman level thermodynamic and have no idea how heat transfer works
>>16072622her body does not look anything like that
>>16083948>its gotten colder since the end of the mwpRepeat after me: The medieval warm period was a local phenomenon
>>16085577Yeah but I'm retarded. Really shows how serious you are, talking to a retard. If you really understood thermodynamics u wouldn'xt be here talking to me, moron.Get a job
>>16071230Yes. Additionally, the amount of local water vapour in an area is strongly determined by the tree cover. That is to say local climate is very strongly affected by tree coverage, surface water etc.. This in turn also determines rainfall to a greater extent than effects from vapour carried by Hadley cells etc. This is quite trivially true even though a lot of "global climate" types refuse to believe it; you can see how we are able to create artificial tropical climates in literal greenhouses (yes, these people often forget the literal thing the greenhouse effect is named after, it's pathetic). A lot of the third world countries that are suffering "climate damage" is suffering due to deforestation, desertification etc. due to over irresponsible agricultural damage and destruction of local wildlife ecosystems. Meanwhile a lot of Western countries have increased their green coverage since the 70s with the result being that there is less much environmental damage or "climate change" effects.Of course, climate activists really fucking hate trees and would rather tear forests down if they could give money for solar panel farms. So you will not see grifters and activists ever discuss the water balance or trees in general. It's all about CO2 for them, that's where the money is.
>>16079731>stopped at 2017Very suspicious graphic considering that's a new graphic on the internet and the same data source has data up to 2022 where Asia would be the biggest by far.How much Han cock can you grifters suck in a single life time?
>>16079824>Water is not a “greenhouse gas,”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas>The most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere, listed in decreasing order of average global mole fraction, are:[5][6] Water vapor (H2O), ...
>>16086170Ok, retard. Post cumulative emissions data including the last 7 years and prepare so suck my dick when it looks almost exactly the same.
>>16086171water is not a gas, its a fluid
>>16087089>wikipedia posters being retardedthey wouldn't be referencing wikipedia to begin with if they weren't ignorant plebs
>>16088655My boss makes a billion.I make a dime.My boss makes ten billion.I still make a dime.The govs tax a million.I now make a penny.My boss still makes 10 billion.This is a crime.
>>16088695>>>/pol/
>>16078911It depends on what you consider a meaningful change. We've had CO2 levels much high and lower than what we currently have had, and life survived just fine... but how well humans survive is another story.
>>16087089Gases are fluids.Fluid is not synonymous with liquid.
>>16089358people who work in greenhouses with enhanced high CO2 atmospheres don't drop dead from it. all cities have far higher CO2 atmospheres than the surrounding rural areas
>>16088655The numbers down here are wrong.
>>16090637no they aren't
>>16089358>CO2 levels much high and lower than what we currently havemore than 5000ppm higherbut only 200ppm lowerwere currently at very near the minimum co2 level required to sustain life
>>16087089>>16087865Holy fuck. Do you two dumbasses not even know that a gas is a type of fluid?These are the kind of dumbfucks that say "trust the science" in political arguments while having zero background in said science even on a highschool level.
>>16090875And what's the CO2 range required for humankind?
>>16090877> These are the kind of dumbfucks that say "trust the science" inIt's better to trust auhority than be a Dunning who thinks a half baked understanding makes him know more about a subject than the people who wrote all the books he's ever learned from. It's actually worse than knowing nothing!
>>16090985The people who wrote those textbooks all agree with me though, I should know, I helped write some of them.
if you're willing to scrutinize everything a government does but trust oil companies at face value your a brainlet.
>>16090992if you're willing to scrutinize everything oil companies do but trust a government at face value your a brainlet.
>>16093206Nuclear would litteraly render the climate discussion moote and improves the average persons quality of life. It's kind of unreal how fringe it is
>>16093267Yes. It doesn't fit the narrative.
>>16093267Probably all of the cancer causing radiation
>>16093890That and the finiteness of U-235
>>16093890LMAO, what an stupid imbecile you are.
>>16090637Fuck off, you don't know shit.
>>16083786I am going to be so happy destroying the skull of imbeciles like you.
>>16093206Is funny because is true.
>>16093968and its true because the global warming meme was started by the rockefeller standard oil empire, see >>16091839 for the details
>>16083776>someone on TVStanford puts all their lectures online. Every single academic makes some quip about climate change over the course of their lectures. Basically you're smarter than every single person at the top of their field.
>>16093964>t. The Heartland Foundation
>>16071230No. Man's contribution to water vapor is not accounted for, and that is a lot more important than "le carbon emissions". As long as we have a surplus of useless idiots consooming without contributing to the common benefit of mankind (bullshit jobs in marketing, sales, finance, lawyers, callcebters) we're going to keep generating water vapor, and thus climate change will never end. Not only it will not be avoided, worse shit will be done in the name of muh carbon emissions.
>>16077946We know how to do it, but glowniggers prefer nukes and produce even more water vapor.
>>16095604The government will let Americans benefit from the advantages of nuclear power only if Israel demands that they need America to send them all of America's coal, oil, natural gas, solar panels and windmills for free.
>>16071230>>16090875Everyone wants to talk about the irresponsibility of mankind for burning the "limited supply" of carbon, but nobody wants to talk about the irresponsibility of the photosynthete for senselessly grabbing it all, dying, and thoughtlessly burying it forever.Careless plants. They're going to end all life one day.
>>16097322yes it is>>16097291good point, plants are too dumb to be put in charge of managing the mix of atmospheric gasses
>>16098452Plants would eat all of the CO2 in the atmosphere until they starved to death if left to their own devices, thats already been demonstrated. They need humans to enrich the atmosphere with plant food for their own good
>>16099780>Plants would eat all of the CO2 in the atmosphere until they starved to death if left to their own devices, thats already been demonstrated.Undeniably true. They've even evolved a cope pathway to deal with it.
>>16100361Having too must of the planets CO2 stored as useless dead solids is retarded, we shold terraform the planet by releasing that CO2 in gas form so that it can be stored as living material instead of as coal
At this point in time I don't care if climate change is real to the degree the scientific community says. You are NOT going to stop people/corporations for polluting, the best case scenario for the environment was Covid where the entire world shut down and apparently even then it was not enough.Look to other methods of fixing the environment because you may as well be asking people not to breath at this point.
>>16102307the humble cow is the perfect creature.
>>16102415They embody sustainable grazing practices, excellent animals
>>16072415Whether Climate Change is real or not, the elites behind the PR don't act like it. EV manufacture has a MUCH higher carbon footprint. And making a car electric just shifts the fossil fuel consumption to the power plant. Carbon Credits are only a tax on Western nations. Africa, Russia, and Asia don't give a shit. They don't even reduce carbon exhaust. It's just a new financial market for jews to speculate in.If you want sensible carbon mitigation policy, tough shit. You're never getting it.
>>16071230Yes>>16071272It's not the CO2 that's the problem, it's that all the nature which is supposed to consume the excess CO2 has been destroyed in the name of glorious capitalism, trees take a long time to grow and no manmade replacements have been made because mutti jewberg needs a new jet instead
>>16103717Theres more mass of plants on the planet currently than there ever has been in recent history. This is mainly thanks to irrigation.
>>16104028and a slightly CO2 enriched atmosphere
>>16104534Nope.
>>16104853CO2 make plants grow better, sorry if that upsets you
>>16071230Yeah it's true, it just doesn't have anything to do with "disproving climate change" or whatever it is you think is happening.These are all molecularly different substances. They behave differently and heat passes through them differently. Water is 95% of the total greenhouse gas, but it's responsible for less than half of the greenhouse gas effect because infrared heat passes through it much more efficiently than CO2 and especially more than methane, which is really efficient at blocking heat.Not only that, but the more CO2 and methane that it's the air, the more water vapor it makes. Because the extra heat makes more water vapor. From NASA:>Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases.>It works like this: As greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane increase, Earth’s temperature rises in response. This increases evaporation from both water and land areas. Because warmer air holds more moisture, its concentration of water vapor increases. Specifically, this happens because water vapor does not condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere as easily at higher temperatures. The water vapor then absorbs heat radiated from Earth and prevents it from escaping out to space. This further warms the atmosphere, resulting in even more water vapor in the atmosphere. This is what scientists call a "positive feedback loop.">https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
>>16105947>NASANASA is not a scientific organization, its a political propaganda outlet posing as a scientific organization for clout because nobody would bother listening to them if they were open about being a political propaganda outlet. As it is only total brainlets are dumb enough to blindly trust anything NASA says
>>16105964Dude just admit when you're wrong.
>>16078810Surely this is a coincidence. SURELY
>>16071230So we should spray (((shreds of tinfoil))) into the atmosphere to make it rain down.För Klimatet of course
>>16105347Try harder
>>16105347tsmt
>>16085698you can repeat that lie all you want, nobody will ever believe you
>>16101875>Release massive amounts of CO2 to make a bio based economy viable.I like.
>>16071230While it's true that water vapor plays a significant role in Earth's climate system, attributing climate change solely to water vapor overlooks a fundamental aspect of climate science. CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to the greenhouse effect, which is essential for maintaining the Earth's habitable temperature range. While water vapor is indeed a potent greenhouse gas, its levels in the atmosphere are largely influenced by temperature changes driven by CO2 emissions and other human activities.Scientists widely agree that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, is the primary driver of recent global warming. This consensus is supported by decades of rigorous research, including observations, climate models, and paleoclimate data.Moreover, water vapor behaves as a feedback mechanism in the climate system. As the atmosphere warms due to increased greenhouse gases like CO2, it can hold more water vapor, amplifying the greenhouse effect and further warming the planet. This positive feedback loop exacerbates climate change caused by CO2 emissions.While it's essential to consider the role of water vapor in the climate system, focusing solely on it overlooks the overwhelming evidence supporting the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in driving contemporary climate change. Addressing the root cause of climate change requires concerted efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to renewable energy sources.
>>16107434>CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphereCO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. Mars has no greenhouse effect. Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect if CO2 were a greenhouse gas because Mars has over 3000% more CO2 in it's atmosphere than Earth does. Temperatures on Mars are the same as they would be if Mars has no atmosphere at all, the massive amount of CO2 in Mars' atmosphere has no measurable effect on the planet's surface temperature and this proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
>>16107524Take your meds, retard.
>>16107803you're only upset because everyone knows your stupid lie about CO2 being a greenhouse gas is false, your angst is self inflicted. if you were a more honest person you wouldn't be suffering
>>16107524If CO2 were a greenhouse gas then people would have long since noticed that it doesn't cool off much at night near volcanoes. In reality no such effect exists, which proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
>>16107524Venus is much warmer than Mercury despite being twice as distant from the sun. Also, what's atmospheric density.
>>16109084>Also, what's atmospheric density.This is why Venus is much warmer than Mercury. Nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with having an insanely dense/thick atmosphere.
>>16107434ChatGPT response
>>16109089Density by itself doesn't increase temperature.
>>16109100>Density by itself doesn't increase temperature.Explain the temperature difference between the dark side of the moon and the dark side of the Earth?Distance from the sun is essentially identical - the major difference is atmospheric density.
>>16109106Large bodies ow water with an atmosphere with a potent greenhouse effect.Prove that density by itself increases temperature.
>>16108524Textbook projection
>>16109163>Prove that density by itself increases temperature.You just admitted it yourself.Why is the Earth warmer than the moon?Because the Earth has a thicker, denser atmosphere than the moon, which has none.
>>16109332You lack basic reading comprehension. If you could prove the assertion that density by itself alone and without the greenhouse effect, you would.
>>16109090I sure as hell ain't gonna write a well thought out response anymore. You idiots aren't worth it.
Yes, water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, but it is the sudden increase of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) which is causing global warming.In the very far future, when the runaway greenhouse effect turns Earth into something akin to Venus, water vapor will be the primary greenhouse involved. The increasingly bright sun will cause more of the ocean to evaporate, increasing the heat due to the increased greenhouse effect from the water vapor, causing more of the ocean to evaporate, giving positive feedback that ends up boiling the oceans.
>primary greenhouse involvedI meant greenhouse gas.
>>16109784How far in the future?
>>16109784carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas
>>16071230gases cant cause a greenhouse effect without a solid container
>>16111104>>16111377>Imagine being this retarded
>>16109730>anymoreyou never did to begin with tho
>>16109784How come there wasn't a runaway greenhouse effect last time the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was above 450ppm? Or any of the other times? How come there wasn't a runaway greenhouse effect when CO2 was 5000ppm and the Earth was thousands of kilometers closer to the sun?
>>16112632This, faggots who post the long winded, self indulgent rants that nobody reads aren't doing anyone here any favors, they're only satisfying their own oversized egos
>>16113335oy vey stop noticing you nazi!!!
>>16071230There is no evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
>>16118532>Imagine being this retarded
>>16118532>>16120045Source?
>>16121242>>16121902>>16122020Retard takes.
>>16071230Its wrong, if CO2 really accounted for 3.6% of Earth's greenhouse effect then Mars would have a greenhouse effect on par with Earth's since Mars has over 3000% more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth does. Since Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect, the greenhouse effect due to CO2 on Earth must be far, far smaller than 3.6% of the overall greenhouse effect.
>>16123124Wrong.
>>16079980>we've got the reality that humans' innovation is perfectly capable of solving any problems it might bring.If only that were true. As a species yes we would survive, but civilization as we know it would collapse.It comes down to food supply. If the climate changes dramatically, then suddenly our entire global farming infrastructure changes with it. What happens if the climate gets tweaked enough to cause consistent drought in places that produce a large portion of our food, or flooding, or frequent damaging storms? Farming on the scale we do it on is very much an industrial process, and like any other major industrial process it relies on established infrastructure to function. You cant just pack up your gear and go farm somewhere else that suddenly is better for farming overnight. There's a colossal amount of infrastructure that has to go with the actual fields to make them useful at our scale.Food isnt the only issue. If hailstorms happen twice as often, you're gonna have to replace your roof twice as often too. Will that kill civilization? No, but its gonna suck having a $20,000 roof replacement done every 15 years instead of every 30. It's not just the major aspects of climate change that are a problem. A lot of little things will change too, and they will add up.
>>16083948Here is a great and also entertaining graphic built on real data collected from real, physical samples by real trained scientists and then analyzed by other real trained scientists. Scroll down to the very bottom and tell me with a straight face that it doesn't look any different than the rest of it.https://xkcd.com/1732/
>>16087089the k-12 education system has failed us. You have convinced me that without dramatic action, our civilization will soon be coming to an end, regardless of climate change being real or not.1st grade. 6, maybe 7 year old kids. That's when you learn about the water cycle. Thats when you lean that water evaporates into the air, and eventually falls back down as rain or snow, and then eventually evaporates again.Water can be a solid, liquid, or a gas.I'm sorry, I was gonna stop after reminding you that literal 1st graders know better, but I realized before clicking post that it's not enough.Have you ever seen it rain? Have you not once noticed that every now and then water droplets literally fall from the sky? What could have been going through your mind when confronted with such a sight, I wonder? Did you consider where that water came from? Did you think that over beyond the horizon there is someone with a spray bottle the size of a mountain spritzing water out of the oceans and onto your home? I just cannot get over how stupid this statement is.>>"Water is not a gas, its a fluid"How thick do you have to be? How many neurons are left inside your skull? How are you even able to control your own muscles well enough to type, let alone form any kind of coherent thought?Jesus christ...
>>16126794Congratulations discovering perpetual energy. When are you going to publish your findings?
>>16079980>bring us back to where we were when they were created.most mammals, especially humans, didn't even exist yet back then. do you want the average temperature of earth to be over 30C?
>>16079980Increasing carbon output does not simply "bring us back". You realize that carboniferous minerals are bountiful and by extracting them (alongside organics) we're changing the balance of sequestered and free carbon. In doing so, we're trapping more energy in the system, causing instability of the entire system. Mass extinction events in the past were caused by a significant output of mineral silicon and carbon; we're simply repeating what has happened in the past (killing virtually everything on the planet).>TL;DRRead up on the Great Dying. You might understand.
>>16080118>ignoring the time difference between the Carboniferous and the presentshiggy diggy, bad-faith arguer.
>>16127384Hotters are retarded.
>>16093936>not using thoriumngmi
>>16086361>>16086170The goal is to guilt-trip the west into crippling themselves. Cumulative figures make no sense when the problem would be real. In that case you would look at current / recent yearly output, and china would be the biggest by far. It's like telling a fat diabetic he can keep drinking pepsi because his problems were caused by all the coca cola he drank.
>>16127621If density alone increased temperature then you could pressurized a container and it would release heat indefinitely. You should be able to understand this if you've ever even taken a physics class.
>>16127438Emissions stick around for more than a year, moron
>>16130707Bro you breath out CO2
>>16073402>condensesto clouds. Ever heard of them and their effects?
>>16133695Yep. Clouds reflect light away, cooling the Earth. You should really learn how things work before trying to sound smart.
>>16133826that chart is fake af, it has long since been proved that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas
>>16077947>using "pedo" for post-pubescent people>muh magic number 18
>>16135730Take your meds.
>>16130707According to NASA it is not
>>16131165>>16136677Source?
>>16138094Saying "NASA" isn't providing a source.
>>16138856So you don't have a source? You were just making it up?
>>16071230wrong man, just fucking wrong. STOP GETTING YOUR INFO FROM SHITTY SOURCES, FFS
>>16072622her head is a bit disproportionate, but I would.
>>16138858you're too dumb to look up your own information or too lazy?
>>16139729Why do you say things that can't even bear as much scrutiny as linking a page. If NASA has made a statement saying that 5500 ppm of carbon dioxide didn't affect human cognition then it should be trivial for you to find that statement. The only reason to refuse to provide a source is if you made it up and can't substantiate those claims.
>>16139935you're too dumb to look up your own information or too lazy?
>>16141568It's your information, which you still haven't provided a source for. The only reason to refuse to provide a source is if you made it up and can't substantiate those claims.
>>16083776soooo CO2 does not have an energy transition right in the middle of the IR spectrum?
>>16141980If CO2 were a greenhouse gas then Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect. Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect and that proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
>>16143458Source?
>>16071230Yes it's true, but little changes in concentration can have large effects when compounded over time.But also climate advocacy is gay since we can cool the earth with aerosols and make clean basically free energy with nuclear. But we wont ever do that because you can't make money with that.>t.atmospheric physicist
>>16143803Mars
>>16071230Ad hominem. Obviously on a planet covered by 70% water there is going to be water in the fucking atmosphere.You are monumentally retarded, christfag. Its not about how much nature contributes to the greenhouse effect. If we never existed (which would be good in your case) the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would still be relatively the same. Otherwise there wouldn't be any fucking weather would there?Climate Change is caused by the fact that we are pulling carbon from the ground that was deposited over millions of years and releasing it within a few decades. Therefore having adverse effects on the climate system. Such as increased temperatures. Carbon dioxide is a monumentally more powerful greenhouse gas then fucking water vapor.Conclusion being that you are a fucking retard. I hope you'll enjoy praying to your false god for mercy while you fight over the last scraps of. resources because your retard ass couldn't comprehend that gas in atmosphere make planet hotter. See you in 2060 fuckhead. Hahaha
>>16144873Do you understand what a source is? Who told you that Mars has no greenhouse effect? What is the source of this information?
>>161451742 more decades?
>>16145377Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect. You can run the numbers yourself if you've ever passed astronomy 101. Astronomy students learn the planetary equilibrium temperature calculation in their first month of study, its fairly simple, just some geometry and some plug and chug with the Stefan–Boltzmann relationship. If you're not even familiar with the absolute basics of this topic then you shouldn't be trying to pose as an expert on planetary atmospheres.
>>16146514>just some geometry and some plug and chug with the Stefan–Boltzmann relationshipSo if you ignore the effect of greenhouse gasses then you calculate no greenhouse effect on Mars. I'm noticing the same thing happens when I ignore the greenhouse effect on Earth.If you're going to pretend to know what you're talking about then you might want to learn anything about the subject first.
>>16145174LMAO
>>16071230Climate change is a scam only morons believe and billionaires monetize.
>>16072298>google searchLMAO, what a stupid idiot.
>>16146736Cup my fart faggot
>>16146736>He doesn't research topics before speaking on themNGMI
>>16079731> See pic relatedFuck off you coprophage zog bot. Your sources have no credibility at all, you imbecile moron.
>>16146737Kill yourself to save the planet, nobody needs demonic parasites like you.
>>16146739> Visit globohomo.org to know why is not a scam.LMAO
>>16146746>>16146750>>16146751Take your meds.
>>16146712you really are completely ignorant of even the most absolutely basic aspects of climate science. greenhouse effect is defined as the measured average temperate minus the calculated equilibrium temperature. this is stuff that you'd have learned in the first week of class as a freshman if you had actually studied the topic you're trying to pose as an expert in
>>16148053Write the equation describing thermal flux on Earth.
>>16148056the planetary equilibrium temperature calculation is basic stuff, you can look it up anywhere
>>16071230We burn 8 billion tonnes of coal every year, what do you think?
>>16149135So you can't do it?
>>16150367you can't
>>16150666I thought you said it was trivial? Why claim that you can do it if you can't do it?
>>16148053Belief in global warming relies on ignorance of science
>>16152217Write the equation describing thermal flux on Earth.
>>16146514I had that in astro 101 too
